Okay...Hitting in General

[Lieju]

You should rephrase the questions to: "Would you do an unreasonable thing if you were an unreasonable person?"

But then, that's still a big thing in our culture. Saying someone's mom is a whore is a good way to get clocked. So while the idea may be stupid, it's definitely relevant to society at large.

And clocking someone for that reason is still a contemptible act. Which can be explained away 'til kingdom come, but never be justified. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

It's not that it's justified, it's that these kinds of actions don't happen just for no reason.

It's very easy to preach pacifism when you don't have to resort to violence, is what I'm getting at.
And we should try working towards that kind of situation for as many people as possible, is my other point.

You should rephrase the questions to: "Would you do an unreasonable thing if you were an unreasonable person?"

The point is that in a modern society, there's no justifiable reason for punching anyone. Today, people should know better than believing that all black people are rapists. People should be in a social climate where fighting isn't a sign of "status" or "honor". Telling people "Don't do it", and enforcing that by law, is highlighting the fact that society doesn't accept that kind of behaviour.

Whan you're already in a state where you attack people for stupid reasons it doesn't matter how you got there as long as it ends.

Except that this thread was started by the OP declaring that the way he was raised, you had to punch someone if they insulted you to keep them in check, presumably because no-one else would do this, and because being embarassed like that would lead to a loss of social status.

Hey, if you weren't raised with the belief that all black men are rapists, great. But it doesn't mean that kind of belief doesn't still live, and more importantly, wasn't more prevalent in the past, which was my point.

And I have seen shit like that in the present.

People acting threatening towards different ethnicities, because they're scared of them, gay people being attacked because the people thought it was justified, a husband beating his wife, the wife leaving him, and people blaming her for it because she should have just acted like a good wife and stayed in that situation with her child to keep the family together.

And I never said we shouldn't actively try stopping violence that is already happening, and condemning it.

But my point is that we should try to understand why violence happens and try to prevent it.

 

[Karadalis]

I can only agree with the people that say that beating up your bully works.

Heck in most cases you dont really need to "beat them up"... sometimes even showing that youre willing to engage them physically might do the trick.

I too speak from personal experience. Guy two school years above me was harassing me whenever he got the chance, verbally and physically.

Till one day i had enough, grabbed the bastard and threw him to the ground. Ofcourse right after that he was all big talk that he would beat me up after school.

After school he tried to intimidate me again but i would have none of it anymore and was pretty much "come at me bro!" and lo and behold douchy mcbully suddenly wasnt all that ready to engage me in fisticuffs anymore.

Same with another bully.. thought this one was weird.. his goal was really to throw down with me for some odd reason. And once i had done that he left me alone

To this day i cant wrap my head around that last bully of mine during school, especialy how it all went down. We beat on each other for a couple of minutes and suddenly he stops and says "Okay.. why not like that from the beginning" and turned away... leaving me standing surrounded by the typical crowd of onlookers looking really lost.

The last year of school suddenly became a breeze with no one bothering me anymore.

So in my personal experience, standing on the moral highground of saying "violence is wrong no matter the circumstances" is just an convienient excuse for those who never experienced being on the short end of the stick.

Pacifism doesnt work if the opposite doesnt care.

 

[Do4600]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." If you use violence you can only expect it back, a gun is a fine weapon but it can point both ways.

Also in all situations that don't involve self defense you are automatically in the wrong and will go to prison, so have fun with that.

 

[Karadalis]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." If you use violence you can only expect it back, a gun is a fine weapon but it can point both ways.

Also in all situations that don't involve self defense you are automatically in the wrong and will go to prison, so have fun with that.

"Morale highground is the viewpoint of the priviliged" because morale platitudes wont help those suffering, and those who violate said morals couldnt care less about them.

It is this system that even allows bullys to exist in the first place. Someone who takes pleasure from the suffering of others will not ask himselfe if what hes doing is right or wrong.

Furthermore if you punch a bully in the face it will hurt him for a while.

If you try to ignore him he might drive someone to suicide, examples you can find across the net aplenty.

I know wich scenario i prefer.

As for your little "self defence" point. Violence is Violence no matter if psychologically or physically. If a bully is trying to psychologically destroy a person then that person has all the right in the world to retaliate, physically if necesary.

Bullies can and have killed people in the past by driving them to suicide without ever having to take responsibility, and i dont care for the well being of people who ignore the fact that what they do to their victims could possible lead to their death.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Exactly what it said on the tin:

The point is that in a modern society, there's no justifiable reason for punching anyone.

That not being true in any meaningful sense. There's plenty of reasons, whether or not you happen to agree with them.

Hey, if you weren't raised with the belief that all black men are rapists, great. But it doesn't mean that kind of belief doesn't still live, and more importantly, wasn't more prevalent in the past, which was my point.

I'd also add that in the US, "black people are scary" is still a prevalent issue. Maybe not that they're rapists, but that they're thugs, and gangbangers, and drug dealers, and angry, and can't control themselves, and eat with their hands, and if you make eye contact with them they will kill you. All things still common in the American collective unconscious.

 

[BoogieManFL]

I am completely unapologetic about the fact that one of the proudest moments of my teenage years was when I punched the school bully in the face.

The guy was a complete and utter douche, and he constantly picked on pretty much everyone. With girls (myself included) he limited himself to verbal insults due to the "never hit a woman" mentality discussed in the other thread. I was generally not bothered by it and was able to shrug off his attempts to get under my skin, but this one friend I had (absolutely tiny, quiet, slightly timid girl) made the mistake of showing a reaction, and he just made every class a misery for her from then on, figuring out exactly what to say for maximum impact and regularly reducing her to tears purely for the lols.

One time outside class, after this had been going on for a while and he had proven unresponsive to verbal interventions (obviously), he was bullying my friend particularly harshly and just would not let up. So I punched him in the face. Hard. It was glorious. There was a brief fight. I won. And that one fight achieved what months of "doing the right thing" never managed: he left me and my friends alone after that.

I know it'll be an unpopular opinion, but I honestly do believe there are situations where a fistfight can be a perfectly good solution. I'm obviously not talking about fights between wildly unequal parties, nor about randomly attacking strangers in the street, or beating the crap out of someone who has no intention of fighting back, but there are times when it works. A lot of people here seem to be reluctant to admit it, but there are times when both parties come into a fight "willingly" (for lack of a better word). The couple of fights I had as a teenager were like that.

Something similar happened to me when I was in 6th grade, and an 8th grader picked on me in the hallway. My dad and brother told me to stand up for myself, most bullies are all talk. My brother especially encouraged me to defend myself. He said he just knuckled under and let to bullies get the best of him and let it go. He said it was a bad decision that he regretted because it made them do it even more.

I probably could have walked away. But he pushed me and my head hit the wall quite hard, and in that moment I felt a flash of primal rage and defiance and just let loose. I'm not going to give anyone a reason to give me more shit by making them think I'm an easy target. 2 punches later the guy was doubled over clutching his face. Me and my friends were never bothered again and I got a lot more respect from my classmates. Months later I saw him at the mall. He just looked at me briefly, but didn't try a thing. I imagine he was less likely to pick on other people after that, so I hope I helped others in some way as well.


In general I am a very gentle and peaceful person, the kind who doesn't want to smash bugs and all that stuff. But sometimes, fighting is the right thing to do. Just don't seek it out. That's why I took 3 years of Karate after I was an adult. So I'd be more prepared should such a situation occur again.

 

[Do4600]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." If you use violence you can only expect it back, a gun is a fine weapon but it can point both ways.

Also in all situations that don't involve self defense you are automatically in the wrong and will go to prison, so have fun with that.

"Morale highground is the viewpoint of the priviliged" because morale platitudes wont help those suffering, and those who violate said morals couldnt care less about them.

It is this system that even allows bullys to exist in the first place. Someone who takes pleasure from the suffering of others will not ask himselfe if what hes doing is right or wrong.

Furthermore if you punch a bully in the face it will hurt him for a while.

If you try to ignore him he might drive someone to suicide, examples you can find across the net aplenty.

I know wich scenario i prefer.

As for your little "self defence" point. Violence is Violence no matter if psychologically or physically. If a bully is trying to psychologically destroy a person then that person has all the right in the world to retaliate, physically if necesary.

Bullies can and have killed people in the past by driving them to suicide without ever having to take responsibility, and i dont care for the well being of people who ignore the fact that what they do to their victims could possible lead to their death.

Nobody has ever made anybody commit suicide, even Socrates had a choice. Suicide is almost always a fatal case of shortsightedness and if a person believes they have two options, violence or suicide, then they have far greater problems than any one bully could ever provide.

 

[chikusho]

It's very easy to preach pacifism when you don't have to resort to violence, is what I'm getting at.
And we should try working towards that kind of situation for as many people as possible, is my other point.

And there's no reason to have to resort to violence, is what I'm getting at.

That not being true in any meaningful sense. There's plenty of reasons, whether or not you happen to agree with them.

Correction, there's plenty of excuses, none of them being justifiable.

 

[Lieju]

It's very easy to preach pacifism when you don't have to resort to violence, is what I'm getting at.
And we should try working towards that kind of situation for as many people as possible, is my other point.

And there's no reason to have to resort to violence, is what I'm getting at.

That not being true in any meaningful sense. There's plenty of reasons, whether or not you happen to agree with them.

Correction, there's plenty of excuses, none of them being justifiable.

People sure think often enough that it is justifiable and that they have reasons.

Just saying 'that's wrong and you shouldn't resort to violence' is all nice and well, but it isn't particularly helpful in preventing such things.

I have had to resort to violence once, against a guy who sexually harassed me in high school.
I felt like shit afterwards and it didn't help in the long run, but at that moment it felt like the only option.

But I think it could have been prevented in the first place, if the school and society would have condemned his behaviour.

My great-grandfather had to kill people in a war.

He could have deserted, I suppose, and risked death. And he probably feared that his family and his country would have been in danger if he didn't do as he was told.

 

[chikusho]

People sure think often enough that it is justifiable and that they have reasons.

Just saying 'that's wrong and you shouldn't resort to violence' is all nice and well, but it isn't particularly helpful in preventing such things.

I have had to resort to violence once, against a guy who sexually harassed me in high school.
I felt like shit afterwards and it didn't help in the long run, but at that moment it felt like the only option.

But I think it could have been prevented in the first place, if the school and society would have condemned his behaviour.

By that logic, the guy who sexually harassed you in high school probably thought it was justifiable and that he had his reasons. That still doesn't make it defensible in any way.

Noone says that we should disencourage violence (or any such thing) simply by saying "that's wrong and you shouldn't resort to violence", but it's a big part of society condemning that behaviour.

 

[Something Amyss]

And there's no reason to have to resort to violence, is what I'm getting at.

Which has already been refuted, so I don't see your point. You were touching on cultural underpinnings, which are the exact reason there's an issue here in the first place, then when someone addressed them, your response became "what's your point?" You've even been given counter-examples.

Correction, there's plenty of excuses, none of them being justifiable.

Only if your definition of "excuse" is "reason I don't like." Since that appears to be the case, I'm not sure what headway can be made here.

Indeed....

People sure think often enough that it is justifiable and that they have reasons.

And when you have a cultural mindset that says so, the response of "nuh uh" doesn't work.

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. That attitude has nearly killed me a couple of times and got me stabbed once.

It's not an excuse because I'm not saying it's okay. I'm not asking anyone to excuse the actions. I am looking at the underpinnings of why it happens. You know, the reason behind it.

 

[Something Amyss]

By that logic, the guy who sexually harassed you in high school probably thought it was justifiable and that he had his reasons. .

Actually, yes, he probably did. That's part of the problem.

That still doesn't make it defensible in any way.

And?

 

[Tom_green_day]

Firstly, when I was a kid no-one said 'leave me alone' as a retort. It's the thing that you only hear in American high-school dramas.
OT: Take this as you will but I think from most people's attitudes I could make a good judgement as to their nationality or country of upbringing. In the three schools I attended, it was a normal response to an insult to give an even better insult or if you couldn't, just sock 'em.

 

[chikusho]

By that logic, the guy who sexually harassed you in high school probably thought it was justifiable and that he had his reasons. .

Actually, yes, he probably did. That's part of the problem.

That still doesn't make it defensible in any way.

And?

And... that's the subject of this thread? That violence, fighting and hitting people isn't a justifiable or defensible act in any situation outside of self defense.

Which has already been refuted, so I don't see your point. You were touching on cultural underpinnings, which are the exact reason there's an issue here in the first place, then when someone addressed them, your response became "what's your point?" You've even been given counter-examples.

Not in this thread it hasn't. In fact, I can't remember seeing a single example of a situation that isn't self defense where any kind of violence was justified.
"Cultural underpinnings" doesn't change the fact that a violent response is a wrongful response. When I commented on those examples I explained why they are poor examples and why saying "don't do it" is still a big part of preventing violence.

Correction, there's plenty of excuses, none of them being justifiable.

Only if your definition of "excuse" is "reason I don't like." Since that appears to be the case, I'm not sure what headway can be made here.

Indeed....

By "excuse" I mean "reason that isn't justifiable".

 

[Dismal purple]

I believe a good shove is completely justifiable as a way to communicate your boundaries. I'm not obliged to engage in a "debate" with someone who just decided they hate my guts.

People in honor cultures are way too sensitive, though. Gosh darn.

 

[Something Amyss]

And... that's the subject of this thread? That violence, fighting and hitting people isn't a justifiable or defensible act in any situation outside of self defense.

Yet culturally, it is. You can keep making excuses and justifications for how it's wrong and there's no excuse, but I've already explained how that doesn't jive with reality. Other people have, too.

 

[chikusho]

And... that's the subject of this thread? That violence, fighting and hitting people isn't a justifiable or defensible act in any situation outside of self defense.

Yet culturally, it is. You can keep making excuses and justifications for how it's wrong and there's no excuse, but I've already explained how that doesn't jive with reality. Other people have, too.

Yet, culturally it is not. There are laws against assault in every country on this earth, so culturally, humanity has pretty much agreed that violence and fighting is wrong. I think that jives pretty well with reality.

Also, if there still exist cultures whithin the modern world where violence is considered a valid response, then that's precisely the kind of cultural variation that we need to constantly condemn. First by outlawing it (mission accomplished) and also by reinforcing the message that violence is always wrong.

This is what your argument sounds like to me:

Humanity: Fighting is wrong!
Zachary: Hey! This guy over here thinks it's ok to punch people.
Humanity: Oh.. I guess fighting is fine then.

 

[sumanoskae]

I'd say you're better off manipulating and talking your way into a superior position. If it comes to blows and they deserve it, fine. But it's not worth the legal trouble just to get the first hit in. You don't really achieve anything tangible by getting into a fight.

Here's a better strategy: leave.
If you have the time to start "manipulating and talking your way to a superior position" you can just as easily leave and get help, or just leave and not return. Fight averted, everyone wins.

Why should I have to leave? If somebody else as endeavored to start a conflict, if I'm in the right, why should I just walk away when I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to lose?

Like I said, it's generally not smart to start a fight, but that doesn't mean you have to avoid one no matter the circumstances.

Well, first, how do you know you are in the right? The other person is quite likely just as convinced that he's in the right. If a fight breaks out you'll still both be equally convinced of your positions. Only now there's much more anger, hate, pain, stress and possibly physical injury in the world. You might feel better from winning at violence, but the kind of people who get pleasure from hurting other people are really not the ones we should embrace or encourage as a society.

Second, you should avoid it because you're mature enough to not get triggered into a physical conflict over some bullshit. Leave the offending party to his delusions rather than achieving nothing by hurting him over it.

Also, maybe because you're smart enough to know that whatever it is, it isn't worth the risk of escalation. That something which could be solved by just leaving turns into a fight, which could turn into injury, death and prison.

Saying that someone deserves a punch to the face might be true in a figurative sense. It still isn't justifiable to do it. Maybe you can explain why you had done something like that, but the only cases where people get off from assault are under circumstances where he can't be legally responsible for his actions. And at that point he still might get stuck with a punishment, because the kind of people who flip out and attack people when provoked are not the kind of people we should embrace or encourage as a society.

So, in essence, leaving is usually the best option. Hell, in self defense situations you should always work towards getting out of it and as far away from the aggressor as possible. Because at the end of the day, it's not worth it to fight.

You did read my original comment, right? I specifically said that starting a fight is generally a bad idea.

Never once did I suggest risking legal trouble for the sake of fighting. What I said is that fighting can get you in a lot of trouble, that some people deserve to get their asses kicked, and that I would be willing to fight for that reason if the other person struck first or I had some other equally viable assurance that I would not go to prison.

As for the issue of maturity, I would not call it mature to avoid violence for the sake of avoiding violence. To prevent legal trouble or injury? Sure, that's just good sense. But wanting to hit somebody because they deserve it is totally normal.

You understand that "Justifiable" is a moral term, correct? It doesn't mean an action is defensible within the court or pragmatic. Hitting people is illegal, yes, but that doesn't mean certain people don't deserve to get hit, and yes, sometimes it really is just that simple. If I never acted based on the opinion that I was in the right, I could by definition never behave ethically; all morality is subjective. People getting what they deserve is the definition of justice.

 

[sumanoskae]

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.

 

[chikusho]

You did read my original comment, right? I specifically said that starting a fight is generally a bad idea.

Yes, I chose to reply to the parts that didn't make sense to me.

Never once did I suggest risking legal trouble for the sake of fighting. What I said is that fighting can get you in a lot of trouble, that some people deserve to get their asses kicked, and that I would be willing to fight for that reason if the other person struck first or I had some other equally viable assurance that I would not go to prison.
...
You understand that "Justifiable" is a moral term, correct? It doesn't mean an action is defensible within the court or pragmatic. Hitting people is illegal, yes, but that doesn't mean certain people don't deserve to get hit, and yes, sometimes it really is just that simple.
People getting what they deserve is the definition of justice.

And how is it that some people deserve to get "hit", or "their asses kicked"? And what is it that makes hitting someone such an efficient and morally justifiable punishment for whatever transgression?

And before you answer; why do you think it isn't already administered as a punishment within the current justice system? If this is a punishment that is truly deserved, how come we view societies with corporal punishment as barbaric and cruel?

If I never acted based on the opinion that I was in the right, I could by definition never behave ethically; all morality is subjective.

Well, only personal morality is subjective. My point is that a portion of seld doubt could be one of the healthiest qualities a person can possess. Especially when you're about to hurt someone for no reason other than to satisfy a problematic urge.

As for the issue of maturity, I would not call it mature to avoid violence for the sake of avoiding violence. To prevent legal trouble or injury? Sure, that's just good sense. But wanting to hit somebody because they deserve it is totally normal.

People want to do a lot of things that are totally normal. But reasonable people don't, because any adult would understand why it's a bad idea. I'ts totally normal to want to pick at a wound after surgery for instancde. The inability to resist impulses is behavior associated with children. The total lack of impulse control is considered a disorder. So that argument doesn't hold up.