Okay...Hitting in General

[Something Amyss]

[

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.

Except people won't serve time, we have exceptions for mutually agreed upon frays, fighting words, etc. Exactly the sort of thing you're pretending is unacceptable.

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.

Perhaps you should try listening, then, instead of making things up and then trying to scold me for not following those made-up rules.

It has nothing to do with what I accept, as much as I'd like to have that kind of authority. On the flipside, continuing to pretend this shit doesn't happen every day in those countries you're talking about doesn't make it not happen. In reality, it does. And it's accepted and even justified by our populations. one could even say "excuse." I'm sorry, but wishing it were otherwise does not make it so.

 

[chikusho]

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.

Except people won't serve time, we have exceptions for mutually agreed upon frays, fighting words, etc. Exactly the sort of thing you're pretending is unacceptable.

Except people will serve time. You're talking about provocation. Provocation is only used for the assaulter to be punished a little less due to his victim also being in the wrong.

In these cases it's used to show why the accused "lost control". And, as I've already explained, not being able to control your impulses is what children and mentally ill people do.

Also, no. It doesn't matter if two people just agree to fight, those acts are still illegal in most countries. Anything else would be insane.

On the flipside, continuing to pretend this shit doesn't happen every day in those countries you're talking about doesn't make it not happen. In reality, it does. And it's accepted and even justified by our populations. one could even say "excuse." I'm sorry, but wishing it were otherwise does not make it so.

On the flipside, continuing to pretend that this shit is acceptable just because it happens every day doesn't make it so. I'm sorry, but wishing it were otherwise does not make it so.

 

[Something Amyss]

Except people will serve time.

In some instances, which in no way negates the rest of it. Sorry.

You're talking about provocation.

So it's okay to hit someone if they say bad words to you.

Thank you for proving my point. It's not okay to hit people, except when it is.

Provocation is only used for the assaulter to be punished a little less due to his victim also being in the wrong.

In these cases it's used to show why the accused "lost control".

Sorry, no\.

Also, no. It doesn't matter if two people just agree to fight, those acts are still illegal in most countries. Anything else would be insane.

I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about, but the commonality of "mutually agreed upon fray" would indicate that the real world is "insane."

On the flipside, continuing to pretend that this shit is acceptable just because it happens every day doesn't make it so. I'm sorry, but wishing it were otherwise does not make it so.

People accept it. What more evidence do you need? Are you just playing Calvinball here?

 

[chikusho]

Except people will serve time.

In some instances, which in no way negates the rest of it. Sorry.

In every instance, which proves my point. If there are cases where people get off scot free, those are extremely rare exceptions. And in most of those cases I'd imagine "temporary insanity" to be the verdict, in which case the accused would get sentenced with medical care for his mental problems rather than prison. That is to say, if insanity can be proven by the defense, which again is in a minority of cases. I hope you're not arguing for the sake of the behaviour of the mentally ill.

You're talking about provocation.

So it's okay to hit someone if they say bad words to you.

Thank you for proving my point. It's not okay to hit people, except when it is.

Provocation is only used for the assaulter to be punished a little less due to his victim also being in the wrong.

Actually, that counteracts your point, since it's always used just to slightly lessen a punishment which is still going to be enforced. In fact, most countries only have the "provocation" defense to lessen a murder charge into a "voluntary manslaughter" charge, so that defense is usually not available to cases of assault.

The arguably huge difference being that if "provocation" is used in a defense, one more person is considered to be in the wrong rather than just the assaulter. How is an attacker being wrong and later still being wrong proving your point?

In these cases it's used to show why the accused "lost control".

Sorry, no\.

Simply saying "no" doesn't prove anything.

Also, no. It doesn't matter if two people just agree to fight, those acts are still illegal in most countries. Anything else would be insane.

I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about, but the commonality of "mutually agreed upon fray" would indicate that the real world is "insane."

There is no such thing as a "mutually agreed upon fray". In most countries, police are forced by law to report any unlawful activity whether or not the involved parties agree upon it or not.

On the flipside, continuing to pretend that this shit is acceptable just because it happens every day doesn't make it so. I'm sorry, but wishing it were otherwise does not make it so.

People accept it. What more evidence do you need? Are you just playing Calvinball here?

The small minority of people you are talking about are wrong. You still have provided no evidence, so any would suffice. I'm firmly sticking to my point of view, and you still haven't responded to any of my points which proves your own view as being completely wrong.

People do all sorts of things, and the fact that people are still getting into fights is all the more reason to condemn that behaviour.

 

[the December King]

Except people will serve time.

In some instances, which in no way negates the rest of it. Sorry.

You're talking about provocation.

So it's okay to hit someone if they say bad words to you.

Thank you for proving my point. It's not okay to hit people, except when it is.

Provocation is only used for the assaulter to be punished a little less due to his victim also being in the wrong.

In these cases it's used to show why the accused "lost control".

Sorry, no\.

Also, no. It doesn't matter if two people just agree to fight, those acts are still illegal in most countries. Anything else would be insane.

I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about, but the commonality of "mutually agreed upon fray" would indicate that the real world is "insane."

On the flipside, continuing to pretend that this shit is acceptable just because it happens every day doesn't make it so. I'm sorry, but wishing it were otherwise does not make it so.

People accept it. What more evidence do you need? Are you just playing Calvinball here?

Sorry to intrude, Zachary, but you are merely outlining what seems to be culturally accepted definitions of fighting and what often appears to be 'acceptable' cases of retaliation against bullies, and not your own personal philosophy, nor some utopic or idyllic application of the law, correct?

I was a bit confused when I caught the tail end of this thread to find you defending violence- I was pretty sure I had it wrong...

 

[Something Amyss]

Sorry to intrude, Zachary, but you are merely outlining what seems to be culturally accepted definitions of fighting and what often appears to be 'acceptable' cases of retaliation against bullies, and not your own personal philosophy, nor some utopic or idyllic application of the law, correct?

I was a bit confused when I caught the tail end of this thread to find you defending violence- I was pretty sure I had it wrong...

No apology necessary.

Anyway, the argument at hand is that there is no excuse for violence because modern culture deems it unacceptable. I've provided exampels demonstrating that culturally we deem it acceptable, which is in itself "the excuse." So yes. This has little to do with my personal morals (I'm a pacifist) and everything to do with the framework of our society and how it doesn't support the argument given.

The only time I really support violence is necessary force in the case of imminent danger. This is primarily self defense, but can also be defense of another if harm is threatened. Even in those cases, I would find it morally reprehensible to use violence as a first resort unless there is no viable alternative. That's reactive, not proactive, and it doesn't address the scenarios in which we don't actually frown upon violence period (since hitting back is generally not seen as a problem but hitting first would be in the same scenario).

Even then, I'm not a fan of violence. But that's the problem. What I like, what I want do not define reality.

In every instance, which proves my point.

You know, I spent a time as a bouncer. You'd be amazed (given your stance, quite literally so) at how many times the cops get involved and don't even take in the folks in question. Even if they're not drunk, in case you're about to use intoxication as an excuse for why this is different.

I actually am surprised anyone actually believes this sort of thing isn't common. Hell, I covered the "boys will be boys" mindset earlier in the thread.

Certainly sounds like getting off scot free, and it doesn't even touch upon the other examples I gave.

Look, the problem here is that you seem to have issue with the very basis of an axiomatic idea: people fight. Society accepts it, therefore it is acceptable. Society excuses this behaviour, therefore, there is an excuse. Anything else is utterly pointless.

 

[Queen Michael]

Look, I'm not going to take a stand either way when it comes to fighting. All I'm saying is that fighting is always violence, by definition. That's not a matter of opinion, that's just what the words mean. You might as well say that Coke isn't a beverage, or that a Volvo isn't a car. It's not a matter of opinion.

 

[chikusho]

Look, the problem here is that you seem to have issue with the very basis of an axiomatic idea: people fight. Society accepts it, therefore it is acceptable. Society excuses this behaviour, therefore, there is an excuse. Anything else is utterly pointless.

You still have not explained why something is acceptable simply because it occurs.

You say fighting is excused by society despite the fact that the entire, fundamental basis of all of human society relies on people not doing that thing.

 

[Something Amyss]

[

You still have not explained why something is acceptable simply because it occurs.

Aside from that we accept it. How are you still ignoring that?

 

[DoPo]

You say fighting is excused by society despite the fact that the entire, fundamental basis of all of human society relies on people not doing that thing.

Spoiler: And yet

it sure seems that the society you claim does not accept fighting is quite fond of it for some reason.

 

[chikusho]

[

You still have not explained why something is acceptable simply because it occurs.

Aside from that we accept it. How are you still ignoring that?

Who exactly is accepting it? It's still a condemned act throughout all of human civilization, one that's relegated to and associated with childish adults, criminals and the mentally ill.

I find it highly ironic that you claim that society accepts fighting, while at the same time you just told me that your job literally used to be to stop fighting.

it sure seems that the society you claim does not accept fighting is quite fond of it for some reason.

Really? Sports and fiction, that's your argument?
Society accepts fighting over trivial bullshit because it also accepts fake fighting?

 

[DoPo]

it sure seems that the society you claim does not accept fighting is quite fond of it for some reason.

Really? Sports and fiction, that's your argument?
Society accepts fighting over trivial bullshit because it also accepts fake fighting?

Sorry, and your argument was...

Yeah, that. I see. Well, let's see - we have people rejoicing over fighting and even actively participating in it while being applauded and given money, fame, and so on, versus your...nothing. Yeah, call me back when everywhere MMA fighters are being shunned, boxers are looked down upon in disgust, and violence in media is not one of the most popular things.

 

[chikusho]

it sure seems that the society you claim does not accept fighting is quite fond of it for some reason.

Really? Sports and fiction, that's your argument?
Society accepts fighting over trivial bullshit because it also accepts fake fighting?

Sorry, and your argument was...

Yeah, that. I see. Well, let's see - we have people rejoicing over fighting and even actively participating in it while being applauded and given money, fame, and so on, versus your...nothing. Yeah, call me back when everywhere MMA fighters are being shunned, boxers are looked down upon in disgust, and violence in media is not one of the most popular things.

Yet.. When that same MMA fighter punches a guy in a bar he gets arrested, convicted of assault and risks being banned from exercising his highly regulated sport. Sorry, but no.

 

[DoPo]

it sure seems that the society you claim does not accept fighting is quite fond of it for some reason.

Really? Sports and fiction, that's your argument?
Society accepts fighting over trivial bullshit because it also accepts fake fighting?

Sorry, and your argument was...

Yeah, that. I see. Well, let's see - we have people rejoicing over fighting and even actively participating in it while being applauded and given money, fame, and so on, versus your...nothing. Yeah, call me back when everywhere MMA fighters are being shunned, boxers are looked down upon in disgust, and violence in media is not one of the most popular things.

Yet.. When that same MMA fighter punches a guy in a bar he gets arrested, convicted of assault and risks being banned from exercising his highly regulated sport. Sorry, but no.

I shall borrow a phrase I heard somewhere: really - one specific instance, is that your argument?

 

[chikusho]

I shall borrow a phrase I heard somewhere: really - one specific instance, is that your argument?

My argument is that violence, fighting and punching people is not acceptable behavior, nor accepted in society. For many different reasons, which are still available for you to read earlier in the thread.

Claiming that violence, fighting and punching people is acceptable behavior because fake fighting happens in culture, is ludicrous. If you think otherwise, I'd like to see you make that same argument for shooting people as well.

 

[Something Amyss]

Who exactly is accepting it? It's still a condemned act throughout all of human civilization, one that's relegated to and associated with childish adults, criminals and the mentally ill.

By that logic, much of that same civilsation is childish, so it's almost pointless to make the claim that it's condemned by said civilisation. But you're treading dangerously on a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You were already arguing that it's not accepted or excused except when it clearly was being one, the other or both, now everyone who does it is childish or mentally impaired? Dear God.

Also, DoPo's comparison is completely valid. When a society idolises and takes joy in grown men beating the shit out of each other, violence is not as reviled as you pretend it is.

They're fond of it in the streets, in the ring, in the octagon and on the field. Back to the summation of your argument:

Civilised societies don't accept or condone or excuse fighting. Except when they do.

The problem is, you've been handed numerous examples now of it being accepted and continue to reply, effectively, with "nuh uh." I'm not sure how it could be more evident that Western civilisation still enjoys, accepts, condones, and excuses fighting fairly routinely.

 

[Something Amyss]

I shall borrow a phrase I heard somewhere: really - one specific instance, is that your argument?

Did you nick that from me, or someone else?

I'm not like, complaining or anything, just always curious, you know?

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd like to see you make that same argument for shooting people as well.

Where exactly do you see sanctioned shooting happening by two consenting adults? I'm seriously curious, because if we allow sanctioned dueling like we do sanctioned fighting, we're even more accepting of violence than I've been arguing, and you're even more off-base.

Otherwise, there's no comparison.

 

[chikusho]

Who exactly is accepting it? It's still a condemned act throughout all of human civilization, one that's relegated to and associated with childish adults, criminals and the mentally ill.

By that logic, much of that same civilsation is childish, so it's almost pointless to make the claim that it's condemned by said civilisation. But you're treading dangerously on a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You were already arguing that it's not accepted or excused except when it clearly was being one, the other or both, now everyone who does it is childish or mentally impaired? Dear God.

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.

Also, DoPo's comparison is completely valid. When a society idolises and takes joy in grown men beating the shit out of each other, violence is not as reviled as you pretend it is.

They're fond of it in the streets, in the ring, in the octagon and on the field. Back to the summation of your argument:

Civilised societies don't accept or condone or excuse fighting. Except when they do.

The problem is, you've been handed numerous examples now of it being accepted and continue to reply, effectively, with "nuh uh." I'm not sure how it could be more evident that Western civilisation still enjoys, accepts, condones, and excuses fighting fairly routinely.

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

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

I have yet to see a single example, from you or from anyone, where fighting is accepted. "Except when they do" is not an example, and "for reasons" is not an argument or explanation. I explain why it's unacceptable in almost every post and ask for you to explain how those reasons are wrong, yet those parts usually get cut out of the quote.

Where exactly do you see sanctioned shooting happening by two consenting adults? I'm seriously curious, because if we allow sanctioned dueling like we do sanctioned fighting, we're even more accepting of violence than I've been arguing, and you're even more off-base.

Otherwise, there's no comparison.

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

There are highly regulated sports, on the other hand, which can't be compared to fighting or shooting.

 

[DoPo]

I shall borrow a phrase I heard somewhere: really - one specific instance, is that your argument?

Did you nick that from me, or someone else?

I'm not like, complaining or anything, just always curious, you know?

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

Really? Sports and fiction, that's your argument?