Responding to words with violence?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-08-2017, 12:09 AM)Benton Wrote: no, but, for what largely started out as religious reasons, I'm a pacifist. I dont believe in violence of any kind.

Do my job for a month and you might change your mind. 

(03-08-2017, 01:18 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: When I tell you I'm your father and you realize that it might be true?

We all know as men, at least I'm assuming all the respondents thus far have been men, that there is a line in an argument.  A line that, if you cross it, there's going to be a physical altercation.  It's almost a social contract between men.  Even so, you're still not justified using physical violence against someone simply because they said something insulting.  As Jim has somewhat tried to point out, unless the words are accompanied by a threat of imminent physical violence your use of violence is not justified.

I will say this, the results of this thread are much more heartening than I thought they may be.  Maybe because the people arguing otherwise haven't had the courage of their convictions to argue otherwise in a thread specifically about the subject.

[*bfine32*]

(03-08-2017, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do my job for a month and you might change your mind. 

Personally I find "line of duty" to be much more of an easier scenario in which to control the impulse to react with violence. I have been threatened with all different manner of verbal insult and/or threat; however, never had the urge to react with violence as long as there was no physical threat.

Yet, I have been driven to the brink in the civilian sector. The earlier example of the Military funeral being one and there is also a time when someone cut me off on my Motorcycle and then flipped me off when I made myself seen. I have ridden with folks that have taken these incidents to the next level. I cannot get on board with a blanket: There is no situation in which you are justified to "throw the first punch". Since High School I never have (outside of a combat environment) and at this age I doubt I ever will, but I will not out of pocket condemn anyone that has or will.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2017, 12:09 AM)Benton Wrote: no, but, for what largely started out as religious reasons, I'm a pacifist. I dont believe in violence of any kind.

That's me, as well. I was raised a member of an historic peace church, including from family of clergy within it. And while I am no longer a part of that denomination my pacifist viewpoint has remained mostly in tact.

[*PhilHos*]

What if I think someone's a Nazi? Clearly, I have every right to sucker punch them, right?

[Millhouse]

Sometimes, mainly with bullies as words can be very powerful and very life-changing to others. We see in the news from time to time kids committing suicide over being bullied. And if it could be prevented by the bully getting the living crap kicked out of him &/or her, then I am all for it. And I have no problem with someone doing so in sticking up for someone else that cant do it.

For most other situations though with adults when it comes to politics, racism, etc, then pretty much no unless it is something really extreme and life-threatning.

[BengalHawk62]

(03-08-2017, 12:09 AM)Benton Wrote: no, but, for what largely started out as religious reasons, I'm a pacifist. I dont believe in violence of any kind.

You know Dude, I myself dabbled in pacifism at one point. Not in Nam, of course.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-08-2017, 02:03 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: You know, I myself dabbled in pacifism once, not during Vietnam of course....

That could get you hurt.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-08-2017, 01:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's me, as well. I was raised a member of an historic peace church, including from family of clergy within it. And while I am no longer a part of that denomination my pacifist viewpoint has remained mostly in tact.

Don't you carry concealed?  Or is that the mostly intact part?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-08-2017, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do my job for a month and you might change your mind. 


We all know as men, at least I'm assuming all the respondents thus far have been men, that there is a line in an argument.  A line that, if you cross it, there's going to be a physical altercation.  It's almost a social contract between men.  Even so, you're still not justified using physical violence against someone simply because they said something insulting.  As Jim has somewhat tried to point out, unless the words are accompanied by a threat of imminent physical violence your use of violence is not justified.

I will say this, the results of this thread are much more heartening than I thought they may be.  Maybe because the people arguing otherwise haven't had the courage of their convictions to argue otherwise in a thread specifically about the subject.

Yeah I had no chance in that argument.  After we get past Hitler was a really bad guy, I'm pretty much making it up.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2017, 02:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Don't you carry concealed?  Or is that the mostly intact part?

I have a concealed carry permit mainly for the ease of transportation. Without a permit I would have to have my firearm unloaded and separated by at least an arm's length from the ammunition or (and this is preferred) in a separate, locked compartment if I am in my vehicle with my firearm. I honestly could not tell you the last time that I actually carried a firearm concealed in public, but being able to have my range bag in the front seat is much more convenient.

The other reason for it is because of bears. The county I'm in usually has the highest bear kill count for a reason, and if you spend a good deal of time in the woods you will run into them. I prefer to make a lot of noise and chase them off, but I've had a mama bear come at me and it took five .44 slugs, the grip of said .44, and a big stick to fend her off. Playing dead also doesn't work for black bears, they may just start eating on you. So if I am out in the woods there are times when I will have a .44 tucked in my jacket (I have a cross-body holster for it that is very comfortable).

But yeah, I love to shoot. It was a sport I engaged in a lot when I was younger because my fat ass didn't have to run for it. And the mostly intact part would be self-defense. If someone comes at you with a weapon, I have no problem with someone getting violent in response. Such situations are, by my moral code, acceptable. But my interpretation of the stories that lead Christians to pacifism are not that Jesus was saying be non-resistant. It's just that the non-violence resistance doesn't work in those immediate, life threatening situations.

[Bengalzona]

(03-08-2017, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We all know as men, at least I'm assuming all the respondents thus far have been men, that there is a line in an argument.  A line that, if you cross it, there's going to be a physical altercation.  It's almost a social contract between men.  Even so, you're still not justified using physical violence against someone simply because they said something insulting.  As Jim has somewhat tried to point out, unless the words are accompanied by a threat of imminent physical violence your use of violence is not justified.

I will say this, the results of this thread are much more heartening than I thought they may be.  Maybe because the people arguing otherwise haven't had the courage of their convictions to argue otherwise in a thread specifically about the subject.

What were other people arguing elsewhere (who knows, maybe I was one of them)?

If an adult said certain things to my kid, I can guarantee that they will spend the next half hour looking for their teeth (and possibly their balls). Justified? Probably not. But truth.

[Bengalzona]

(03-08-2017, 03:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The other reason for it is because of bears.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-08-2017, 03:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The other reason for it is because of bears. The county I'm in usually has the highest bear kill count for a reason, and if you spend a good deal of time in the woods you will run into them. I prefer to make a lot of noise and chase them off, but I've had a mama bear come at me and it took five .44 slugs, the grip of said .44, and a big stick to fend her off. Playing dead also doesn't work for black bears, they may just start eating on you. So if I am out in the woods there are times when I will have a .44 tucked in my jacket (I have a cross-body holster for it that is very comfortable).

damn dude.  thats some serious shit.  by 'fend her off' are you implying she survived and went about her day?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-08-2017, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you're talking about words plus imminent threat to your physical well being.  If all you have is a semantic argument then you don't have an argument.

I'm not arguing semantics. At least I don't think I am. My point is from a real world perspective for lack of a better term. Words don't exist in a vacuum. Even the words on this message board. So how can you seperate the words from the other things?

Words are just sounds we make with our vocal cords or written symbols. How do we know what the grunts and chicken scratching means? They other things and the words go hand in hand, right? Aren't those other things needed to understand the message? The use of violence is a judgment call, right? If you're going to eliminate two thirds of what you or I would use to judge if violence is necessary then the argument is set up that only one answer is correct; no, violence isn't the answer when someone someone flexes their vocal cord muscles while air passes over them or they scratch a symbol in the dirt. 

Without the other stuff how do you even know a word is a word? And not a grunt, growl, or a hoot?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Let me rephrase. The question is a logical Catch-22.

SSF, is there any situation in your career field you would judge the use of force is justifiable based only on the words?

I think the answer is, "no."  In order to judge if force is necessary you need the words and the other things like meaning and context to judge if force is necessary.

But, you're asking us for a judgement if force is necessary based upon only one of the elements needed to make the judgment.

So logically I need to change my answer from possibly to indeterminate.

Again, I'm not trying to make this a semantics argument. I'm giving you an honest answer.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2017, 05:06 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: damn dude.  thats some serious shit.  by 'fend her off' are you implying she survived and went about her day?

Her claws and teeth adorn some regalia I have made for Order of the Arrow ceremonies. it took far too long for her to die and those pants were ruined. Decent meat, though. Her cub was found and taken to a local wildlife rescue and, as far as I know, it's now roaming in the woods. Hard to say, though. Again, highest bear kill count in Virginia.

I never want to go through that again. Honestly, that is the only time I have ever walked up on a bear and not been able to just scare it off, and I probably have 7-8 bear encounters a year.

[*Nately120*]

(03-07-2017, 11:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The lawyer answer is, "it depends".  Is the person making a credible threat that a reasonable person could think they were imminently going to carry out?  If the answer is no or even maybe you're on shaky legal ground. 

I'd call threats and words two different things in regards to the original question.  

[Benton]

(03-08-2017, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do my job for a month and you might change your mind. 


 

I wouldn't, but I appreciate those who do. I realize there might be times when my choice of inaction would cause others to have to take action. Thankfully, that hasn't happened.

(03-08-2017, 01:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's me, as well. I was raised a member of an historic peace church, including from family of clergy within it. And while I am no longer a part of that denomination my pacifist viewpoint has remained mostly in tact.

Mine was kind of the opposite. I grew up in a CoC, where a lot of the people acted like a lot of people in the south. They like most of the OT, then skip over the Christ part, and go right to the end times. Need to kill somebody? Just maim them? Injure them, steal, whatever? There's a scripture for that (as long as you exclude the Christian parts).

So I never was too religious until my early 30s/late 20s when I realized you don't have to have a denomination. It's a personal relationship. 

[Rotobeast]

I grew up being forced to box my father and brothers.
I hated it, at the time.
Later, I appreciated the bejesus out of it.
The majority of the time, I've de-escalated situations verbally.
I never even got into an outright fight as a bouncer, for three years.
Most confrontations that had gotten physical, I dodged everything they had and/or subdued them.
There was one time I used a move that could literally kill someone.
I regret it, but I was young and the other person was known to use weapons.
I have too much to lose, now.
I've calmed down and take a lot less risks, because of my daughter.

So, no.... I don't believe violence should result from words alone.
That being said, I cannot assure I'd remain calm if someone were to say something terrible about/to my daughter or look at her in a pervasive manner.


Forgot to add.....

It's important to mount a she-bear and establish dominance.

[Beaker]

(03-07-2017, 08:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I thought this deserved its own thread since certain people among us seem to lack the moral courage to actually answer this question. 

Is it ever acceptable to respond to words with violence?

My answer is no, it is not ok to use physical violence because you dislike someone's words, their political, racial or religious opinions.  The fact that this is even a topic for debate is a bit disturbing to me. 

Call my wife a disrespectful name in front of me (with her present, or not) and I will respond with physical force.