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

[Thermal]

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.

Are you equating name calling and taunting to a credible threat of violence? Not a rhetorical question; the argument can be made that some slurs are the equivalent of challenging a physical fight.

 

[Thermal]

" 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.

And I qualified it, though you pretend I didn't so you don't have to face your hypocrisy.

Your act isn't even amusing.

Don't trip over that tail between your legs while you retreat, now. Or you could defend your bald assertions. That's another way to go.

 

[sphenisc]

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.

I'd rather eat five strawberries than one strawberry that doesn't lead me to conclude there's a qualitative difference between the two scenarios.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

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

....

 

[Matthew Best]

Also, it's "elicit", not "illicit".

 

[Dr. Keith]

Are you equating name calling and taunting to a credible threat of violence? Not a rhetorical question; the argument can be made that some slurs are the equivalent of challenging a physical fight.

No, I'm trying to broadening the discussion beyond name calling and then find the line between words that would justify a physical response and ones that don't.

To me it is clear that some words will justify a violent response. Yelling "I've got a bomb!" while in the TSA line will likely get you tackled, for example.

And there are clearly words that don't justify a violent response. Saying "Good morning" to someone walking down the street.

So, to me, where the line falls between is really the question.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Also, it's "elicit", not "illicit".

Thank you. I'm a terruble speller with a crap vocabulary.

 

[Dr. Keith]

....

.....?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 actually did address that, wolli. You're mixing a single event in isolation (one punch) and a sustained practice (verbal abuse or bullying). You're conflating very different situations.

That would be why I provided context of single punch versus single epithet, as well as repeated physical abuse versus repeated verbal abuse.

You're correct - a victim of verbal bullying in childhood is forever changed. I would say that a victim of physical bullying in childhood is also forever changed, with the added risk of permanent injury added to the mix, as well as a heightened risk of being killed by that physical bullying.

Words can harm a mind to a point where someone commits suicide. Words can indirectly cause death. But words cannot directly cause death. Nobody in the history of ever has dropped dead at hearing a mean word. Physical violence, however, can directly cause death.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Well, no, that wasn't the question. The question wasn't single punch versus sustained verbal abuse. The question was single punch versus called a name.

Would you rather be called an incredibly and deeply insulting name or be punched?

If you've got a choice between being called a single really really offensive name and being hit with a single punch?

 

[xjx388]

I'd rather eat five strawberries than one strawberry that doesn't lead me to conclude there's a qualitative difference between the two scenarios.

Yes, that’s why I said “think of it in different terms.”

The underlying premise of the “sticks and stones” aphorism is that physical assaults are worse than verbal assaults. “Lashes vs insults” illustrates that principle nicely, I think.

As much as we all might agree that words can hurt and do lasting damage, I think most of us would also agree that we would rather, say, an angry customer insult us than punch us.

If we all would choose the insult over the punch, then I think that goes a long way towards explaining why our societies generally forbid physical responses to verbal provocation, except in limited instances.

 

[arthwollipot]

If you've got a choice between being called a single really really offensive name and being hit with a single punch?

Today, like I said, very much the former. But that's not the point. The question is "Is 'Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me' correct?"

No, it isn't. Names can hurt. Telling a child to repeat this glib aphorism does not help. I have never been talking about whether a mature adult would prefer to be punched. Mature adults generally don't repeat the glib aphorism. It's something that's told to children.

 

[smartcooky]

Thank you. I'm a terruble speller with a crap vocabulary.

If ya gonna speek Inglish ya gotta speek it proper like wot the Queen duz!

 

[smartcooky]

I actually did address that, wolli. You're mixing a single event in isolation (one punch) and a sustained practice (verbal abuse or bullying). You're conflating very different situations..

But you are creating a test and a standard that will apply to almost no-one.

I'll bet you this was not the first time that Pujols will have been called the n-word by white racists (he is almost certain to have grown up being called it, and you can be sure its not the first time Racist Old Guy has used the word against Blacks people - you don't get to 77 and then start calling black people the n-word for the first time in your life.

The continuous use of the n-word IS a sustained form of bullying and demeanment that has been used as a slur against black people - especially in America - for successive generations over hundreds years... and it continues to be used that way today by racists.

 

[rockinkt]

Police officers are insulted on an almost daily basis. Police officers are hated and scorned by many people only for the fact that they are police officers. Police officers have been screamed at, sworn at, spit at, and have firebombs thrown at them by "protesters" for hours at a time day in and day out for weeks during some of the protests that have occurred in the US over the past few months.

Furthermore, police officers on this board are vilified by many and generalized as being murderous and racist animals looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.

When this horrendous verbal and written abuse of police officers is questioned as to the appropriateness of such stereotyping - people respond with silly excuses such as: "They can take it" or "They're trained to take it", or "They're all bad - they deserve it".

So here's my question given all the responses I have seen in this thread about words hurting people and leaving a lasting effect and causing suicide and depression and therefore physical retribution is justified: Should police officers be allowed to physically punch someone in the teeth for calling them horrendously insulting names?

 

[cullennz]

But you are creating a test and a standard that will apply to almost no-one.

I'll bet you this was not the first time that Pujols will have been called the n-word by white racists (he is almost certain to have grown up being called it, and you can be sure its not the first time Racist Old Guy has used the word against Blacks people - you don't get to 77 and then start calling black people the n-word for the first time in your life.

The continuous use of the n-word IS a sustained form of bullying and demeanment that has been used as a slur against black people - especially in America - for successive generations over hundreds years... and it continues to be used that way today by racists.

a) We only have the word of the hooliganistic yob, that there was a racist term said
b) If he did, we don't know it was the N word as it hasn't been released
c) You are inventing the old bloke did it continuosly, if he actually said something racist and it was the n word.
d) It doesn't make punching the bloke in the face any more warranted if your made up stuff is right

 

[bluesjnr]

Police officers are insulted on an almost daily basis. Police officers are hated and scorned by many people only for the fact that they are police officers. Police officers have been screamed at, sworn at, spit at, and have firebombs thrown at them by "protesters" for hours at a time day in and day out for weeks during some of the protests that have occurred in the US over the past few months.

Furthermore, police officers on this board are vilified by many and generalized as being murderous and racist animals looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.

When this horrendous verbal and written abuse of police officers is questioned as to the appropriateness of such stereotyping - people respond with silly excuses such as: "They can take it" or "They're trained to take it", or "They're all bad - they deserve it".

So here's my question given all the responses I have seen in this thread about words hurting people and leaving a lasting effect and causing suicide and depression and therefore physical retribution is justified: Should police officers be allowed to physically punch someone in the teeth for calling them horrendously insulting names?

You know full well that every police officer on the planet will take the first opportunity presented to dole out retributional violence. They don't feel the need to wait for permission.

 

[cullennz]

You know full well that every police officer on the planet will take the first opportunity presented to dole out retributional violence. They don't feel the need to wait for permission.

True, but I wouldn't say every cop on the planet.

Sometimes reading stories about the actions of dodgy cops in other countries I think I must live in the luckiest country with that ****.

I have seen cops get some right grief in my younger stupider days and just brush it off, including bricks being thrown at them, people screaming in their fsaces and manhandling them.

Might be a them not generally carrying guns thing that tones everyone down thing, but then neither do the UK and that lot can be a bit dodge.

(Not saying we haven't had the odd dodgy incidents.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And I qualified it, though you pretend I didn't so you don't have to face your hypocrisy.

You qualified it? Where and when? Not in the post I quoted you didn't.

Am I supposed to scour through everything you write that is contradictory and try to piece together what it is you meant?

Or do you really just want to have an out by saying contradictory things and then claiming the one that suits you is what you really meant?

Don't trip over that tail between your legs while you retreat, now. Or you could defend your bald assertions. That's another way to go.

I just showed you the evidence and you blustered about it. Your pearl clutching act is not amusing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Police officers are insulted on an almost daily basis. Police officers are hated and scorned by many people only for the fact that they are police officers. Police officers have been screamed at, sworn at, spit at, and have firebombs thrown at them by "protesters" for hours at a time day in and day out for weeks during some of the protests that have occurred in the US over the past few months.

Furthermore, police officers on this board are vilified by many and generalized as being murderous and racist animals looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.

When this horrendous verbal and written abuse of police officers is questioned as to the appropriateness of such stereotyping - people respond with silly excuses such as: "They can take it" or "They're trained to take it", or "They're all bad - they deserve it".

So here's my question given all the responses I have seen in this thread about words hurting people and leaving a lasting effect and causing suicide and depression and therefore physical retribution is justified: Should police officers be allowed to physically punch someone in the teeth for calling them horrendously insulting names?

Police offers are there to uphold the law. If they can't uphold the law they shouldn't be police officers. I don't set the same standards for Joe Public as I do the Police force.