Okay...Hitting in General

[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.

 

[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?