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

[Meadmaker]

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.

I can imagine all sorts of hypothetical situations. I was discussing a real, and specific, situation.

 

[Thermal]

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.

First off, I answered your question directly and the first time. Continuing to harp on it is petty, especially since "bullying expertise" is not even a thing. Are you perhaps aware of Universities giving out degrees in Bully Studies?

This is not an academic duel. It's a casual discussion. My surrogate source (with postgrad degrees in psychology and education), my experience with running anti-bullying seminars with martial arts q schools, and the link thoughtfully provided by bully smartcooky agree that a power imbalance is the classic hallmark of bullying. If you disagree, could you drop your CV and present your evidence? If not, were just two posters discussing a thread topic.

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?

Suicide/depression are one thing. Bullying can surely worsen it. Kind of like HIV doesn't kill you, but opens the door wide for something much more benign to do so.

2. The difference is you have already told us that you are immune to the power of words.

That is a lie. You are lying. You are a liar.

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.

That is a lie. You are lying. You are a liar.

If it's too complicated, I'll spell it out: I have not said the words of others have power over me one way or the other. For all you know, the posters here may be the most important people in my life and I hang on their every word. At no point did I say I was immune to anything. Go ahead, double check. You made that up out of whole cloth to justify your bullying behavior. You should be deeply ashamed. But bullys aren't, are they? Should you choose to respond, keep that awkward paradigm which you have set up in mind.

You don't actually know if your words are going to upset someone else though. Other people are not necessarily like you.

True. Yet because of prior interactions/body of other posters work, I guessed 100% correctly.

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

You're asking me why some random other theoretically says something? I dunno. I can only answer what you asked me about my words to bully Shalamar.

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.

"Drops of water are deadly to humans. Imagine a hypothetical situation where everybody put a drop in your lungs. That's not going to affect you? Never?"

 

[bruto]

.....


"Drops of water are deadly to humans. Imagine a hypothetical situation where everybody put a drop in your lungs. That's not going to affect you? Never?"

Just on that last point, I think this is the pivotal issue in a way. Of course a drop of water is harmless in itself, but if there were this hypothetical situation in which everybody put a drop in your lungs, then the circumstances would be vastly different. You would be the victim of a concentrated effort to harm you, and the people doing it would be the agents of that effort.

The same thing can have different meanings.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Do most folks agree violence in response to that actionable threats of violence could be considered permissible in most societies? If a man leans in close and whispers in my ear that he has a gun pointed at my wife and he is going to kill her, then I am certainly within my rights to take a shot at him? Even if it turns out he didn't have a gun, or the lady sitting across from me was not my wife.

If so, does that not disprove this notion that words should never illicit a physical response?

Words alone are an action and as such an act that may illicit a violent physical response. Surely that is not in any serious debate. At this point we are just trying to draw a line as to which words deserve a violent reaction and which don't. Legislators try to draw such lines, but then they are interpreted in courts by juries, so the lines are not as clear as they would like. Drafting legislation is like drawing a map with a large marker. It doesn't really matter how careful you are, it isn't going to be as precise as you would like once the jury is done.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do most folks agree violence in response to that actionable threats of violence could be considered permissible in most societies? If a man leans in close and whispers in my ear that he has a gun pointed at my wife and he is going to kill her, then I am certainly within my rights to take a shot at him? Even if it turns out he didn't have a gun, or the lady sitting across from me was not my wife.

If so, does that not disprove this notion that words should never illicit a physical response?

Words alone are an action and as such an act that may illicit a violent physical response. Surely that is not in any serious debate.

No, it isn't. Which is why your question isn't part of a serious debate, either.

 

[Meadmaker]

Speaking of serious debate, I was wondering what the OP was really getting at, but it seems to be a post and run.

 

[ahhell]

As they say, poison is in the dose. It takes a lot more words to cause harm than it takes punches to the face.

People do have some agency over how words can impact them.

That is the point of the saying, to remind kids that words are not nearly as bad as physical violence and try to teach them to let it go. Which is a good and useful lesson.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Or more colloquially (and expansively): "The pen is mightier than the sword."

That's not what that phrase means.

The pen is mightier than the sword because words can change minds by persuasion. The application of physical force can intimidate and instill fear, can kill, and eliminate opposition, but it cannot change minds and change how people behave and act. The written word, in particular, can have considerably more power than physical force, because it lasts through time in the way that a tyrant's might cannot.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's not what that phrase means.

The pen is mightier than the sword because words can change minds by persuasion. The application of physical force can intimidate and instill fear, can kill, and eliminate opposition, but it cannot change minds and change how people behave and act. The written word, in particular, can have considerably more power than physical force, because it lasts through time in the way that a tyrant's might cannot.

Yes, words can change minds by persuasion. For example, repeated words can convince a child that they are a freak and not worth anything, that no-one wants to be their friend, that they are a failure.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, words can change minds by persuasion. For example, repeated words can convince a child that they are a freak and not worth anything, that no-one wants to be their friend, that they are a failure.

Yes, of course they can. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Is still think there's some value in the "sticks and stones" perspective, and given that we're both pretty staunchly non-aggressive, I think our views are probably quite close on this topic.

Words can hurt. Verbal and mental abuse is harmful. So is physical abuse.

I, however, maintain that on the whole, words are less damaging than physicality.

Would you rather be called an incredibly and deeply insulting name or be punched? I think more damage is likely to occur by someone hitting you in the face than by someone yelling in your face.

Even when we talk about bullying, a bully that demeans and name-calls and emotionally and verbally harasses someone certainly does damage, and it can be long-term damage. But a bully that physically attacks and injures someone over and over again likely does permanent lasting physical damage.

A child who is verbally and emotionally abused will likely have life long scars. A child who is physically abused will likely have permanent injury and potentially be killed.

 

[arthwollipot]

Would you rather be called an incredibly and deeply insulting name or be punched? I think more damage is likely to occur by someone hitting you in the face than by someone yelling in your face.

A punch occurs, then is over. In the most part (there are occasional exceptions), I will recover from a punch. Verbal abuse is sustained, over a long period of time, and its effects never go away. You can learn to live with it, but the victim of verbal bullying in childhood is forever changed.

 

[xjx388]

A punch occurs, then is over. In the most part (there are occasional exceptions), I will recover from a punch. Verbal abuse is sustained, over a long period of time, and its effects never go away. You can learn to live with it, but the victim of verbal bullying in childhood is forever changed.

I would quibble with this a bit. A punch is almost never a one-off thing that just happens and is over. That's a direct invitiation to a brawl which can escalate to much more danger than a punch. If that one punch is devastating enough that it knocks someone out, that's a concussion and the after-effects of that. Broken noses or orbits can be quite serious. Now consider situations where a considerably stronger puncher hits a much weaker punchee -that can be fatal, as we've seen.

Now, on the other hand, consider words. Words can hurt, yes, but we all shrug off words on an everyday-all-the-time basis. The angry customer. The weird guy on the street. The boss. The family. The forum poster who gets personal. Of course, there are exceptions to this: People subject to constant abuse, for example (hey, I was bullied as a kid too and it took me a long time to get over it). But for the most part, words don't even phase us.

Do our societies need to take verbal abuse more seriously? Yes, absolutely -especially when racially charged or part of a pattern. But, IMHO and in the vast majority of our daily experiences, there's just no comparison between mere words and physical threats.

 

[arthwollipot]

I would quibble with this a bit. A punch is almost never a one-off thing that just happens and is over.

The question was asked whether I would prefer to be verbally abused or punched. The implication was one punch.

That's a direct invitiation to a brawl which can escalate to much more danger than a punch. If that one punch is devastating enough that it knocks someone out, that's a concussion and the after-effects of that. Broken noses or orbits can be quite serious. Now consider situations where a considerably stronger puncher hits a much weaker punchee -that can be fatal, as we've seen.

Yes of course. But that was not the scenario that was being proposed.

 

[xjx388]

The question was asked whether I would prefer to be verbally abused or punched. The implication was one punch.

Yes of course. But that was not the scenario that was being proposed.

I can only speak for me but I will say this: I have been verbally insulted and abused a multitude of times in my life and I’m still here; still standing strong, even if those words hurt me with lasting results. OTOH, I haven’t been physically assaulted since I left the schoolyard.

You ask me now what I would choose in almost any situation I am likely to encounter in real life? I will take the verbal abuse, hands down. I absolutely know that I can recover from the words; I have no such assurance of recovering so easily from a punch. I’m not a battle hardened fighter; I’d probably have a heart attack from the shock of a physical blow, lol!

I think physical violence isn’t just physical; there’s mental effects as well. That invasion of your … I don’t know? Personal space and bodily integrity? Whatever you call it, it’s a mental blow at least as damaging as the physical blow. That’s what makes something like rape so insidious -it’s physical and mental. It calls into question so much more than even the worst verbal abuse could.

 

[arthwollipot]

I can only speak for me but I will say this: I have been verbally insulted and abused a multitude of times in my life and I’m still here; still standing strong, even if those words hurt me with lasting results. OTOH, I haven’t been physically assaulted since I left the schoolyard.

I've already written a long and detailed examination of all the ways being bullied as a child affected me. I'm still around too.

You ask me now what I would choose in almost any situation I am likely to encounter in real life? I will take the verbal abuse, hands down. I absolutely know that I can recover from the words; I have no such assurance of recovering so easily from a punch. I’m not a battle hardened fighter; I’d probably have a heart attack from the shock of a physical blow, lol!

Me too. I'm a lot more resilient now than I was as a child. Verbal abuse would not affect me in the same way.

I think physical violence isn’t just physical; there’s mental effects as well. That invasion of your … I don’t know? Personal space and bodily integrity? Whatever you call it, it’s a mental blow at least as damaging as the physical blow. That’s what makes something like rape so insidious -it’s physical and mental. It calls into question so much more than even the worst verbal abuse could.

It can, but a brawl that you get into on Friday night at a pub is not the same kind of violation that a rape is, so I'm not sure it's quite the same kind of thing. Also, again, not the scenario being offered.

 

[xjx388]

I've already written a long and detailed examination of all the ways being bullied as a child affected me. I'm still around too.

Me too. I'm a lot more resilient now than I was as a child. Verbal abuse would not affect me in the same way.

It can, but a brawl that you get into on Friday night at a pub is not the same kind of violation that a rape is, so I'm not sure it's quite the same kind of thing. Also, again, not the scenario being offered.

I agree: rape is a different thing entirely from the scenario proffered. However, it’s an excellent, if extreme, illustration of the difference in impact between a verbal assault and a physical one.

I just think there’s a qualitative difference between physical and verbal assaults. Think of it in different terms: If you were arrested in Singapore for making graffiti, would you rather receive 5 lashes with a cane or be verbally insulted by 10 people? YMMV, but I will take the insults every time.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

We really don't. We are biological machines. If you put your hand in a fire you don't have a choice as to whether you will get burned or not. that's a response that you have no control over. Same way with whether you feel bad if someone insults you.

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.

They can certainly try to but only within the limits of what their biology will allow them to do. They couldn't 'decide' not to be bothered by the words. They probably could decide to pretend not to be bothered by the words but that wouldn't really be the same.

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.

And it's pretty clear to me that they couldn't. Which is why it's such bad advice to give to someone to attempt to choose not to be affected. On so many levels.

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

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.

I kinda thought that would be the response but then all that seems to mean to me is words can render people 'not of sane mind' which would definitely constitute being harmful.

Unless you are arguing that the verbal abuse is irrelevant to the situation and they would have been suicidal anyway?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If it's too complicated, I'll spell it out: I have not said the words of others have power over me one way or the other. For all you know, the posters here may be the most important people in my life and I hang on their every word. At no point did I say I was immune to anything. Go ahead, double check. You made that up out of whole cloth to justify your bullying behavior. You should be deeply ashamed. But bullys aren't, are they? Should you choose to respond, keep that awkward paradigm which you have set up in mind.

" the power is up to you, not the sounds in the air."

There you go. You said it yourself. You choose whether to be upset or not. So if you choose to be upset by my words its your choice and you want to be upset. You could choose not to if you wanted to and you would be completely immune to my sounds in the air.

Your act isn't even amusing.

 

[Lithrael]

As far as punches vs. bullying, most of the bullying that affected me happened in grade school... I’m pretty sure I would have preferred even constant grade school scrapping to what I actually got. Little kids just don’t punch that well. Can’t be sure, though, I’d have to see what you actually get if you have a little kid growing up getting pushed around by their peers but never being verbally bullied.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, it isn't. Which is why your question isn't part of a serious debate, either.

Really? An actionable threat of violence is not sufficient to warrant a physical response in your world?

A man holding a gun to my back saying he intends to kill me is going to find out how little I have fought in my life before getting that easy shot off. And in the implausible case that I harm him, I will not feel guilty. Even if it wasn't a gun.

But then I have been mugged by someone with a fake gun, so my thoughts on this may be biased.