This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Does the Internet Create Lynch Mobs?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Still doesn't change the fact that violence doesn't solve a thing.
Post by
Ksero
Say someone is insulting my parents, i beat the crap out of them, they charge me with assault, my defense is that they were insulting my parents, how do you think that's gonna stand up.
Not remotely comparable to going on a bus and verbally and physically abusing an old lady, I find it offensive that you think the two scenarios are anywhere close to similar.
I think, is a perfectly understandable response especially if it's your own mother, it doesn't make you evil.
so why did you say that someone insulting my parents wasn't comparable at all to this situation?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
No, if you strike out at someone and you aren't doing so to save a life, I'd say that's always the wrong reaction....after all, that's how people are brought up on assault charges all the time.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Or you should read what others say: No matter how 'justified' someone feels in raising a hand in anger against another, it's never the right reaction and should never seen as such.
Post by
Rankkor
I wouldn't, however, call anyone who beat them up for it bad though because it'd they'd be so infuriated that they
couldn't control their anger
and they'd physically lash out at the kids
bad sold.
Bad.
Bad action =/= bad person. At least their anger would be justified, giving them an understandable reason for getting mad enough to hit them in retaliation.
you are using the same defense as Domestic Abusers.
"Ohh but I just hit her because she pissed me off and I couldn't control my anger".
That's BS and royal-class BS if I say so myself.
You are saying you wouldn't call someone who
BEATS A KID
bad simply because said kid was a jerk. Understand the issue with disproportionate retributions here dude. The kids never beat up anyone, thus they don't deserve any beating either.
Saying someone is justified because "They can't control their anger" is just BS.
I have quite a temper, and spent some time in prison due to not controlling said anger, but the situation was different. For a start, that national guard wasn't insulting my mom, he was beating her to death and would had killed her if I had not intervened. And secondly, it was my mom, not some stranger.
That pissed me off, and hence why I beat the tar out of him (I almost killed him, thank goodness that didn't happened, not saying he didn't deserved it, but I would had probably never seen the light of day again if it had happened)
That was a mistake on my part. I lost control, and savagely beat up someone else way past beyond the point where they were a threat. What I should had done was hit him, disable him as a threat, then take my mom and run. Instead I smashed his head with a brick 11 times before I was shot (if the national guard hadn't used his Riot Helmet he would had died)
My point is: control your anger, because letting your rage loose ala HULK makes us less than human. Those kids were jerks, thus they deserve that others act like jerks to them. Not permanently, but for a while, so they see what it feels like. But they never physically harmed anyone, and NOBODY is entitled to physically harm them either. No matter how angry they are. If they are so angry, chill the *!@# out.
And Adamsm, sorry to burst your bubble bro, but "Violence doesn't solves anything" is wrong. A more fitting saying is "Violence doesn't solves everything". But some things can only be solved with violence unfortunately.
If a woman is being raped, the only way to pry the rapist off her is with violence, dont think he's just gonna back down. On my own example, the only way to pry off that national guard from my mom was to beat him up, if I had asked him politely to leave her alone, he'd probably taze me and continue with the beating.
This isn't a cute world, there are some situations where violence is the only option.
I said it's understandable why someone would get angry enough at the antagonists in these types of scenarios that they'd lose control and physically attack them. That does not make them bad, or neutral, or anything.
No it would NOT.
Anger is not meant to be a switch you can just flip up and down, get a hold of yourself, or you will be a sociopath.
Post by
Adamsm
As I said Rank; the only time I'll personally use violence is in the defense of someone else who is being attacked physically; I've said that a bunch of times here.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
But you are saying those people making the death threats and threats of violence against a pack of 13 year old's isn't a 'bad thing'.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
So then the whole 'Anger is justified' 'kids should get a smack' 'kids were little $%^&*!@s so they deserve it' comments are just talk then?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I don't know why I have to repeat myself, but, for the 100th freaking time, I'm not saying I or any other adult would hit the kids. And yes, I know, you shouldn't be getting angry enough to attack someone over words, but it's still, however, understandable that someone would be angered enough by witnessing someone (especially a family member or friend) being verbally abused to attack the person harassing them in response. That does not make them a terrible person, it just means they lost their cool over something that SHOULD make them angry.
Rest of what you said there; seems to me you are trying to justify the threats of violence against them.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
I don't know why I have to repeat myself, but, for the 100th freaking time, I'm not saying I or any other adult would hit the kids. .
The problem with this statement is:
It's understandable that someone would be angered enough by witnessing someone (especially a family member or friend) being verbally abused to attack the person harassing them in response. That does not make them a terrible person, it just means they lost their cool over something that SHOULD make them angry
Because in this example, its verbal abuse and physical responses ARE NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER justified, or understandable against verbal abuse.
Its not understandable, its not justified, its not cool, its not normal, and anyone who thinks otherwise its a very horrible person who really needs some therapy.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
But this thread IS about the former and IS NOT about the latter.
Someone who gets angry enough to use violence instead of words is someone who empathizes with the victim to a very high degree, not necessarily a sign of someone who is screwed up in the head.
If someone has so much empathy that they lash out physically then they would surely have enough to not want to harm another person, no? I think there is something wrong with someone so out of control.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
I am ONLY talking about seeing a person being victimized and using violence as a means to defend the person rather than being civil and asking them to stop.Verbal abuse does not justify beating someone.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.