Can we continue that discussion from Will's derailed thread?

[Matticus]

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.

Verbal interaction deals with concepts - one person articulates thoughts that are received and recognized by another person. Whether the verbal interaction is positive or negative still does not negate the fact that only concepts are being shared. The party on the receiving end of verbal abuse has the choice of how much this will effect them, as concepts projected into the open can be taken to heart or simply ignored.

Physical assault, on the other hand, does not give the receiver a choice of how they are effected. They will be damaged, without the option of not allowing the assault to effect them.

Therefore, the former is not equivalent to the latter, and as such, the latter should not be considered an appropriate response to the former.

[Mario F.]

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

So you may die from a punch in the face for having verbally harassed me. I'll agree. Both of us would be very unfortunate if my punch ended up with you dead or seriously injured, possibly even with lifelong consequences. (Don't worry, I can't hit that hard).

But since you are talking of grave consequences to a physical assault, let's level it. What about my clinical depression and the fact I may have had enough and end my life today? Your verbal harassment should not be a problem? Or maybe I decided to end my life and I'm responsible for my actions... Is that your response?

All in all, I find it fascinating how quickly we dismiss the power of words when in all my experience (and that of humankind), words have been at the source of major changes, for good and bad. And other than beating someone to death or leaving them crippled, I have seen more damaging consequences from verbal abuse than I have from physical one. Especially in this day and age when verbal harassment and its dangers is being discussed everywhere along with its effects; from school shootings to suicide and domestic violence. And it's also puzzling how quickly you dismiss the fact that verbal abuse is just yet another form of exerting power and domination over someone else, who, lacking the mental or the communication skills to match, may be left defenseless against your battery.

If you refuse to put both forms of violence at the same level, you are completely ignoring the damage words can make to a person psyche, and are as dangerous to the people around you as someone who's always ready for a fight.

EDIT:
And just because you feel impervious to words, doesn't make everyone else invincible. That stupid old mantra Will repeated on post #136 and that you were so quick to put a like, is pure ignorance and a display of lack of care or concern for the next human being. Words can start wars, end wars, provoke masses, lead to suicide, inspire, depress...
/EDIT

[Alpo]

But since you are talking of grave consequences to a physical assault, let's level it. What about my clinical depression and the fact I may have had enough and end my life today? Your verbal harassment should not be a problem? Or maybe I decided to end my life and I'm responsible for my actions... Is that your response?

In both cases: 1. Of person x attacking person y over an insult. 2. Person x killing himself over person y's insult. It is person x's determination to respond in such a way. No one has a reasonable expectation that they will find no offense in the world.

A world where person y is responsible for any perceived offense is a much less just world than where person x is responsible for their own actions.

I've been hospitalized three times for depression, and they always make it a point in the treatment that I am responsible for my own actions. It would be bad to give such people (as myself) the idea that society is responsible for their actions.

Edit: Just to clarify what they say in treatment. Blaming society was the most common thing I saw among people there. We were all encouraged to see how our own actions were effecting things. See step 4 in AA for what I mean (I think that's the correct one), where you list all the wrongs done to you, and you eventually find out it was your own feelings of being wronged that were a greater determining force in your life.

Edit2: Mario, what do you make of my point of what they say in treatment? Do you really believe that my position is lacking in empathy (Or was that just in response to Will's post)? I'm trying to come from a position that it is more empathetic not to teach people they are victims of circumstance, powerless against it.

[Mario F.]

Edit2: Mario, what do you make of my point of what they say in treatment? Do you really believe that my position is lacking in empathy (Or was that just in response to Will's post)? I'm trying to come from a position that it is more empathetic not to teach people they are victims of circumstance, powerless against it.

I think the psychotherapy was adapted to your particular case. Clinical depressions can't be treated in a one-size-fits-all manner. I know of cases where "blaming society" isn't in the patient mind. In fact, often clinical depression isn't even about "wrongs being done to us". At worse, is the result of a real mental illness, very probably of genetic origins, and is treated with medication and very little psychotherapy (except for children and older people where it does show good results**).

** probably because medication is dangerous in these cases.

EDIT:
Meanwhile, people are victims of circumstances, as you would quickly learned if I robbed you of your salary on the street and it just so happens you had a debt with a shark. People are victims of circumstances too if they have to face someone deriding and otherwise verbally or physically abusing them. Trying to teach a weakened person that they should defend themselves is like trying to cure cancer with toys. There's no show of empathy there. Just misguided goodness.

[Yarin]

If you refuse to put both forms of violence at the same level, you are completely ignoring the damage words can make to a person psyche, and are as dangerous to the people around you as someone who's always ready for a fight.

Insults aren't violence.
I'm not ignoring the damage words can do, I'm simply saying that words you didn't like is not a good excuse for actual violence.
It's ironic that you accuse me of being dangerous because I think you shouldn't so quickly resort to violence.

And just because you feel impervious to words, doesn't make everyone else invincible.

I don't feel or claim to be impervious to words, not many people are. But that doesn't change the fact that everyone is responsible for their own actions.

That stupid old mantra Will repeated on post #136 and that you were so quick to put a [/FONT]like[FONT=Verdana], is pure ignorance and a display of lack of care or concern for the next human being.

That mantra is told to children to encourage them to control their emotions, and to teach them that, ultimately, they have control over themselves, no matter what insults get hurled their way.

[MutantJohn]

Verbal abuse is abuse. There is no debate to be had.

[Alpo]

Verbal abuse is abuse. There is no debate to be had.

The debate is over what that entitles you to (such as legal protection from an assault charge, ect). Also there is a huge question over what is considered verbal abuse, with some folks saying that it's defined as indicating a threat, and others saying an insult is equivalent to assault.

I don't think anyone would argue that things can be perceived offensively.

@Mario - Being in debt with a loan shark would be my own fault, getting robbed would be yours (it's a question of irresistible force versus a choice). Please also remember this argument was about what response is appropriate to insult. No one is arguing "pro-insult", they are arguing "pro-responsibility", and we've all acknowledged that words can hurt feelings.

[Matticus]

Verbal abuse is abuse. There is no debate to be had.

There is no debate to be had.

There is no debate to be had.

Yeah ... but that's just what we're doing. It's a good thing. People in this discussion are sharing ideas that may defy their preconceived notions. Heck, when Mario challenged the viewpoint I have (which apparently conflicts with his), I was forced to re-evaluate my reasoning, to see if it was still justified from a rational perspective.

Some of the best conversations I've ever had stemmed from discussion on things that were disagreed upon.

So, "there is no debate to be had" is not a convincing argument. Apparently, there is a debate to be had. So dig deep, and articulate your convictions so that they may be discussed openly.

[Alpo]

Yeah ... but that's just what we're doing. It's a good thing. People in this discussion are sharing ideas that may defy their preconceived notions.

Also, we are all dancing on Will1's strings, he's responsible! Get Him! *Lynch mob- Assemble* :P

[whiteflags]

I am only against the idea of excusing things on grounds of something being "hate speech", partly because what I've written before, and partly because it is such an ill-defined term. It's so badly defined anyone who expresses an opinion could be doing it.

I thought about this for a while. Hate speech is a thing. You go to jail typically because your words would incite violence against the group. It's not really that poorly defined. See Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition. That said, how do you tell what hate speech is from regular, uncouth insults? Well, I think a good starting point would be to look for actual call to action, look for indoctrination. You should look for a track record of speech that creates otherness.

I really think that saying hate speech doesn't excuse violence is tantamount to victim blaming. Tell me how you are not saying that there is no hate speech because the victim acts out. Sure, it's wrong, but there are a myriad of circumstances. How about a thought experiment. A bunch of frat boys start spewing misogyny at your local bar. They start criticizing her outfit and saying she's going to get raped in that. She tries to leave and they block the way and continue talking. Does she attack her way through here, or does she wait for things to escalate?

Like I said before, this is why we try cases: one person is allegedly guilty of assault and battery, and this incident brought to light the victim's hate speech, which he is guilty of. It might not play out in the courts in such an ideal fashion, but it doesn't matter.

[Elkvis]

I think the main reason verbal assault and physical assault are viewed so differently by most, is because verbal assault, in and of itself, represents no risk of great bodily harm or death. In the absence of such a risk, it is not justified to defend one's self with physical force. In the example of the frat boys in the bar with the woman, they are clearly making threatening movements by blocking her escape route. Under Minnesota law (the state whose laws were taught in a self-defense and concealed carry permit class that I took, and the state with whose self defense laws I'm most familiar), she has legal justification for the use of force, up to and including deadly force, because she's (1) an unwilling participant, (2) has no reasonable means of escape, (3) perceives a threat of great bodily harm or death, and (4) given that she is greatly outnumbered, lethal force may be her only (last resort) recourse to protect her own life and safety. I'm not saying that she should pull out a gun and start shooting the frat boys, but if it came down to a criminal case, she'd almost certainly be in the clear.

In the real world, there can be no expectation that you will live your whole life without ever being offended by someone's words. You choose how to react to those words. If someone insults you, there are two possibilities: (1) their statements are from a position of ignorance and do not represent reality, and should be ignored, or (2) their statements are a justified critique of you and/or your actions or character, and it is you who needs to change. If you choose to ignore the truth, or dwell on the ignorance of others, it is you who is doing the harm to yourself. I recognize that there are medical conditions, such as the previously mentioned clinical depression, that can make it incredibly difficult for individuals to disregard the ignorant words of others. It is truly unfortunate, and nobody deserves to feel that way, so I sympathize. Nobody is perfect. Sometimes we say things that are insulting, without any intent to do so. Are you going to file hate crime charges because I unknowingly said something that offended your sensibilities? Probably not, but there are certainly people out there who would argue that you should. You can't walk around on eggshells, trying to be "sensitive," simply because one person out of the thousands you see every day might be offended by something you say or do. I'm not in any way saying that you shouldn't be careful about what you say, but to go to great lengths to be as inoffensive as possible is just not a realistic or efficient way of communicating with others.

[stahta01]

I think the main reason verbal assault and physical assault are viewed so differently by most, is because verbal assault, in and of itself, represents no risk of great bodily harm or death.

I belief this to be false. Edit: But, do agree with your later points right after it.

Edit2: verbal assault is normally defined as threatening bodily harm or death.

If a mobster, told me that I was a dead man. I would consider myself justified to shot him.

Tim S.

[Elkvis]

I belief this to be false.

If a mobster, told me that I was a dead man. I would consider myself justified to shot him.

Tim S.

But if your sister said the exact same thing, because you took her last can of Pepsi out of the fridge, would you also consider yourself justified to shoot her? My point was that it is not the words that represent a risk to your life or well-being. In your example, it is the knowledge that the mobster is likely to carry out his threats that potentially makes his assault a risk of great bodily harm or death. There needs to be a clear intent and ability to consummate the act, if it is to be seen as a legitimate threat.

[stahta01]

But if your sister said the exact same thing, because you took her last can of Pepsi out of the fridge, would you also consider yourself justified to shoot her? My point was that it is not the words that represent a risk to your life or well-being. In your example, it is the knowledge that the mobster is likely to carry out his threats that potentially makes his assault a risk of great bodily harm or death. There needs to be a clear intent and ability to consummate the act, if it is to be seen as a legitimate threat.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.

Assault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course, if my sister said that it would NOT be verbal assault.

Tim S.

[Mario F.]

In the real world, there can be no expectation that you will live your whole life without ever being offended by someone's words. You choose how to react to those words. If someone insults you, there are two possibilities: (1) their statements are from a position of ignorance and do not represent reality, and should be ignored, or (2) their statements are a justified critique of you and/or your actions or character, and it is you who needs to change. If you choose to ignore the truth, or dwell on the ignorance of others, it is you who is doing the harm to yourself.

Under the stress of a verbal assault, do you really think like that, or do you feel genuinely offended, diminished (if this is happening in public), angered, and embarrassed? Do you really expect conditions to be ideal so you can formulate your mental defense against a verbal assault, or do you think its probably more common for us human beings to lash out verbally or physical against the display of domination you are being a victim of?

Even without taking into consideration a medical condition like depression, a verbal assault (even a simple name calling) under specific conditions can greatly damage someone's self-esteem, contribute to a possible depression or otherwise incite pain and suffering on someone. It's not just your body that should be protected. Your mind, your persona, has a right to be protected from assault too. Perhaps even more so.

It's also impossible for me to take seriously the argument that a punch in the face can kill someone without leveling the playfield. I will not agree to that argument until someone who says it also agrees that a verbal assault has the real ability to end with someone dead. Saying "I must be strong and ignore words" is just not what a victim can expect from having being verbally abused. Saying to your sister she should be strong and ignore her husband daily insults and verbal assault is not what you want to do. Saying to her she should leave him is not what she probably wants to do either. Telling her she is being abused and should press charges against him for verbal assault and domestic violence is what you should do. Which is an indication your government takes verbal assault much more seriously than what you are doing. But probably what you would really want to do was to connect your fist with his mouth. That .... would deserve no less.