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

[Mumbles]

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?

Well, the problem is that they *are* allowed to not only punch people who scream insults to them, but also to beat, kick, and tase them, without repercussion - even when the person is trying to comply and is perfectly pleasant rather than screaming insults. Leads to bad cops physically and verbally abusing other people in the hopes of getting *them* to act out, thus justifying a severe beating and an arrest to meet a quota.

Remember Eric Garner, who had just broken up a fight when police showed up to hassle him for no reason, yelling that he just wanted to be left alone. Cops moved to handcuff him for no reason, he pulled back, and then they choked him to the ground and killed him.

Now, they *shouldn't* be allowed to do it, but there's a reason why videos like this, specifically, get passed around and laughed at.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

RE: point b above

According to at least one news site that I read, it was the N-word, and that news site cited the police report. I'm not inclined to google to find sources at the moment, so take that for what it's worth.

RE: Points a, c, and de

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[arthwollipot]

Once again, the glib aphorism "sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me" is said to, and by, children. Not police officers, not mature adults, children. Any discussion about adults being punched is missing the point. The point is that names can and do harm children, and the aphorism is therefore false.

 

[angrysoba]

Once again, the glib aphorism "sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me" is said to, and by, children. Not police officers, not mature adults, children. Any discussion about adults being punched is missing the point. The point is that names can and do harm children, and the aphorism is therefore false.

Maybe it is said to children (usually), but the OP specifically ties this to an event in which the people involved are not children.

I think the question that is being asked is whether or not it is ever morally justifiable to repay hurtful words with violence.

The possibilities seem to be:

1.) It is never permissable to retaliate with violence to hurtful words.
2.) It depends.

(I presume we could argue that it is always permissable, or it is a duty to repay hurtful words with violence, but I doubt anyone would go with that.)

 

[arthwollipot]

Maybe it is said to children (usually), but the OP specifically ties this to an event in which the people involved are not children.

And I believe it to have been done so inappropriately. It doesn't apply to adults.

To the broader question, only a Sith deals in absolutes. Of course it depends. Everything depends. Wars have been fought over nothing more than words. I'm a pacifist, so I believe that violence is almost always inappropriate, but not everybody is like me. People will respond to words differently.

 

[angrysoba]

And I believe it to have been done so inappropriately. It doesn't apply to adults.

To the broader question, only a Sith deals in absolutes. Of course it depends. Everything depends. Wars have been fought over nothing more than words. I'm a pacifist, so I believe that violence is almost always inappropriate, but not everybody is like me. People will respond to words differently.

Different people do things differently is fine if we are talking about flavours of ice cream. Some people's favourite ice cream is the correct one: mint chocolate, and some people's favourite is the wrong one: strawberry. But we are duty bound to tolerate people's difference in idea about flavours of ice cream.

But this is not true about violence, is it? And surely it is not true about racial insults, is it?

It would surely be fatuous of me to say, "well I am not in favour of racial insults, myself, so I don't do it, but my friends Tex, Adolf and Spike have different ideas. For them, it is just part of their personality that they throw racial insults around. I once said to them, maybe it is wrong to insult black people with the N-word, but they wagged their finger at me and said, 'It depends. Only a Sith deals in absolutes'."

Here's my take:

It is likely to harmful to people to be racially insulted, and it is always wrong (sorry, I'm Sith-like in that in that regard) to do so (sans thought experiments where "If you don't call this person the N-word, a nuclear bomb will be detonated" etc...). That said, it would require extraordinary circumstances (see above) for such insults to justify punching someone to death because of it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here's my take:

It is likely to harmful to people to be racially insulted, and it is always wrong (sorry, I'm Sith-like in that in that regard) to do so (sans thought experiments where "If you don't call this person the N-word, a nuclear bomb will be detonated" etc...). That said, it would require extraordinary circumstances (see above) for such insults to justify punching someone to death because of it.

I notice the equivocation. Apparently it's not Sith-like for you after all.

 

[p0lka]

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.



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.


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.



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?

re the highlighted,
it's easy to decide not to be bothered by words people say.

Why do you think it is a hard or impossible thing that would require pretence?

 

[angrysoba]

I notice the equivocation. Apparently it's not Sith-like for you after all.

Huh? And yet sticks and stones apparently always refers to children?

Hmmm...whenever someone says "never deal in abolutes" they are invariably smuggling in absolutes.

 

[smartcooky]

re the highlighted,
it's easy to decide not to be bothered by words people say.
Why do you think it is a hard or impossible thing that would require pretence?

Rubbish! The very fact that you are even debating on a forum shows that you are at least affected, bothered by what you read, sufficiently enough that you feel the need to comment on it. Otherwise, why are you even here debating, posting, disagreeing?

I am 100% sure that if someone seriously accused your mother, wife, girlfriend or daughter of being a lowlife, filthy slut who parts her legs for anyone, and that your father probably isn't your real, biological father, you would be bothered by that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Huh?

You didn't say that insults were never justification for punching someone do death, you said that it would require extraordinary circumstances for insults to justify someone to death. That's not an absolute.

And yet sticks and stones apparently always refers to children?

You got me. I said that it always refers to children.

Oh wait, not I didn't. I said that it is said to and by children. I don't know any adults who rely on this aphorism rather than simply their own maturity, but it is certainly possible that some do.

Hmmm...whenever someone says "never deal in abolutes" they are invariably smuggling in absolutes.

Yeah, that's the whole point of saying that. My use of it was a touch tongue-in-cheek.

 

[p0lka]

Rubbish! The very fact that you are even debating on a forum shows that you are at least affected, bothered by what you read, sufficiently enough that you feel the need to comment on it. Otherwise, why are you even here debating, posting, disagreeing?

That says more about you than me. I don't post because I'm bothered about a thing,

I am 100% sure that if someone seriously accused your mother, wife, girlfriend or daughter of being a lowlife, filthy slut who parts her legs for anyone, and that your father probably isn't your real, biological father, you would be bothered by that.

I could choose to be bothered,
my default is to just label said person as an idiot and not care what they said.

why are people saying it's hard or impossible?

It's easier to not be bothered.

edit:
it takes more effort to be bothered than not, so why bother.

 

[xjx388]

That says more about you than me. I don't post because I'm bothered about a thing,


I could choose to be bothered,
my default is to just label said person as an idiot and not care what they said.

why are people saying it's hard or impossible?

It's easier to not be bothered.

edit:
it takes more effort to be bothered than not, so why bother.

Especially by such ridiculous “accusations” like that. “Your mom’s a slut,” is like school yard level insulting. “Yo Mamma” battles get a hell of a lot more creative than that!

 

[arthwollipot]

Especially by such ridiculous “accusations” like that. “Your mom’s a slut,” is like school yard level insulting. “Yo Mamma” battles get a hell of a lot more creative than that!

That was indeed a poor example. But tell an African American that they shouldn't be bothered by someone yelling the N-word at them.

 

[angrysoba]

You didn't say that insults were never justification for punching someone do death, you said that it would require extraordinary circumstances for insults to justify someone to death. That's not an absolute.

This is silly. People shouldn't beat the **** out of each other or murder them or commit genocide. Most people would agree. Saying there would have to be exceptional circumstances to change that hardly means, "Ah, so you favour genocide then!"

No, not by any reasonable reading. Only an unreasonable interpretation would suggest that this is "equivocal".

You got me. I said that it always refers to children.

Oh wait, not I didn't. I said that it is said to and by children. I don't know any adults who rely on this aphorism rather than simply their own maturity, but it is certainly possible that some do.

Any reasonable reading of this suggests that it is exclusively about children. You only brought it up to dismiss talk of it being applied to adults:

And I believe it to have been done so inappropriately. It doesn't apply to adults. To the broader question, only a Sith deals in absolutes. Of course it depends. Everything depends. Wars have been fought over nothing more than words. I'm a pacifist, so I believe that violence is almost always inappropriate, but not everybody is like me. People will respond to words differently.

 

[arthwollipot]

This is silly. People shouldn't beat the **** out of each other or murder them or commit genocide. Most people would agree. Saying there would have to be exceptional circumstances to change that hardly means, "Ah, so you favour genocide then!"

No, not by any reasonable reading. Only an unreasonable interpretation would suggest that this is "equivocal".

And I never said that you were in favour of punching people to death. Equivocation to avoid an absolute statement does not equate to favouring the exception.

Any reasonable reading of this suggests that it is exclusively about children. You only brought it up to dismiss talk of it being applied to adults:

Again, you have trapped me with your clever words. I hope my intent now is clearer than it was when I made that post.

Do you agree that words can cause harm? If so, we don't have an argument. Everything else is spurious.

 

[smartcooky]

That says more about you than me. I don't post because I'm bothered about a thing,

That answer really does say a lot abut you, and so does the next one

I could choose to be bothered,
my default is to just label said person as an idiot and not care what they said.

why are people saying it's hard or impossible?

It's easier to not be bothered.

edit:
it takes more effort to be bothered than not, so why bother.

What if this person you have labelled an idiot, was doing this in front of people you know, that you work with, in front of your 9 year old son?
Still not bothered?

How about if your mother, sister, daughter etc are all present at the time, and hearing every word that is being said about them?
Still not bothered?

Would they be bothered? Would you even care if they were?

 

[angrysoba]

And I never said that you were in favour of punching people to death. Equivocation to avoid an absolute statement does not equate to favouring the exception.

I would say you are not using the word "equivocation" correctly.

Again, you have trapped me with your clever words. I hope my intent now is clearer than it was when I made that post.

Do you agree that words can cause harm? If so, we don't have an argument. Everything else is spurious.

Of course I do. I have made that pretty clear already. The question is, "Does it therefore permit violent retaliation?" as that is the question in the OP.

Your digression about the appropriateness of the use of the phrase implies that the hurt it causes adults is irrelevant to the phrase. I find that a strange stance to take. If I remember rightly you have used your own paraphrased version to apply to discrimination of minority groups, so why would you now be saying that it doesn't apply to adults? That's what I don't understand.

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course I do. I have made that pretty clear already. The question is, "Does it therefore permit violent retaliation?" as that is the question in the OP.

I have already answered that. Personally I'm a pacifist and I think that there are very few things that justify violent retaliation. But it will depend on the circumstances in which it occurs. Again, wars have been fought over words.

Your digression about the appropriateness of the use of the phrase implies that the hurt it causes adults is irrelevant to the phrase. I find that a strange stance to take. If I remember rightly you have used your own paraphrased version to apply to discrimination of minority groups, so why would you now be saying that it doesn't apply to adults? That's what I don't understand.

Yes, I say "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can disenfranchise and marginalise". That's saying something different, and I use it in a different context which is not relevant here.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

why are people saying it's hard or impossible?

Perhaps, and this is just a thought, but perhaps different people are different and not everybody has the same thickness of skin.

I will certainly say that if you've never been negatively affected, even slightly, by anything that anybody has ever said to you then you're quite an unusual person.