• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

I admit to answering the OP without regard for the rest of the thread. I read the OP when it was first posted, and it took me a few days to organize my thoughts. I decided it would be better to get them down independently of any other discussion that had happened in the meantime.

Now, reading back through this last page or so, I'm thinking... Knives aren't very good for self-defense. If I wanted to defend myself, they'd be pretty much last on my list.

First on my list would be a good pair of running shoes, and escape route, and at least three feet head start. Then it would be a gun. Then a club. Then a rock. Then my fists and arms and legs. Then my forehead. Then a folding chair. Unless that's already covered under clubs. Then the pommel of a knife - another club. Then maybe the edgy bit of the knife.

But that's all beside my point, which is: Yes, "sticks and stones..." is indeed correct.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
Which could lead us into a nice segway about whether passive aggression is as bad as active aggression. ;)
Click to expand...

Segue*

Has the difference between verbal abuse and physical violence not already been thoroughly debated? I assumed, seven pages in, that I was late to the party.

Anyway, if it hasn't, I have a post on the previous page that might serve as a good starting point.
 
theprestige said:
Segue*
Click to expand...

I am well aware of that

Has the difference between verbal abuse and physical violence not already been thoroughly debated? I assumed, seven pages in, that I was late to the party.

Anyway, if it hasn't, I have a post on the previous page that might serve as a good starting point.
Click to expand...

My post has nothing to do with physical vs verbal, just whether it would have been better or worse if Arthwollipot had straight up called you an insensitive poopy-head.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
I am well aware of that



My post has nothing to do with physical vs verbal, just whether it would have been better or worse if Arthwollipot had straight up called you an insensitive poopy-head.
Click to expand...

Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for the correction!

I dunno. Maybe there's degrees of physical violence inherent in verbal abuse? Like an implicit insult is literally equivalent to a slap in the face, but an explicit insult is literally equivalent to a punch in the nose?
 
Pretty sure you can call someone an insensitive poopy-head if they bust you one on the nose. Doesn't the communative property kick in here?
 
Thermal said:
Pretty sure you can call someone an insensitive poopy-head if they bust you one on the nose. Doesn't the communative property kick in here?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you can call someone anything you want, whether or not they bust you on the nose.

Anyway, I have a question for arth and any other "speech is violence" apologists: Where does self defense come into play? Everyone except hardcore pacifists agrees that cracking someone over the head is okay if they're putting your life in danger. At what point does verbal abuse justify physical violence in self defense?

Does verbal abuse ever put lives in danger? Would that argument work in court?
 
theprestige said:
I'm pretty sure you can call someone anything you want, whether or not they bust you on the nose.

Anyway, I have a question for arth and any other "speech is violence" apologists: Where does self defense come into play? Everyone except hardcore pacifists agrees that cracking someone over the head is okay if they're putting your life in danger. At what point does verbal abuse justify physical violence in self defense?

Does verbal abuse ever put lives in danger? Would that argument work in court?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to say violence is justified by most modern conceptions of justice, but it's certainly understandable sometimes. And I don't think we can discuss it one way and ignore the other. Because it creates a dichotomy of just and unjust within which all social interactions don't just fit neatly into. I don't know how I would answer "when is it justified?"

So when is violence understandable? I think it's when the health or status one's social group is threatened by another, especially if the offender belongs to a socially privileged or powerful group. Lines get blurry these days because we no longer live in mostly extended families like our ancestors did for millennia. But the urge to fight back is clearly still with us. Nobody cares if me and my buddies are ****-posting each other on social media. But what if we try that rowdiness on a marginalized group or even direct our insults towards members of the majority ethnic group of the country?

I think the rawest example of this is prison culture. Few inmates are stupid enough to recklessly throw insults at fellow convicts in a closed, controlled environment with few or no weapons. Members of social groups formed in prison are always careful about what they say and do, and harsh punishment is often meted out within the group for stirring up unnecessary trouble with other groups. Inmates often are intolerant of disrespect because they feel that their status, and consequently their quality of life, is at stake in these tense interactions.

I don't know if this argument would justify an act of passionate violence in court, but I think it's worth offering some perspective.
 
Yeah, I'm pretty much with Venom. I think "justified" is the wrong word. As you know, theprestige, I'm basically what you describe as a "hardcore pacifist", or one step removed from that at most, so my personal opinion is that violence is almost never justified, and never justified as a response to verbal abuse. But what I think is irrelevant. Violence certainly happens, and it certainly happens in response to words. There's not a lot that you or I can do about that, so I kind of don't see the point of the question.
 
theprestige said:
I'm pretty sure you can call someone anything you want, whether or not they bust you on the nose.

Anyway, I have a question for arth and any other "speech is violence" apologists: Where does self defense come into play? Everyone except hardcore pacifists agrees that cracking someone over the head is okay if they're putting your life in danger. At what point does verbal abuse justify physical violence in self defense?

Does verbal abuse ever put lives in danger? Would that argument work in court?
Click to expand...

I think a white dude calling a black dude an 'effing n-word' is for damn sure putting somebody's life in danger.

Do you agree that fighting words are, you know, expected to be met with a fight? As such, aren't they essentially a form of assault?
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah, I'm pretty much with Venom. I think "justified" is the wrong word. As you know, theprestige, I'm basically what you describe as a "hardcore pacifist", or one step removed from that at most, so my personal opinion is that violence is almost never justified, and never justified as a response to verbal abuse. But what I think is irrelevant. Violence certainly happens, and it certainly happens in response to words. There's not a lot that you or I can do about that, so I kind of don't see the point of the question.
Click to expand...

Yes, it happens. What matters is how we, as a society and a culture, react when it does happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom