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

[bluesjnr]

Walk me through it, please. Someone put some words on a door, and this hurt someone else
so much that they started a war over it? And this war is understandable, on account of how words do hurt?

That's the example of a war, that I'm looking for in the context of your arguments about hurtful words as I understand them.

Is the war you have in mind such an example?

Also, which war exactly do you have in mind?

If I might interject, assuming that you really don't know to what Arth is alluding and aren't just setting him up, he's talking about Martin Luther and the supposed nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenburg Castle church, heralding the split between Catholic and Protestant religions (Reformation).

Some insist it's a story retrofitted to suit, others pass the act off as a normal posting of information posted exactly in the way many other formal publications were at the time and place. That's by the by.

Arth may have been making the case that this was the kick off for the Thirty Years War as the action was used to convince local Rhineland Prods to join in the fight against the Hasburgs............... some 100 years later.

 

[theprestige]

If I might interject, assuming that you really don't know to what Arth is alluding and aren't just setting him up, he's talking about Martin Luther and the supposed nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenburg Castle church, heralding the split between Catholic and Protestant religions (Reformation).

Some insist it's a story retrofitted to suit, others pass the act off as a normal posting of information posted exactly in the way many other formal publications were at the time and place. That's by the by.

Arth may have been making the case that this was the kick off for the Thirty Years War as the action was used to convince local Rhineland Prods to join in the fight against the Hasburgs............... some 100 years later.

I think it's best for arth to have a chance to do his argument (whatever it is) justice.

My question was:

Does verbal abuse ever put lives in danger? Would that argument work in court?

To which arth replied with the apparent non sequitur:

As I've said before, literal wars have been fought over words.

In that context, I'm expecting arth to make a case that Luther's 95 theses were so verbally abusive that someone was prompted to start a war in self defense.

More broadly, if arth agrees that the Wittenburg Door incident isn't an example of what I asked for, I'd be interested in arth's argument for why some particular war was in fact justified (or at least understandable) in terms of words hurting feelings and declaring war being a response to hurt feelings.

In any case, all of this seems beside the point of my actual argument: Words do hurt, and that hurt is real, but that hurt is of a different order of magnitude from physical violence, and merits a substantially different response. Therefore the proverb, "sticks and stones..." is correct for the purpose to which it is put. And that therefore people who attempt to blur or erase the line between verbal abuse and physical violence do themselves and society a disservice.

Especially in the context of recent discussions here. These discussions are not about whether it's okay or excusable to verbally abuse someone. They're about whether it's okay or excusable to use violence to suppress unwanted speech.

 

[p0lka]

Humans don't consciously control their emotions, no.

If they did then telling a depressed person to pull themselves together and cheer up might actually have some value.

People may have coping mechanisms and some degree of conscious control over their behaviour but that's quite different than not having the emotion to begin with.

Saying 'I don't let X bother me' is claiming some kind of supernatural mind control over biochemistry. It may well be that X doesn't bother you, but then you just happen to be one of the lucky ones that isn't bothered by X. You didn't decide to not let it bother you, you didn't control whether it bothered you or not.

It may not be intended but again these kinds of claims are just another way of blaming the victim for being weak or not in control or somehow choosing to be adversely affected.

You asked about my internal state, I replied.

It's interesting you posit mental power over biochemistry, I don't think that is the case here.
in my case it's a simple thing,

If someone tries to emotionally manipulate me, then I'll define them as idiots or emotional manipulators for trying to do so,

as a consequence of me defining them that way in my head, why would I care what they say?

The biochemistry thing would involve someone trying to hold feelings down, or trying to hold back emotions? It's not the case with me.

I don't get angry in the first place, as I've already labelled them as not worthy due to them trying to get me angry.

It might be circular, but if it works, it works.

You kinda have to address what I said.
This is in terms of name calling, sticks'n'stones etc.

Nothing I explained was supernatural or anything of the sort.

It was a simple if then statement,

If they try to annoy me

then they don't annoy me.

you seem to think it's miraculous or superhero stuff?

It ain't, it's just people controlling themselves.

I think your premise is flawed.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There’s nothing at all supernatural about controlling how you feel about something. I’m not claiming that every human has this skill to equal capacity. I’m not claiming that pathology or intoxication doesn’t affect the ability to control. I’m not denying biochemical reactions and how all that plays into things.


But humans are not biochemical automatons.

Then rather than asserting it over and over again kindly explain by what method humans consciously determine whether or not they experience an emotion.

I think you are going to struggle with that one.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You asked about my internal state, I replied.


You kinda have to address what I said.
This is in terms of name calling, sticks'n'stones etc.

Nothing I explained was supernatural or anything of the sort.

It was a simple if then statement,

If they try to annoy me

then they don't annoy me.

you seem to think it's miraculous or superhero stuff?

It ain't, it's just people controlling themselves.

I think your premise is flawed.

Then you can have a go at the challenge in the last post too.

 

[p0lka]

Then you can have a go at the challenge in the last post too.

Addressing the points rather than asking how long is a piece of string might be more fruitful imo.

edit:
I did explain it, if i can add 'continue' as a thing.

 

[xjx388]

Then rather than asserting it over and over again kindly explain by what method humans consciously determine whether or not they experience an emotion.

I think you are going to struggle with that one.

“Experience,” is a bit different than, “control.” In any case: Humans control the emotions they experience by the method of rationality.

I manage a medical office. Patients sometimes get angry and sometimes they insult me. I experience a bit of annoyance and maybe a little anger. But my job is to try and solve their problem so I let that go (“don’t take it personal, they are sick and frustrated, put yourself in their shoes”) and try to help them. Their words don’t hurt me. I could respond the way my emotions tell me to, but I control that because it would be the wrong, un-empathetic, thing to do.

I’ve been called a “wetback” by white people. It stings, but I rationalize (“the dude is just stupid, you are smarter than to engage with stupidity,”) and I let it go.

You can’t always control the emotion in the heat of the moment, but you can take a second and think. Then you can react appropriately.

 

[arthwollipot]

That people do lose control doesn’t mean that people are incapable of control.

That people do lose control does mean that people don't have full control over their emotions.

 

[arthwollipot]

In that context, I'm expecting arth to make a case that Luther's 95 theses were so verbally abusive that someone was prompted to start a war in self defense.

That isn't what you asked for. You asked for an example of wars being fought over words. I gave you the Protestant Reformation and all of the conflicts that it led to. You said nothing about self defense or verbal abuse.

If you want an example of a war being fought directly because someone said something, then I give you every war of succession ever. "I name my firstborn son my heir even though he is a bastard" is a set of words (paraphrased, obviously) that has led directly to war on more than one occasion. "I do" is another set of words that I'm pretty sure has led to war. "This land is mine; God gave this land to me" has also been pretty contentious.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Surely 'I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle' is the ur-example.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Addressing the points rather than asking how long is a piece of string might be more fruitful imo.

edit:
I did explain it, if i can add 'continue' as a thing.

You stated what happened (or your best description of what happened) you didn't explain how you did it or how what you did was an effort of will rather than simply a happy accident.

Perhaps these things just don't bother you? That would say nothing about to what extent you choose to let it bother you or otherwise or indeed whether other people can achieve the same result. Do you agree?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

“Experience,” is a bit different than, “control.” In any case: Humans control the emotions they experience by the method of rationality.

No, the claim was that people can choose to not let things bother them. Being bothered by something is experiencing an emotion. That emotion is an automatic response and has nothing to do with rationality.

This has nothing to do with how you consciously react to the fact of being bothered by something and whether you can control whether you just go home quietly or beat someone to death with a baseball bat. It's about whether you can prevent yourself being bothered in the first place.

I manage a medical office. Patients sometimes get angry and sometimes they insult me. I experience a bit of annoyance and maybe a little anger. But my job is to try and solve their problem so I let that go (“don’t take it personal, they are sick and frustrated, put yourself in their shoes”) and try to help them. Their words don’t hurt me. I could respond the way my emotions tell me to, but I control that because it would be the wrong, un-empathetic, thing to do.

Which is a completely different thing. Their words annoy you and make you little angry. They have 'bothered' you. And you didn't choose whether they did or didn't.

You control your actions, but you haven't controlled your emotional response.

I’ve been called a “wetback” by white people. It stings, but I rationalize (“the dude is just stupid, you are smarter than to engage with stupidity,”) and I let it go.

You can’t always control the emotion in the heat of the moment, but you can take a second and think. Then you can react appropriately.

And again I think we are talking past each other. You can't control the emotion so saying 'i don't let it bother me' is meaningless. How you react after you are bothered by it is a different question.

 

[ahhell]

Honestly, this is a fairly silly conversation.

Would you rather be hit in the nose once or called a name once? Hit 10 times or called a name 10 times.

Its not that words don't hurt but they sure has hell hurt less than been hit with sticks and stones. Again, the saying sticks and stones may break may bones but words will never hurt me is not literally true, sure. It is, however a good lesson for most children in most circumstances. When my 5 year old calls my 3 year old a name and my 3 year old bites the 5 year old, its a useful lesson. Which is the point.

I don't think anyone here is literally saying that bullying via words and other non-violent harassment doesn't hurt but it certainly doesn't hurt has much as actual violence and we shouldn't act as though they do. Punching someone in the nose is a reasonable response to being punched in the nose, its not a reasonable response to being called a name.

 

[xjx388]

<SNIP>
And again I think we are talking past each other. You can't control the emotion so saying 'i don't let it bother me' is meaningless. How you react after you are bothered by it is a different question.

I think it's the only question that matters and what the "sticks and stones" aphorism is all about. Do you let those emotions linger and affect the way you think about yourself? Do the words affect your behavior to where you beat them with a stick? Or do you realize they are just words and let them roll like water off a duck's back?

"I don't let it bother me" is a simple way of saying, "I don't let words adversely affect me or my behavior after the initial 'bother'."

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Honestly, this is a fairly silly conversation.

Would you rather be hit in the nose once or called a name once? Hit 10 times or called a name 10 times.

Its not that words don't hurt but they sure has hell hurt less than been hit with sticks and stones. Again, the saying sticks and stones may break may bones but words will never hurt me is not literally true, sure. It is, however a good lesson for most children in most circumstances. When my 5 year old calls my 3 year old a name and my 3 year old bites the 5 year old, its a useful lesson. Which is the point.

I don't think anyone here is literally saying that bullying via words and other non-violent harassment doesn't hurt but it certainly doesn't hurt has much as actual violence and we shouldn't act as though they do. Punching someone in the nose is a reasonable response to being punched in the nose, its not a reasonable response to being called a name.

This is pretty much the attitude that the little saying promotes and it is completely wrong on a number of levels.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think it's the only question that matters

You're welcome to think that but that wasn't the question that I was raising.

and what the "sticks and stones" aphorism is all about. Do you let those emotions linger and affect the way you think about yourself? Do the words affect your behavior to where you beat them with a stick? Or do you realize they are just words and let them roll like water off a duck's back?

And again you are moving the goalposts to include emotional responses as things we can control

"I don't let it bother me" is a simple way of saying, "I don't let words adversely affect me or my behavior after the initial 'bother'."

Then it's at best sloppy wording. But it's also used and was used to dismiss the real bother that other people experience because it implies that if they don't or can't do the same then it's their fault.

Again you've tried to smuggle in control of emotions though by saying I don't let it affect me. Which as we keep going over again is not in one's control.

 

[Thermal]

...For those that believe there is truth in “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”:

Addressing the OP questions directly:

Why do you think - as one example - some children try to kill themselves and some do manage to kill themselves after being subjected to “names will never hurt me” aka bullying?

Because they are subjected to far, far more than name calling. Social ostracizing, psychological abuse etc go far beyond name calling. Conflating name calling and bullying is like comparing a lecherous stare with a rape.

Why should an action like speech be treated as a special kind of action?

Special? I don't see that. It is different than a physical action, in that an action (like a punch) has an immediate physical consequence. Words need not. They can be ignored. A broken jaw is harder to ignore.

Are there any circumstances where speech can be “retorted” (morally if not legally) with a punch?

Sure, many. Provocation to fight is a thing, and many, many spoken words are openly fighting words.

But again, that is conflating simple name calling with a more complex use of the language which can adversely affect one's social status or belonging if not responded to appropriately. The distinction needs to remain more crisp.

 

[xjx388]

You're welcome to think that but that wasn't the question that I was raising.



And again you are moving the goalposts to include emotional responses as things we can control

Responses to emotions are things we can control. I haven't moved any goalposts because this thread is talking about a saying and whether the saying has any validity. Your position seems to be (and you can correct this if I'm wrong) that it doesn't have much validity because people can't control their emotions. My position is that it has some validity because people can control their emotions. We just seem to have different definitions about what "control their emotions," means. I would agree with you that we can't control the initial emotion that might rise up with certain words. No argument there. What we can control is everything that happens after that, which, IMO is what's important and what the aphorism is about.

Then it's at best sloppy wording.

Welcome to the English language! Idioms are often sloppy but we all know what we mean by them.

But it's also used and was used to dismiss the real bother that other people experience because it implies that if they don't or can't do the same then it's their fault.

To this I would say that in most situations and for most people that don't have psychological or brain function issues, it is their fault if they act out inappropriately based solely on words they are told. It would be wrong for me to insult a patient who calls me an "idiot." It would be wrong for me to punch some white guy who calls me a "wetback." It would be equally wrong for me to let those words affect who I am and how I think of myself.

Again you've tried to smuggle in control of emotions though by saying I don't let it affect me. Which as we keep going over again is not in one's control.

You are proposing a very narrow definition of "affect me," referring only to the initial sting of the words. I'm broadening that to, "change my behavior or self-image," which is the intent of the aphorism.

 

[ahhell]

This is pretty much the attitude that the little saying promotes and it is completely wrong on a number of levels.

That response is wrong on, really only one level.

Edit to add, we can to a degree control our emotions and how words impact our well being. I do so on a regular basis. If other's can't maybe they should meditate on the phrase, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt he."

I find it rather bizarre that folks are saying otherwise, it's certainly contrary to my lived experience.

 

[theprestige]

That isn't what you asked for. You asked for an example of wars being fought over words. I gave you the Protestant Reformation and all of the conflicts that it led to. You said nothing about self defense or verbal abuse.

If you want an example of a war being fought directly because someone said something, then I give you every war of succession ever. "I name my firstborn son my heir even though he is a bastard" is a set of words (paraphrased, obviously) that has led directly to war on more than one occasion. "I do" is another set of words that I'm pretty sure has led to war. "This land is mine; God gave this land to me" has also been pretty contentious.

Those examples don't convince me, and here's why:

I see those as wars for power and resources. It's not the words that matter, it's the competing claims and the race to enforce one's own claim over one's competitors.

Further, in the context of this thread, these are not wars started because someone said something hurtful. So they're definitely not examples of what we're talking about in this thread.

Do you have any examples at all of wars that were declared because someone said something mean? Or just more examples of wars that were declared over competing claims to resources?