This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Does the Internet Create Lynch Mobs?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
When. Did. I. Say. It. Does?
I am ONLY talking about seeing a person being victimized and using violence as a means to defend the person rather than being civil and asking them to stop.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I am ONLY talking about seeing a person being victimized and using violence as a means to defend the person rather than being civil and asking them to stop.
You say it right there; if they are being victimized, you are 'justified' in beating them, whether they are doing it verbally or physically.
Post by
MyTie
their anger would be justified, giving them an understandable reason for getting mad enough to hit them in retaliationYou desperately need to take a class in "ethics".
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Sold- Here's where people are disputing you.
Anger is UNDERSTANDABLE when someone does something wrong. The actions that someone can take out of anger are UNDERSTANDABLE. Meaning, you understand why someone is mad (and maybe feel they are justifiably mad, as in this situation), and you understand that being mad will make you want to do bad things to the people who made you mad.
What YOU are not understanding, is that most of us don't think someone having an UNDERSTANDABLE reason for doing something, means that it is a JUSTIFIED reason, or something the other person deserves. They are not synonyms, and you seem to be treating them as such.
Go back to my earlier examples. I can understand why someone would be mad at the new woman or man who is dating their ex, at the person who got hired to replace you after you got fired, or who moved in across the street and suddenly you have trouble finding a parking spot because they have cars too.. The reasons they would be mad are very self-evident. That has nothing to do with whether or not they are justified in being mad having a reason =/= having the right to be mad.
In other cases, like when someone is rude, steals, almost causes an accident through carelessness, you would absolutely have the right to be angry. It would be justified. However, that doesn't mean that any action arising from that anger is also justified- it has to be proportionate to the action that made you angry in order to be so.
You also seem to be treating the idea that if an action is understandable because of their anger (an in this case, justified anger), how they act on that anger is justified. We're telling you that we don't think it is. If someone is verbally abusive, I am completely justified in being angry. However, justified anger doesn't mean that any action that comes out of that anger is justified or deserved. If a 12-year-old came to my store and stole something, I would be justified in being angry. And it would be understandable (in that people would understand why I would WANT to do it) if I got so mad I beat the kid within an inch of his life, far beyond what was necessary for self-defense or to restrain him for the cops. But that doesn't mean that the beating was justified, just because the anger that led to it was.
You have to measure reactions based on the initial transgression in order to tell whether or not they were deserved. We think that it's justified to be angry at these kids, and maybe tell them so, but we DON'T think it is justified to do physical violence to them or send death threats.
People DO understand what you're saying. They just don't agree that being justifiably mad = being justified in doing something to the person who made you mad that is much worse than their initial transgression.
Post by
gamerunknown
Out of interest adamsm, how does a belief that disproportionate retaliation is wrong fit with the threefold thingy?
Also, the deserve / will enforce distinction is important
here
too.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok....perhaps I FEEL like they should be punched in the face because of how infuriating what they did was, not because I think it's an appropriate response since they didn't physically harm her like I originally thought. I wouldn't, however, call anyone who beat them up for it bad though because it'd they'd be so infuriated that they couldn't control their anger and they'd physically lash out at the kids, which, I think, is a perfectly understandable response especially if it's your own mother, it doesn't make you evil.
This is the quote people are stuck on, I think. You're saying that you wouldn't think people who beat up these kids were "bad" for it, because it was understandable for them to lash out. We're saying that we would say that they were "bad" for doing that. We don't think not being able to control your anger mitigates the action itself. The fact that you said you wouldn't think of them as "bad" for doing it kind of indicates that you feel it's justified- maybe not what they should do practically, but justified.
But if your position is that they are bad, as adults, for doing these things to a kid, then I think we;ve allreached a point of agreement and don't need to debate it anymore.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
First, I ended my last post:
But if your position is that they are bad, as adults, for doing these things to a kid, then I think we've all reached a point of agreement and don't need to debate it anymore.
Second, I don't think a kid doing it makes the action itself any more right than an adult- I think that a kid doing it is more forgivable because they have diminished decision making capacity. It's still a bad thing, and they still need to be taught that words don't require violence to solve. But you're right- I think kids who lash out in anger are more understandable, and less accountable, than adults who do it.
Post by
MyTie
their anger would be justified, giving them an understandable reason for getting mad enough to hit them in retaliationYou desperately need to take a class in "ethics".
Sigh....there's a difference between having an understandable reason for doing something but not being justified in doing so? I said their ANGER. READ: ANGER would be justified, not their actions. I honestly don't understand how someone can read "their anger is justified" and somehow translate that into "their actions are justified".
I was not only speaking about the "justified" part of your post, which is debatable, but how you drew an "understanding" about being mad enough to hit someone. I took a great ethics class when I went through the police academy. I'm being very serious in the fact that you should take an ethics class. "Justified" is a huge red flag. If there is an argument being made to justify an action, a greater effort should always be made to argue against the action.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
But the reason kids are more understandable and less accountable is because they haven't fully formed their decision making facilities. Whether an adult hits a kid or an adult, they have already had the required time for their brain to biologically develop the ability to know better, and as such are fully accountable. It may be even worse if it's a child, because they're helpless, but adult on adult violence is not understandable in the same way kid on kid violence is, when in both cases they are reacting to words.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Okay fine: A skinny 100 pound adult male is insulting another person; is it justified if a 200 pound muscle man beats down the weakling?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
You've been stating constantly it would be justified if you attacked someone for verbal abusing another.
And yes Sold; if you do something bad, you have to deal with the consequences and don't try to hide it behind justification...and if you are, you know you are doing something wrong.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I said you are not a bad person simply because you did something wrong.
If you are attacking someone else, just for something they say, that's definitely being on the wrong side of the moral compass, no matter how 'angry' you are about it.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.