Is “ Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” correct?

[Thermal]

My post referred to your whole argument. You might want to address it. Or you might not. You might want to just confidently demonstrate your lack of understanding. Up to you.

Okey doke.

1. Fair enough, though I think people generally have some degree of agency in what they take to heart. Not complete, of course, but more than catching a lot of physical illnesses.

2. Seems like it follows then that some of your snide comments on this thread and others were done with indifference to the pain they may cause? That's cold, bro. See, I assume none of my words could actually hurt posters here, lacking any power. If you disagree, then you and others here are solidly willful abusers. Actually makes an interesting sidebar to the power play angle.

3. For the same reason I have explained rather in length and detail. My words have no power over Shalamar and mean dead nothing to them (I don't know Shalamar's pronoun), as they willingly agreed. I was right, and for the reasons I advocate. Shalamar proved my point without realizing it.

 

[Shalamar]

Okey doke.

1. Fair enough, though I think people generally have some degree of agency in what they take to heart. Not complete, of course, but more than catching a lot of physical illnesses.

2. Seems like it follows then that some of your snide comments on this thread and others were done with indifference to the pain they may cause? That's cold, bro. See, I assume none of my words could actually hurt posters here, lacking any power. If you disagree, then you and others here are solidly willful abusers. Actually makes an interesting sidebar to the power play angle.

3. For the same reason I have explained rather in length and detail. My words have no power over Shalamar and mean dead nothing to them (I don't know Shalamar's pronoun), as they willingly agreed. I was right, and for the reasons I advocate. Shalamar proved my point without realizing it.

No. You are STILL wrong. Just because YOUR personal attack does not hurt me, does not mean therefor that anyones words cannot hurt anyone else.

 

[Thermal]

No. You are STILL wrong. Just because YOUR personal attack does not hurt me, does not mean therefor that anyones words cannot hurt anyone else.

Agreed. And?

 

[Shalamar]

Agreed. And?

Then I have no idea what the hell you're arguing about. You seem to be saying that words cannot hurt while admitting words can hurt.

"Sticks and Stones may break my Bones, but words leave scars that may never heal."

 

[Meadmaker]

Then I have no idea what the hell you're arguing about. You seem to be saying that words cannot hurt while admitting words can hurt.

"Sticks and Stones may break my Bones, but words leave scars that may never heal."

He is saying that words can hurt, but only under specific conditions, and those conditions do not apply here.

And, my characterization might be slightly wrong, because different people have used different phrases such as "words can hurt", versue "bullying" and "power" and so, as is common in forum discussions, people aren't always very precise, and I might not be sufficiently precise in this case to get it exactly correct.

However, the basic issue is that I can do you no harm because I have no power over you. I can say, "Shalamar is a weenie", and it doesn't mean anything, because our relationship is such that those words hold no power over you. If, on the other hand I was a coworker who said that to your boss, that would be a different story altogether.

In general, he is saying that it is not the words, themselves, that hurt. They may be correlated with some sort of social interaction that hurts, but the words themselves cause no harm.


Compare that with a punch. A punch causes harm, specifically, and quite independent of the intention behind the punch or whatever social interaction surrounds the punch.

 

[Shalamar]

He is saying that words can hurt, but only under specific conditions, and those conditions do not apply here.

And, my characterization might be slightly wrong, because different people have used different phrases such as "words can hurt", versue "bullying" and "power" and so, as is common in forum discussions, people aren't always very precise, and I might not be sufficiently precise in this case to get it exactly correct.

However, the basic issue is that I can do you no harm because I have no power over you. I can say, "Shalamar is a weenie", and it doesn't mean anything, because our relationship is such that those words hold no power over you. If, on the other hand I was a coworker who said that to your boss, that would be a different story altogether.

In general, he is saying that it is not the words, themselves, that hurt. They may be correlated with some sort of social interaction that hurts, but the words themselves cause no harm.


Compare that with a punch. A punch causes harm, specifically, and quite independent of the intention behind the punch or whatever social interaction surrounds the punch.

However, words can hurt. They leave different 'scars' that a physical attack, and can be difficult to retaliate against.

My phrasing stands, and is more accurate than the common 'Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me'.

 

[Thermal]

However, words can hurt. They leave different 'scars' that a physical attack, and can be difficult to retaliate against.

My phrasing stands, and is more accurate than the common 'Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me'.

Suggested compromise: move the second "may" in your phrasing to before the "leave scars". Then the qualifier is built in, rather than the current order.

Eta: also, I'd still say that the words can't hurt you. Only your valuation of the speaker can. From a stranger or someone you dislike, they'd mean nothing. It's all about the power you assign to the speaker.

 

[xjx388]

Then I have no idea what the hell you're arguing about. You seem to be saying that words cannot hurt while admitting words can hurt.

"Sticks and Stones may break my Bones, but words leave scars that may never heal."

If your phrasing reflects the reality of insulting words, then any kind of verbal insult is just as, if not more, harmful than a physical attack and should be outlawed.

IF.

I have to say though, it's difficult for me to envision a society in which it's kosher for people to punch (potentially killing) anyone who insults them with, "You are a stupid idiot!"

 

[smartcooky]

The post you are quoting was in response to smartcooky's overt bullying.....

 

[Dr. Keith]

NVM

 

[Shalamar]

If your phrasing reflects the reality of insulting words, then any kind of verbal insult is just as, if not more, harmful than a physical attack and should be outlawed.

Where did I say anything about anything being outlawed?

I'm just saying that the right words, said by the right people can be harmful.
Its to say that 'And words will never hurt me' is wrong. After all, why physically hurt someone, when you can convince that person to hurt themselves?

There are professions that help people try to recover from such things, though many find it hard to seek help. 'it's just words', 'I didn't mean it','It was just a joke.'

IF.

I have to say though, it's difficult for me to envision a society in which it's kosher for people to punch (potentially killing) anyone who insults them with, "You are a stupid idiot!"

I do not think I have advocated such. Can you show me where I have?

Though the concept of 'fighting words' does exist.

 

[arthwollipot]

*sigh* I guess I should weigh in on what is undoubtedly going to be a toxic thread.

I was verbally bullied in school. Extensively. And I can say that yes, words can definitely cause lasting harm.

In early childhood I was just like the other kids. I ran around and played and screamed with everyone else. But something happened around 4th or 5th grade - I don't know what - and I became a target for verbal abuse. I quickly learned to keep my head down. If I drew attention to myself, a derisive comment would surely be tossed my way. Or, occasionally, a small rock. In general, though, there was nothing physical. It was all words.

Words can hurt.

Though I did have a very few friends, they were verbally bullied as well. Sometimes I felt like we were the metaphorical punching bag for the whole school. My parents said all the expected things. Sticks and stones. They're just jealous. Ignore them. I love my parents deeply but these things did not help. For the rest of my school years I kept largely to myself. I spent a lot of time in the school library.

Some years ago I did a Myers-Briggs instrument - one of the big 300-question ones. Yeah, it's no more useful than a horoscope, but for some reason I was required to do it for a job. It did tell me one thing. I was off-the-charts on the Introvert scale. Almost all of my other factors hovered around the 2-3 mark (Thinking was 5 or 6). Introversion was 14. I used that to help explain to my colleagues why I didn't join in the birthday morning tea, why I didn't go to the office Christmas party. I do not find social situations stressful. I find them crippling. I can certainly cope with parties or conventions, as long as I'm in the company of people I trust and have things in common with. It's mentally draining, but I can do it. Concerts, bars or nightclubs? Never. I just can't trust venues like that.

I suffer from severe Impostor Syndrome. I cherish those moments when I can actually feel good at something. They're few enough. I get by mostly by pretending. Pretending that I'm good at my job. Pretending that I enjoy the company of strangers. Pretending that bullying did not change my life and severely restrict my activities throughout my early life. I'm in my 50s now. I've learned to pretend, real good. I can occasionally even fool myself.

Does becoming severely introverted with crippling social anxiety count as harm? Well, I guess everyone has their own definition of that word. I'm sure I'll see quite a few brought up in this thread. I think I was harmed by being bullied at a vulnerable age. There are a lot of avenues that might have been open to me that I closed off out of fear. A lot of opportunities that I allowed to pass me by, because even the thought of them brought me anxiety. I wonder where I would be today, had I not been verbally bullied at school. I might have attended university, got a degree. I might have been able to apply for a decent job - one that wasn't an entry-level IT job that I did for fifteen years. I don't know. The kid who did those things was not me. I was the kid in the library, with his head down.

Words can cause real, lasting harm. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Since your question was "what qualifications do you have and where did you get them", I ...guess?...you can take that as a no, then?

My wife says my qualifications, being none, are about as good as anyone's. No postgraduate work requirred for talking about bullying, you see.

Required? No. But if you want your views to be taken seriously then it helps to have some kind of expertise. Because you seem to be taking a very off the wall view which is at odds with reality and scientific consensus. And taking it rather confidently. In my experience the University of Lower Colon does some highly unreliable research.

Okey doke.

1. Fair enough, though I think people generally have some degree of agency in what they take to heart. Not complete, of course, but more than catching a lot of physical illnesses.

2. Seems like it follows then that some of your snide comments on this thread and others were done with indifference to the pain they may cause? That's cold, bro. See, I assume none of my words could actually hurt posters here, lacking any power. If you disagree, then you and others here are solidly willful abusers. Actually makes an interesting sidebar to the power play angle.

3. For the same reason I have explained rather in length and detail. My words have no power over Shalamar and mean dead nothing to them (I don't know Shalamar's pronoun), as they willingly agreed. I was right, and for the reasons I advocate. Shalamar proved my point without realizing it.

1. 'Some degree' is at least a concession on your part. But it does kind of lead to the question of why you think people who for example commit suicide over bullying do so. Couldn't they just choose not to be affected?

2. The difference is you have already told us that you are immune to the power of words. And are defending their use as harmless. So you've given a green light to snide comments. You couldn't possibly find anything to complain about since you are immune to their effects. You don't actually know if your words are going to upset someone else though. Other people are not necessarily like you.

3. That didn't answer the question. My question was if these words have no effect why are people using them?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

However, the basic issue is that I can do you no harm because I have no power over you.

I just think that's fundamentally wrong.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where everybody who drove past or walked past you in the street hurled an abusive insult at you. That's not going to affect you? Never?

There's no 'power' there.

 

[bluesjnr]

Required? No. But if you want your views to be taken seriously then it helps to have some kind of expertise. Because you seem to be taking a very off the wall view which is at odds with reality and scientific consensus. And taking it rather confidently. In my experience the University of Lower Colon does some highly unreliable research.




1. 'Some degree' is at least a concession on your part. But it does kind of lead to the question of why you think people who for example commit suicide over bullying do so. Couldn't they just choose not to be affected? 2. The difference is you have already told us that you are immune to the power of words. And are defending their use as harmless. So you've given a green light to snide comments. You couldn't possibly find anything to complain about since you are immune to their effects. You don't actually know if your words are going to upset someone else though. Other people are not necessarily like you.

3. That didn't answer the question. My question was if these words have no effect why are people using them?

That's a very good question. How much choice does one have in this situation? For example, I could choose to ignore it, I could choose to return the insults with vigour, I could choose to return the insults with violence, I could choose to report the aggressor, I could choose to kill myself because I don't have it within me to do any of the foregoing, I could choose to kill myself as an act of revenge against my aggressor.

These are just some of the choices I could make if faced with a verbal bully.

I think, whilst of sane mind, every action we make (and I mean every) is a matter of choice.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's a very good question. How much choice does one have in this situation? For example, I could choose to ignore it, I could choose to return the insults with vigour, I could choose to return the insults with violence, I could choose to report the aggressor, I could choose to kill myself because I don't have it within me to do any of the foregoing, I could choose to kill myself as an act of revenge against my aggressor.

These are just some of the choices I could make if faced with a verbal bully.

I think, whilst of sane mind, every action we make (and I mean every) is a matter of choice.

I think you are dead wrong. You seem to be assuming some biblical level of free will. I don't think we choose our emotional responses to situations anymore than we choose our physical responses (in effect they are the same thing anyway)

As I said before telling someone 'don't let it bother you' is functionally equivalent to telling a sick person to 'get better' or a depressed person to 'cheer up'

You seem to be suggesting that a suicidal person is weighing up the options and choosing suicide as the best way forward. I don't think that's true at all. Are suicidal people of sane mind? You can argue that I suppose but then all you are doing is moving the goalposts slightly.

 

[cullennz]

I think you are dead wrong. You seem to be assuming some biblical level of free will. I don't think we choose our emotional responses to situations anymore than we choose our physical responses (in effect they are the same thing anyway)

It doesn't take a biblical level of free will to ignore verbal things.

But I guess it comes down to what you are used to and your age of maturity.

 

[bluesjnr]

I think you are dead wrong. You seem to be assuming some biblical level of free will.

We all have complete agency over what we do on a day to day basis. One can choose at the very basic level whether they wish to participate as a member of the human race or check out.

I don't think we choose our emotional responses to situations anymore than we choose our physical responses (in effect they are the same thing anyway)

I can't disagree but would say that one can evaluate ones initial responses and choose which course of action they may take going forward in order to avoid finding oneself in a similar situation in the future.

As I said before telling someone 'don't let it bother you' is functionally equivalent to telling a sick person to 'get better' or a depressed person to 'cheer up'

I haven't been arguing for or against this position. I'm not commenting on what might be said to an individual, I'm delving into your "Couldn't they just choose not to be affected" question.

You seem to be suggesting that a suicidal person is weighing up the options and choosing suicide as the best way forward. I don't think that's true at all.

Before answering the next question please remember my "whilst of sane mind" caveat.

Are suicidal people of sane mind? You can argue that I suppose but then all you are doing is moving the goalposts slightly.

In my opinion and based on my worldview, I'd argue that anybody who takes their own life was not of sane mind at the time.

 

[bruto]

I just think that's fundamentally wrong.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where everybody who drove past or walked past you in the street hurled an abusive insult at you. That's not going to affect you? Never?

There's no 'power' there.

Perhaps it depends on how you view power. I think if this situation existed it would be a symptom of a social imbalance that amounts to an issue of power. It may be why the difference between hate speech and ordinary impulsive insult is so important even though the language seems much the same.

 

[Meadmaker]

Words can cause real, lasting harm. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

I suspect an awful lot of people who participate in internet message discussions have similar, but perhaps not as extreme, stories. I don't find the kind of socializing, Christmas parties, etc, crippling, but I find them so boring that it's almost the same, and I find myself feeling totally awkward, standing alone, wondering if I'm supposed to be doing something. If I manage to strike up a conversation that I am interested in, I'm fine, but what has happened in those cases is that I have managed to take myself away from that party atmosphere and carve out a small space within it, where I am now comfortable.

I think what a lot of people are wondering is where the OP is going with this. Everyone knows words can hurt. It's not even a question. We all know it. No one would deny it. If it appears that anyone has denied it, people are missing the context. There's an equivocation going on. Words cannot directly cause physical injury. A punch can. They are very different.

So, going back to the OP, I would say that on a legal level, violence cannot be accepted as a response to words. I would go farther and say that on a moral level, violence isn't justified as a response to words, but I'm not as certain in saying that. I suspect someone could come up with a situation where I would say that it was, in fact, justified, even in cases where there was no implied threat. However, no one seems to be going in that direction, of actually providing an example of a case where they think it is justified.