OmegaXzors said:
I'm not trying to argue - at all. I'm just saying there's really no need to call out for "immaturity" over a matter that gets taken differently by many people.
The "immaturity" I was referring to was referring to all the hate, rage, empty threats and name calling. All the emphasis on "respect", a concept I doubt most people even know the meaning off, and "knowing your place"...etc. There's no need for all of that. Everybody does everything for the same fundamental reason: because it looked like the best thing to do at the time. "Respect" and "places" are earned, not given.
Threats are stupid and objectively useless 99% of the time, as is getting angry and flailing your arms around demanding respect. That's what kids do.
OmegaXzors said:
"Choke-slamming" an individual isn't mature at all. In fact, I've been in moments like yours before and I still don't act. In fact, your whole post was very arrogant.
Why? There's the misconception that violence never solves anything. That's incorrect. I'm always reminded of that one quote by one comedian (don't remember who): "Yeah, you can stand there and tell me violence never solves anything, but a baseball bat to the knee caps later and you'll agree with me really damn fast...". Violence solves a lot of issues, just look at history! The issue with violence is using it properly, and dealing with the consequences. Everything has consequences. Violence, non-violence. You can't even say one is ALWAYS better. Pro-social conflict management tends to be more beneficial, but only if both parties are willing to cooperate. Sometimes they're not, and then violence or submission are the only solutions. Both have equally drastic consequences, so it's a matter of which consequences you prefer.
If you don't act while under physical attack, personally I think you're an idiot, and natural selection would tend to agree, but likewise you probably think I'm an idiot for fighting back. I'm not arguing which is better, merely that both are valid.
OmegaXzors said:
What the fuck is this shit? Are you for real? You're trying to correct other's actions while stating how much of a "bad-ass" you were in doing said action. I fail to see your logic. You're like the parent who tells their kid not to get into the habit of smoking, then turns to go outside and light up a cigarette.
Not trying to be a "bad ass". If I was trying to be a "bad ass" I would have kicked him half to death in a place everyone could see the moment he opened his mouth. I was happily ignoring him, despite having a friend egging me on to go turn his ass into several kinds of pudding. Once he attacked me, he gave me no choice. Even then I used only the force I deemed necessary to get him to piss off, and FYI there was nobody else but my friend around.
A great friend of mine once said something I still hold as a guiding principle in life: "Never start a fight. But if you're forced into one, make sure you end it". It's brilliant in it's simplicity and summarization. You shouldn't ever start a conflict, in fact if you can avoid them, even better. If you can't, then have no mercy. If someone is willing to start shit, they don't deserve mercy.
Geo Da Sponge said:
Oh, sorry for writing a paragraph about why this stuff happens, I thought that you were one of those preachy types who thinks that the kids don't deserve it. Although your method of dealing with them seems to have a lot in common with how psychopaths work. Cold, emotionless, uncaring, but when they push you too far it all goes wrong for them.
I like it.
I don't think psychopathy has anything to do with this though. I'm fairly objective about this kind of thing: If you can reason with someone, it's almost always the best option. If you can't, then apply force as necessary. While they're just words they're meaningless unless you give them power (i.e.: by getting angry, throwing a fit, etc), if they compromise my physical integrity, then I'll stop them by any means necessary.
All actions have consequences.