Okay...Hitting in General

[Something Amyss]

I am, and always have been, arguing that violence, fighting and punching people is unacceptable behavior to the overwhelming majority of human population, outside of self defense. Also that this understanding is the basis on which society functions.

Except in exceptions you yourslf have tried to excuse or handwave. Which is a lot of them. You're aware this isn't true.

It's completely invalid. You can't say that fighting is accepted just because fake fighting is accepted. How can you not see that?

I can, however, say that fighting is accepted in part (rather than solely because) sanctioned fighting is accepted. That's what DoPo said and no amount of calling it fake will make it fake.

Unreasonable people doing unreasonable things is not something that's accepted in society, it's a problem needs to be dealt with.

But again, qualifying it with "unreasonable" tries to play that "no true Scotsman" card. If it's an unreasonable act, then society as a whole is not reasonable, cutting your argument off at the legs.

I have yet to see a single example, from you or from anyone, where fighting is accepted.

Except:
-Mutually agreed upon frays
-Fighting words
-Sanctioned violence
-A "boys will be boys" (which extends into adulthood) outlook

I've also pointed out where it's excused.

You can't have forgotten those things already.

Before you tell me, those aren't complete examples either, but only because I've addressed all of them to you previously. Though I think "Boys Will Be Boys" may have not been addressed to you, but piggybacking on a point made by Lieju. Still, you cannot honestly say you're yet to see an example. Unless you literally mean a single example, and the use of more than one disqualifies. But that would be silly.

"Except when they do" is not an example, and "for reasons" is not an argument or explanation.

No, it's not. It's a shorthand for the things already pointed out to you. Again, I point to the fact that your argument appears to be "nuh uh."

"For reasons" aptly describes your argument. It's not acceptable to fight, except for the examples given which don't count because ponies.

Nowhere, just as there isn't sanctioned fighting happening by two consenting adults. That's why I'm asking you to make the comparison.

I'm not sure if you're confused or outright lying. For one, you didn't ask me to do that. You asked DoPo. But saying there's no sanctioned fighting is just plain false and looks like a lie. And you can't even point to a comparison that would resemble shooting, so you know that was a dishonest example.

Meanwhile, what about guys like Phoenix Jones? Jones, one of Seattle's "real life superheroes" has used Washington State's own laws to intervene and legally fight people. Hell, he's even had his own crew record such fights. They're not self-defense, so you can't use that argument. You can't even make it about Jones personally being crazy or childish, because the fighting is done within the laws of Washington State. Washington state legally condones and accepts this sort of behaviour. Jones has seen arrest periodically, but not strictly for fighting.

And the presence of the legality of such fights is just another reason I point to your argument being "people don't accept fighting--except when we do."

No, it was from somebody else from this thread. Here, I'll dig it up for you:

Ah. I've been dealing with a lot of people who think a single example proves their argument. Though it's funny that I'm now being portrayed as though I only have a single point of argument.

 

[chikusho]

Except in exceptions you yourslf have tried to excuse or handwave. Which is a lot of them. You're aware this isn't true.

Not "tried to excuse" or "handwave", but disregard with an explanation as to why.

I can, however, say that fighting is accepted in part (rather than solely because) sanctioned fighting is accepted. That's what DoPo said and no amount of calling it fake will make it fake.

Fake fighting is sanctioned, sure! That's completely true. That has nothing to do with this discussion, though.
Sure, people can partake in some highly regulated sports that are set in controlled environments as best as they are able (not a guarantee), but this can in no way be compared to real fighting. Neither does it justify violent behavior.

But again, qualifying it with "unreasonable" tries to play that "no true Scotsman" card. If it's an unreasonable act, then society as a whole is not reasonable, cutting your argument off at the legs.

Society as a whole doesn't accept violence, which is my argument. That means, by my argument, that the majority of humanity is reasonable in this regard.

Except:
-Mutually agreed upon frays

I've already covered the fact that two people agreeing to fight is still illegal.

-Fighting words

I've already covered alternatives, how this constitutes lack of impulse control , and how provocation works within the legal system (not the way you seem to think).

-Sanctioned violence

Outside of self-defense, you're going to need to provide som examples of this. (unless you mean sports, in which case see earlier in this post)

-A "boys will be boys" (which extends into adulthood) outlook

"Boys will be boys" is literally calling the involved parties childish and unreasonable in order to excuse childish and unreasonable behavior. Which is my argument. That it is childish, unreasonable and unacceptable behavior. Maintaining a "boys will be boys" outlook is just a defeatist attitude to problematic behavior which doesn't justify anything.

I've also pointed out where it's excused.
You can't have forgotten those things already.

I've gone back through the thread and I haven't seen any such things. Please point them out to me if that's the case.

"Except when they do" is not an example, and "for reasons" is not an argument or explanation.

No, it's not. It's a shorthand for the things already pointed out to you. Again, I point to the fact that your argument appears to be "nuh uh."

You're first argument was that resorting to violence "had been refuted". How or why, I don't know. Then your argument was that "because it happens, it's accepted". After this, it was "culturally, it is" but how or why or by whom I don't know. After this, the argument was "it's accepted and justified" and "wishing it wasn't does not make it so", how or why or by whom I don't know. Then it became "Sorry, no", a reference to an unexplained "commonality" and that "people accept it, what more evidence do you need?"and also "the fact we accept it" ? how, why or by whom I still don't know.
Your argument throughout the thread has been nothing but: "we do accept it, because we accept it!"
If you've explained exactly how any of it is acceptable somewhere else, please feel free to point me in the right direction.

It's not acceptable to fight, except for the examples given which don't count because ponies.

Ponies, and the counter arguments I've given to every example presented to me so far. Counter arguments, which so far have not been addressed in the slightest.

For one, you didn't ask me to do that. You asked DoPo.

You, DoPo or anyone, it doesn't really matter, does it?

But saying there's no sanctioned fighting is just plain false and looks like a lie. And you can't even point to a comparison that would resemble shooting, so you know that was a dishonest example.

Let's see here.. Sanctioned shooting... Oh look! There's a long storied history of sanctioned shooting! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport
For more confrontative versions, let's add paintball, laser tag and war reenactment to that. Surely now shooting people must be societally acceptable!

Meanwhile, what about guys like Phoenix Jones? Jones, one of Seattle's "real life superheroes" has used Washington State's own laws to intervene and legally fight people. They're not self-defense, so you can't use that argument. You can't even make it about Jones personally being crazy or childish, because the fighting is done within the laws of Washington State. Washington state legally condones and accepts this sort of behaviour. Jones has seen arrest periodically, but not strictly for fighting.

Guys like Phoenix Jones is living proof that violence is not acceptable within society. He's part of a kind of "citizens on watch" group that's out on the street to prevent people from being hurt by violence and crime. He doesn't have free range to just jump in and punch people, but he can legally intervene in dangerous situations and defend himself if attacked.

And the presence of the legality of such fights is just another reason I point to your argument being "people don't accept fighting--except when we do."

I've always said self defense is acceptable, because next to anything is acceptable in a life or death situation.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Sorry, moral police people, beating your bully up works. Deal with it.

How about when your bully is the nephew of the vice principal of discipline, and thus gets away with everything?

Because that was my situation. Not much you can do in that situation.

 

[Sunrider]

Sorry, moral police people, beating your bully up works. Deal with it.

How about when your bully is the nephew of the vice principal of discipline, and thus gets away with everything?

Because that was my situation. Not much you can do in that situation.

I doubt that would really change anything. You're at risk of getting expelled even if they aren't the nephew of whatever authority person. The chance is obviously higher, but just rolling over and taking the abuse is far worse in my opinion.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Sorry, moral police people, beating your bully up works. Deal with it.

How about when your bully is the nephew of the vice principal of discipline, and thus gets away with everything?

Because that was my situation. Not much you can do in that situation.

I doubt that would really change anything. You're at risk of getting expelled even if they aren't the nephew of whatever authority person. The chance is obviously higher, but just rolling over and taking the abuse is far worse in my opinion.

You seem to forget that a) As a kid, you have a tendency take being expelled really really seriously (at least I did).
b) What does fighitng back only to be guaranteed to face expulsion solve, anyway? Oh wooow, you proved your toughness by fighting back....and now it's not going to matter since you're no longer around the people who would take that as a sign of "don't mess with this guy". It'd be better to just move to another school, because there's less chance of "VIOLENT, ATTACKED OTHER STUDENT WITHOUT PROVOCATION" appearing on your record when you want to go to a new school that way.

I shouldn't HAVE to deal with that kind of thing as a kid all on my lonesome.

Mind you, part of me DOES wish I'd brought a tin baseball bat to school and given him what for, no matter what the consequences would have been.

And yes, if I do have kids, they're going into martial arts as soon as they can handle it, and I'm teaching them where the "line" is, and if someone crosses it, make sure he learns to never does it again.

 

[Sunrider]

Sorry, moral police people, beating your bully up works. Deal with it.

How about when your bully is the nephew of the vice principal of discipline, and thus gets away with everything?

Because that was my situation. Not much you can do in that situation.

I doubt that would really change anything. You're at risk of getting expelled even if they aren't the nephew of whatever authority person. The chance is obviously higher, but just rolling over and taking the abuse is far worse in my opinion.

You seem to forget that a) As a kid, you have a tendency take being expelled really really seriously (at least I did).
b) What does fighitng back only to be guaranteed to face expulsion solve, anyway? Oh wooow, you proved your toughness by fighting back....and now it's not going to matter since you're no longer around the people who would take that as a sign of "don't mess with this guy". It'd be better to just move to another school, because there's less chance of "VIOLENT, ATTACKED OTHER STUDENT WITHOUT PROVOCATION" appearing on your record when you want to go to a new school that way.

I shouldn't HAVE to deal with that kind of thing as a kid all on my lonesome.

Mind you, part of me DOES wish I'd brought a tin baseball bat to school and given him what for, no matter what the consequences would have been.

And yes, if I do have kids, they're going into martial arts as soon as they can handle it, and I'm teaching them where the "line" is, and if someone crosses it, make sure he learns to never does it again.

No, I haven't forgotten anything like that. I'm simply saying that it's not worth suffering through that shit for any school, and I'd personally rather have the violence mark on whatever record than to live with some of the regret I still have to this day. You're welcome to disagree.

And no, you shouldn't. I sincerely hope you aren't implying that I somehow said something along the lines of that.

I'm glad to hear that. If I have kids, I will be doing the same.

EDIT: It's not about "Oh wooow, look at how tough I am.". It's about fucking the person who was putting you through hell. The way I see it, bullies are fair game. I don't give a fuck about their backgrounds, their "tough situations" at home or whatever. If they ruin someone else's life, their own is forfeit in my eyes.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

And no, you shouldn't. I sincerely hope you aren't implying that I somehow said something along the lines of that.

Actually I wasn't implying that.

Our conversation didn't devolve to that point, mostly because you recognize that while fighting back does in fact make you feel better overall about yourself, it's not the perfect solution.

I only go all rabid dog at people who think that bullying isn't an issue and if the victims would just "man up" then the whole thing wouldn't exist, so therefore *social darwinist crap or "hurr durr they actually want it" crap*. THAT is what sets me off and makes me foam at the mouth.

EDIT: It's not about "Oh wooow, look at how tough I am.". It's about fucking the person who was putting you through hell. The way I see it, bullies are fair game. I don't give a fuck about their backgrounds, their "tough situations" at home or whatever. If they ruin someone else's life, their own is forfeit in my eyes.

I wish I could have seen it that way as a kid.

I was gifted/cursed with an overdose of empathy (hell, I still cringe every time I see a homeless person and don't help them), so as a kid I didn't want to hurt anyone. The fact he was the VP's nephew really didn't help matters either.

I see it that way, NOW, though. I'm actually pretty vindictive when the need calls for it.

EDIT: You know, this is THE most civil disagreement I've had on this subject. congrats for making your point while also understanding and respecting the other view. Thank you.

 

[Sunrider]

And no, you shouldn't. I sincerely hope you aren't implying that I somehow said something along the lines of that.

Actually I wasn't implying that.

Our conversation didn't devolve to that point, mostly because you recognize that while fighting back does in fact make you feel better overall about yourself, it's not the perfect solution.

I only go all rabid dog at people who think that bullying isn't an issue and if the victims would just "man up" then the whole thing wouldn't exist, so therefore *social darwinist crap or "hurr durr they actually want it" crap*. THAT is what sets me off and makes me foam at the mouth.

EDIT: It's not about "Oh wooow, look at how tough I am.". It's about fucking the person who was putting you through hell. The way I see it, bullies are fair game. I don't give a fuck about their backgrounds, their "tough situations" at home or whatever. If they ruin someone else's life, their own is forfeit in my eyes.

I wish I could have seen it that way as a kid.

I was gifted/cursed with an overdose of empathy (hell, I still cringe every time I see a homeless person and don't help them), so as a kid I didn't want to hurt anyone. The fact he was the VP's nephew really didn't help matters either.

I see it that way, NOW, though. I'm actually pretty vindictive when the need calls for it.

EDIT: You know, this is THE most civil disagreement I've had on this subject. congrats for making your point while also understanding and respecting the other view. Thank you.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this post. I, too, felt that way against many of my bullies. I guess I was "lucky" enough to snap at one of them. I have many regrets from that time, one of which being the fact that I didn't snap more often, though I guess that's not really controllable, as much as I'd like it to be.

So yeah, I agree with you there as well, I didn't see it that way as a kid, and I wish I did too.

Thank you as well. I feel the same way.

 

[Something Amyss]

Not "tried to excuse" or "handwave", but disregard with an explanation as to why.

And since your explanations are "Nuh uh! Doesn't count because ponies!" that's a handwave.

Fake fighting is sanctioned, sure!

Yes. So fake that serious injury or death is a legit outcome. I guess that kills your shooting comparison, too.

Society as a whole doesn't accept violence, which is my argument.

Which is false, for all the reasons I've given.

I've already covered the fact that two people agreeing to fight is still illegal.

Except when it's not, which I've already covered. I'm using a freaking leagal term, for crying out loud.

I've already covered alternatives, how this constitutes lack of impulse control , and how provocation works within the legal system (not the way you seem to think).

And that's false, too, considering "fighting words" can cover concepts like insulting someone's sport's team publicly. If you think that's a symptom of a well-adjusted society, I don't even know what to say. If that's all that takes for a civil society to say "Well, okay, he lost control," then that's not saying much.

Outside of self-defense, you're going to need to provide som examples of this. (unless you mean sports, in which case see earlier in this post)

I already have. You pretended beating the shit out of each other is "fake." I'm not sure if you're lying or what, but I suspect you know better.

"Boys will be boys" is literally calling the involved parties childish and unreasonable in order to excuse childish and unreasonable behavior.

Yes, assuming that term is literally used. Which it's usually not. That doesn'tchange the prevalence of the attitude. Unfortunately, since you just hinged your argument on the literal term, you're not really providing an argument here. But you knew that, as I'd fully explained this before.

I've gone back through the thread and I haven't seen any such things.

"Nuh uh! Doesn't count!"

Then your argument was that "because it happens, it's accepted".

Lying again. I've already explained repeatedly how my argument is not "because it happens," but "because we accept it." And I've given numerous examples, which get met with "doesn't count!"

After this, it was "culturally, it is" but how or why or by whom I don't know.

Same people as the previous example.

Counter arguments, which so far have not been addressed in the slightest.

Except when they explicitly were, but for your benefit I've repeatesd them

You, DoPo or anyone, it doesn't really matter, does it?

When you're asking me for an answer and/or accusing me of not answering when you addressed someone else, kinda.

For more confrontative versions, let's add paintball, laser tag and war reenactment to that. Surely now shooting people must be societally acceptable!

Are you taking the piss? Seriously. You're comparing "shooting" without any ordinance (reenactment) to actually beating people?

Guys like Phoenix Jones is living proof that violence is not acceptable within society. He's part of a kind of "citizens on watch" group that's out on the street to prevent people from being hurt by violence and crime.

And he fights people. He literally fights people in a legal "mutally agreed upon fray" sense that you pretend doesn't exist because it's detrimental to your argument.

He doesn't have free range to just jump in and punch people, but he can legally intervene in dangerous situations and defend himself if attacked.

And challenge people to fights on camera. That was how much of the world was introduced to him.

I've always said self defense is acceptable, because next to anything is acceptable in a life or death situation.

Which is moot, because I'd already addressed that it wasn't self-defense. Two people agreeing to fight is not self-defense for either.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sorry, moral police people, beating your bully up works. Deal with it.

Sweet, except it nearly got me killed. Literally.

Great advice. It worked in your case, so it's a panacea.

 

[Sunrider]

Sorry, moral police people, beating your bully up works. Deal with it.

Sweet, except it nearly got me killed. Literally.

Great advice. It worked in your case, so it's a panacea.

So you most likely didn't do it right. Spare me the condescending tone.

 

[Something Amyss]

So you most likely didn't do it right. Spare me the condescending tone.

You just called people "moral police" and made a broad, inaccurate proclamation. I think you're projecting condecension on me.

Still, how does one "do it right?" You failed to mention there's a proper way to do it. You simply said it works, and derisively told people to "deal with it."

 

[Sunrider]

So you most likely didn't do it right. Spare me the condescending tone.

You just called people "moral police" and made a broad, inaccurate proclamation. I think you're projecting condecension on me.

Still, how does one "do it right?" You failed to mention there's a proper way to do it. You simply said it works, and derisively told people to "deal with it."

Gee, I wonder why I did that. Maybe it's because you basically came out of nowhere throwing a "great advice" just dripping with sarcasm at me, like it was somehow my fault that it didn't work for you.

The reason I used that term to begin with is that this forum has an abundance of people on which that description fits perfectly, saying that "violence is wrong" even when you're on the receiving end of some serious mental abuse. I say fuck that. Bullies are trash humans and they deserve no sympathy, regardless of their reasons. You don't have to agree, I honestly couldn't care less. I'm done with this topic. Don't bother replying. At least I certainly won't.

Doing it right means not hitting above your weight. If you can't take them one on one, ambush them or whatever.

 

[Something Amyss]

Gee, I wonder why I did that. Maybe it's because you basically came out of nowhere throwing a "great advice" just dripping with sarcasm at me, like it was somehow my fault that it didn't work for you.

Nope. You're inferring.

The reason I used that term to begin with is that this forum has an abundance of people on which that description fits perfectly, saying that "violence is wrong" even when you're on the receiving end of some serious mental abuse.

So basically, you went on the attack, and then complained that it was poorly received, but then defended your own attitude as being a reactionary one. That seems hypocritical.

Doing it right means not hitting above your weight. If you can't take them one on one, ambush them or whatever.

I'm 6'5" and was always larger than the other kids. I wonder what "hitting above your weight" entails in your mind, because I certainly wouldn't have defined it.

The problem is, after standing up to dicks, they got organised and did the same thing you're promoting to me. They would jump me. They would get weapons. They would get numbers. All for standing up or fighting back. Now, please, tell me exactly what I did wrong. I'm not a fan of victim blaming, but I'm sure it's different in your case.

 

[chikusho]

And since your explanations are "Nuh uh! Doesn't count because ponies!" that's a handwave.

Yet, somehow you can't seem to refute them? Not really coming from a solid base there.

Yes. So fake that serious injury or death is a legit outcome. I guess that kills your shooting comparison, too.

Rather, serious injury or death is an outcome everyone is working actively to prevent in every scenario. Like with a referee being in the ring to break things up when there's danger of serious injury or rules are broken, constant training by all participants on how to not get hurt, protective gear, regular medical check-ups, suspension from fighting when you have cuts, serious bruises or other injuries and life-time bans for those who use illegal moves.
You want to know what other sport also has serious injuries and death? Every sport. From football, to baseball, to skiing, to canooing, to cricket. Hell, even cheer leading has more serious injuries and death than any fighting sport.

Which is false, for all the reasons I've given.

What reason is that again?

Except when it's not, which I've already covered. I'm using a freaking leagal term, for crying out loud.

Alright, let's talk about "mutual combat" because I assume that is what you're getting at.
First of all, this law is a relic from a past age that doesn't exist in any meaningful way today. Nowadays, it's only used to allow for fighting sports, like boxing clubs and UFC etc. There are fringe cases where this law exists within its original form within I believe one or two states. But even in those states, the law is designed in such a way that if someone gets an serious injury or someone uses an illegal move it's null and void.
And even in these states, just because a law is in the books does not mean that it's enforced. Let me remind you that Mississipi had laws that made slavery technically legal until 1995. I don't think that meant you could keep a person chained up by a sowing machine in the basement.
Finally, even if the law worked as intended, there are numerous other laws you are breaking when fighting someone. It's illegal to fight in public for one thing, so the law only means that the two people involved can't press charges. Then there's things like disorderly conduct or causing a public disturbance, etc.
So, no, that doesn't hold up.

And that's false, too, considering "fighting words" can cover concepts like insulting someone's sport's team publicly. If you think that's a symptom of a well-adjusted society, I don't even know what to say. If that's all that takes for a civil society to say "Well, okay, he lost control," then that's not saying much.

That's not a symptom of a well adjusted society, but the condemnation of it is. Which is in full effect both in law and in public opinion.

If not, please explain to me exactly how punching someone for liking different sports is a reasonable, well thought out and justifiable act.

I already have. You pretended beating the shit out of each other is "fake." I'm not sure if you're lying or what, but I suspect you know better.

For sports, see above.

Yes, assuming that term is literally used. Which it's usually not. That doesn'tchange the prevalence of the attitude. Unfortunately, since you just hinged your argument on the literal term, you're not really providing an argument here. But you knew that, as I'd fully explained this before.

Here's what you've said about "boys will be boys"
"Hell, more than one of the cultures represented here on the Escapist have a "boys will be boys" attitude towards violence that extends into adulthood."
This is basically: "Hey, this exists!" which doesn't explain how the term is used. So please, do tell.
Also, tell me what the correct terminology is, if the one you used is wrong.

"Nuh uh! Doesn't count!"

I asked you several times in my last post to show me where these examples are. And instead of just repeating "fighting words" again, please explain to me how punching someone for one of those is a well thought out, reasoned and justifiable act.

Lying again. I've already explained repeatedly how my argument is not "because it happens," but "because we accept it." And I've given numerous examples, which get met with "doesn't count!"

You've given problematic examples which do not prove your argument. I've refuted your examples, and explained in detail why they don't work. Then you have simply said that my argument is "doesn't count" without providing any reasons as to why. Very constructive.

Counter arguments, which so far have not been addressed in the slightest.

Except when they explicitly were, but for your benefit I've repeated them

Aaaand... these are where, exactly?

Are you taking the piss? Seriously. You're comparing "shooting" without any ordinance (reenactment) to actually beating people?

Yeah, that's my reaction.
Are you taking the piss? Seriously. You're comparing fighting without any ordinance to sports, and fiction?

And he fights people. He literally fights people in a legal "mutally agreed upon fray" sense that you pretend doesn't exist because it's detrimental to your argument.

See above.

And challenge people to fights on camera. That was how much of the world was introduced to him.

He intervenes to stop immediately dangerous situations while one of his friends call the cops and video tape for evidence in case of legal ramifications.
Still, his existence is due to the fact that violence is unacceptable, which you pretend isn't the case because it's detrimental to your argument.

Which is moot, because I'd already addressed that it wasn't self-defense. Two people agreeing to fight is not self-defense for either.

Which wasn't self defense?
Also, see above.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yet, somehow you can't seem to refute them? Not really coming from a solid base there.

Claiming I haven't refuted it is part of the "nuh uh" argument.

Rather, serious injury or death is an outcome everyone is working actively to prevent in every scenario.

A false distinction, given that it's still a fight.

You want to know what other sport also has serious injuries and death? Every sport.

And canoeing and MMA are comparable because both involve trying to choke each other out. I forgot that.

What reason is that again?

Re-read my posts. Or just stop playing this game. Either way.

First of all, this law is a relic from a past age that doesn't exist in any meaningful way today.

False, and already covered.

Nowadays, it's only used to allow for fighting sports, like boxing clubs and UFC etc.

False, and already covered.

Let me remind you that Mississipi had laws that made slavery technically legal until 1995. I don't think that meant you could keep a person chained up by a sowing machine in the basement.

Which is disingenuous, as slavery was unconstitutional at that point. Those laws were void. Mutual combat laws and the concept of mutually agreed upon frays are still llegal and the laws are still enforced.

Finally, even if the law worked as intended, there are numerous other laws you are breaking when fighting someone.

Except this law is how they get off, so that's also incorrect.

That's not a symptom of a well adjusted society, but the condemnation of it is. Which is in full effect both in law and in public opinion.

It's not condemned, it's accepted. Hell, fans are expected to riot over sports teams. Sounds like we're not a well-adjusted society. And so are a lot of other countries, then. Which makes your argument meaningless.

If not, please explain to me exactly how punching someone for liking different sports is a reasonable, well thought out and justifiable act.

Explain how it's an acceptable loss of control in a reasonable society. That was the argument.

This is basically: "Hey, this exists!"

And is condoned. And is accepted. And is excused.

Which doesn't hurt my argument.

You've given problematic examples which do not prove your argument.

Rather, these are inconvenient to you.

Are you taking the piss? Seriously. You're comparing fighting without any ordinance to sports, and fiction?

Do you not understand what ordinance is? Fists aren't blanks. When you choke someone, they actually lose oxygen to their brain. When you shoot blanks in a reenactment, no bullet is fired. Punches don't disappear because they're in an MMA ring.

So does your answer mean you are taking the piss?

See above.

Still not true.

He intervenes to stop immediately dangerous situations while one of his friends call the cops and video tape for evidence in case of legal ramifications.

And challenges people to fight. On camera.

Still, his existence is due to the fact that violence is unacceptable, which you pretend isn't the case because it's detrimental to your argument.

His existence is because crime is unacceptable. He uses acceptable violence to fight crime.

Which wasn't self defense?

Waitm, if two people agree to fight, who is defending themselves?

Come now.

 

[chikusho]

Claiming I haven't refuted it is part of the "nuh uh" argument.

Feel free to refer me to the posts where you're refuting my arguments, because I sure haven't seen them. I honestly have no idea what you're getting at.

Rather, serious injury or death is an outcome everyone is working actively to prevent in every scenario.

A false distinction, given that it's still a fight.

Rather, a highly relevant distinction that points out why sports is completely and entirely unrelated to the violence which is discussed in this thread.

Re-read my posts. Or just stop playing this game. Either way.

I have, I honestly don't know what you are referring to. Feel free to show me.

First of all, this law is a relic from a past age that doesn't exist in any meaningful way today.

False, and already covered.

Nowadays, it's only used to allow for fighting sports, like boxing clubs and UFC etc.

False, and already covered.

Covered where, and by what? All I've seen is you repeating the word "mutually agreed upon fray" over and over again.

Which is disingenuous, as slavery was unconstitutional at that point. Those laws were void. Mutual combat laws and the concept of mutually agreed upon frays are still llegal and the laws are still enforced.

I'm pretty sure the legal status of assault is about the same throughout all of America.

Finally, even if the law worked as intended, there are numerous other laws you are breaking when fighting someone.

Except this law is how they get off, so that's also incorrect.

Not true. Getting out of an assault charge, or being unable to sue for assault, is not the same as being immune to other laws that regulate that specific activity.
The mutual combat law you're talking about, if it would be recognized at all, means two things. First, if two people agree to fight on equal terms, both and neither of them can be identified as an aggressor and thus you can't try them for assault. And 2, if death is a result of the fight, the charge comes to manslaughter rather than murder.

That's not a symptom of a well adjusted society, but the condemnation of it is. Which is in full effect both in law and in public opinion.

It's not condemned, it's accepted.

Again, by whom?

Hell, fans are expected to riot over sports teams. Sounds like we're not a well-adjusted society. And so are a lot of other countries, then. Which makes your argument meaningless.

And fan riots are condemned. Which is perfectly in line with my point.

Explain how it's an acceptable loss of control in a reasonable society. That was the argument.

But it isn't an acceptable loss of control within a reasonable society, so that would be impossible to explain.

And is condoned. And is accepted. And is excused.

And is avoiding the question I posed, and is repeating the same statements without any kind of qualifying explanations or arguments.

You've given problematic examples which do not prove your argument.

Rather, these are inconvenient to you.

Yeah, it's very inconvenient when people try to shine up irrelevant things to gain points in a discussion. It's even more inconvenient when the explanations as to why the examples have nothing to do with the actual subject are ignored.

Are you taking the piss? Seriously. You're comparing fighting without any ordinance to sports, and fiction?

Do you not understand what ordinance is? Fists aren't blanks. When you choke someone, they actually lose oxygen to their brain. When you shoot blanks in a reenactment, no bullet is fired. Punches don't disappear because they're in an MMA ring.
So does your answer mean you are taking the piss? [/quote]

My answer is that it's silly to bring up sports and fiction in a discussion about fighting, for a long list of reasons which I've already explained to you.

Just as silly as it is to bring up sports and fiction in a discussion about shooting. You seem to get this one, so the main point shouldn't be so hard to understand.

And, actually, punches do disappear in MMA rings all the time. For instance, before and after a little bell rings to signal when they can start competing.

His existence is because crime is unacceptable.

And fighting is a crime, because it's unacceptable behavior.

He uses acceptable violence to fight crime.

Yeah, self defense is acceptable, but we've been over this.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, self defense is acceptable, but we've been over this.

Except he's picking fights with people and using "mutual combat" laws to justify it, so self-defense is irrelevant. Why this dishonesty? You know better because I've been over this before.

 

[chikusho]

Yeah, self defense is acceptable, but we've been over this.

Except he's picking fights with people and using "mutual combat" laws to justify it, so self-defense is irrelevant. Why this dishonesty? You know better because I've been over this before.

Yeah, and one fringe case where one guy is using one exception of one law that covers one aspect of fighting which exists in one state in one country, that is still written with huge and specific limitations on implementation post altercation, and also is unknown by the overwhelming majority of civilization, is just too insignificant and abstract to be relevant, or even considered a valid argument, or hardly even a philosophical consideration, in the subject for this discussion.

 

[Tentacular Timelord]

Wait...somebody else? Didn't you just say "you better provoke the other party into attacking"? That doesn't seem like "somebody else" trying to start a conflict - this does seem like you yourself.

I never said the fight was the start of a conflict. Not every objectionable or aggressive act is physically violent. If I were to hurt somebody they would of had to have taken some manner of act that I found morally reprehensible or aggressive.

By provoking them into a fight? Geez, that's a big "if" there.

This whole thing is an "If". That's hypothetical situations work. I have already said that I would not take a violent action unless I believed the person in question deserved it.

And you have SO MUCH to gain. Like...yeah - all that stuff. And that other thing. By punching people in the face and being punched back. Right. OK.

You might not get anything out of a fight, that doesn't mean I don't. In my opinion, if somebody is being an ass it's worth getting roughed up a bit to put them int heir place. Obviously I'm not gonna start a fight with somebody if I think their going to severely injure me.

Ah, sorry, I'm still new to this binary brain stuff in debates - I keep imagining that apparently nonexistent gulf between "fight no matter the circumstances" and "avoid fighting no matter the circumstances". I imagined there was a middleground around there but...my apologies for having stupid analogue delusions. You are right - since all situations are either fight or flight, you must always fight.

Speaking of binary divides and wild assumptions, I never suggested I would "Fight no matter what". I have already said I would not be violent towards anyone unless they had somehow provoked it AND if I thought I could get away with it. I specifically outlined a situation in which I would suffer little to no consequence outside of the fight itself. Doesn't that basically define middle ground? If I am unwilling to fight even if I believe the other person deserves it, even if I will not suffer legal ramifications, if I am only willing to be violent if my life is threatened, how is that remotely in the "Middle ground"? That's as extreme as you get without being a total pacifist.

My favourite bit of your post is where you say you would (well would not but that translates as such) take a violent action if you believed the person in question deserved it but later say that you wouldn't start a fight if you thought you might be seriously (severely) injured.

So at that point it's less a question of morality and more a question of who can I punch who is weaker than I am so I feel better about myself?