Reverting back to my childhood days, "Stcks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!" In any case, calling someone a name isn't justification for that person to assault you. If being called a name causes you to become violent you need anger managemanet counselling. KISS it and it makes more sense. As we mature our logic seems to go to Hell.
No one is speaking of beating someone because of name calling...
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
It appears to me that that is exactly what you did in post #127!Originally Posted by Mario F.
I could probably physically assault someone if they called me an ......, since ...... is a verbal assault.
Last edited by Will1; 09-17-2014 at 01:16 PM.
When I say I don't believe, I mean I don't understand the definition. If the definition is going to be based off the person hearing the abuse (What if a non *** is called a ***, is it still abuse?), then it's not going to be something that can easily be applicable to everyone with a well understood line of what it is and isn't. But yeah, I'm just against formal laws based on this type of thinking, I can't argue the reality that words can hurt feelings.
WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;
"You hurt my feelings, so I will hurt your body". That's pretty sad.
Last edited by Yarin; 09-17-2014 at 01:25 PM.
Most of the students weren't really that religious at my old school, it was all a top down thing. I still have my old history and biology books, I read them again when I was around 15 or so. To it's credit, the biology book did mention evolution, but as a deeply controversial secular theory. It was a very bizarre alternate universe, a bit like "The Truman Show".
WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;
Fair enough. So let's discuss this with more precision. Give me an account as to why you or anyone else thinks there's an imbalance between verbal and physical assault. I specifically want to listen to reasons as to why a physical assault is considered graver than a verbal one.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
It all depends on what is being said.
It's the other way around. Verbal assault leaves no physical evidence, so if there is a claim that it is affecting something, the onus is on the person making that claim. Also, verbal assault has the problems with it's definition that I mentioned, so I don't know how it could be disproven that it's a factor even if the burden was on my side of the issue.
It's a bit like saying, "I'll believe JibertyJax is responsible for physical assault until someone gives me a reason why it's not.".
Whereas with physical assault there are no choices given to the party that is assaulted, and the results are generally demonstrable.
Last edited by Alpo; 09-17-2014 at 04:17 PM.
WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;
O_oGive me an account as to why you or anyone else thinks there's an imbalance between verbal and physical assault.
For Alpo in particular: do that while keeping in mind that you've already said "Saying you have the right to beat someone up if they say something you don't like is intimidation". You clearly recognize that "just words" can be intimidating; give us your rationalization for why some "just words" get so easy a pass.
[Edit]
No. That is not even remotely the case.It's a bit like saying, "I'll believe JibertyJax is responsible for physical assault until someone gives me a reason why it's not.".
No one is saying that one should assume guilt until proven innocence.
You and several others are saying that there can be no guilt because you "don't believe" and similar.
Mario is asking you and others why you think physical assault is so much more obvious a consideration to you than verbal assault when they can both achieve the same goal of intimidation, suffering, and similar.
[/Edit]
Soma
Last edited by phantomotap; 09-17-2014 at 04:24 PM.
“Salem Was Wrong!” -- Pedant Necromancer
“Four isn't random!” -- Gibbering Mouther
I'm not interested in legalese. I mean, we have laws to protect against both. And we even have laws that allow law enforcement agents to exert violence. Interestingly enough, they are prohibited from making any verbal abuse.
Instead I'm more interested in knowing why you think a physical assault is a bad defensive response to a verbal assault. I've noticed the pattern in this discussion and the general bias towards this feeling. So now, instead of just stating it for the nth time for the past 2 pages, I would like to hear concrete thoughts on why you think so.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I wasn't speaking about actual threats of violence, I was speaking about the intimidation of saying that it's ok to beat someone up for using a derogatory term. I think actual threats of violence should at least be investigated, whereas using the fact someone just called you a dirty word to justify attacking them is not.
WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;
I've already stated that I believed the way I do because I've not been convinced that it's justified to attack someone for an insult. If you're not going to explain why it should be justified, then I will remain unconvinced. Not having a coherent explanation is a reasonable justification for taking the default position, which in this case would be that someone should not be attacked for perceived insult.
WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;
The imbalance is that a physical assault endangers your life, whereas a verbal assault that may indeed be malicious in intent still does not endanger your life in any way (*).
If an insulter succeeds and you are actually emotionally damaged by their insult, then it's simply an indication that you have a inferior psyche.
*: Bear in mind that there is a massive difference between an insult and a threat. An insult is an emotional ("verbal") assault, but a threat is an indication of a possible future physical assault, and so preemptive measures may possibly be needed to be taken.
Ok on consideration, there are two miscommunications going on here.
1. I'm not saying something "can't be" because I believe differently, I'm just saying I don't believe (I have no reason to believe).
2. And this is the crux: Your definition of verbal assault is "threat of violence", where as Mario's was "insult".
It could be that I actually agree with things in the "threat of violence" definition of the term, as long as you say, that no one is presumed guilty. However I don't understand the second definition of verbal assault where it is defined as "that person called me a *** ".
WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;
