Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

I'm curious, how much self defense is acceptable?

For this hypothetical, we'll assume that I'm fairly sure that our target would like to do me serious harm and that we're both currently located in a club. Furthermore, we'll assume that if we disengage, he's perfectly capable of finding us later.


Can I open up the fight by kicking the back of target's leg? Start it with a pool cue to the chest? I mean, neither of those are likely to cause super-serious harm, nor likely to get me in any more trouble than getting kicked out of the bar. Is preemptive self-defense a thing?




I'm not gonna lie, the lesson that I took from Ender was that the same person can't both be trusted to decide when to fight, how hard to fight, and how to fight except in extreme situations (that is, where it's obvious that there should be no fight, or where it's a real fight, aiming to do serious harm).

Now, being the sort that I am, I applied it mostly to the macro level. You can't have an army deciding who to fight, or how to fight. We'll always go to the extreme if we can. I've got no problem putting a sabot round through target's torso before he can see me, that's why there's people above me telling me if I can fire on a target, someone putting me in that area and telling me I'm cleared, someone above him putting a tank in whatever country it is, politicians above that, so on and so forth.

But on the personal level, in the bar, if poor Strifey doesn't have someone looking over his shoulder, he's got to do all that evaluationing on his own (and, to be honest, I think that I've generally been pretty good at it, infrequent club-goer that I am). Is it worth it to fight at all? I mean do have at least some pride/hubris/honor to care about, plus there's the consideration of if target's planning to jump me, and that if I get the jump on him, shock-and-awe* might ensure that he and his friends no longer bother me, and man but I probably shouldn't of drank that third drink and I mean I do have that bladed knuckle in my pocket just for emergencies . . .
     Effectively, lots of judgement goes straight out the window in the heat of the moment, especially when booze is involved. At least for me, I'm always going to lean on the side of excessive force to make sure that someone goes down.

The better solution is to have multiple people with you. Just like there should be a chain of command headed by civilians, there should be a friend who's a bit more distant from the situation. Better yet, there should be the designated driver. Best case, they can make a judgement, worst case, the more the merrier.


Now, besides being careful not to end up in situations like that and to deescalate if possible, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly reasonable and smart to be physically and mentally prepared to mess someone up if need be.


*Shock-and-awe should not be confused with terrorism, although the two share some similarities. Terrorism is the tactic of attacking civilians and civilian target to achieve a political goal. Shock-and-awe is a form of rapid dominance, now supplanting rapid dominance as the general name. You smash the opponent before he ever has a chance to react, showing him that victory ain't going to happen, forcing an early, less damaging submission, retreat, surrender, curl up into the fetal position, what have you. For the historical note, shock-and-awe focuses on destroying everything in the target military force, especially that chain of command. Leave everyone lost, in the dark, and facing superior forces with superior knowledge of the battle space. Enough to make anyone want to tie a white sock to the nearest pole and surrender to the cnn crew, you know?

[SalmonGod]

I'm more curious as to people's thoughts on emotional/passive aggressive abuse.  We all understand that stuff can be severely scarring, right?  Is it ever excusable, as a last resort, to respond physically to such abuse?  Sometimes people find themselves in unavoidable situations (school/family/work/etc) involving frequent emotional abuse, where there is no recourse and/or they simply do not have the social skills or knowledge to defend themselves non-physically.  I understand that the majority here is quite strictly non-violent, but if a physical response can get the aggressor to back off, possibly preventing long-term psychological damage, is that excusable?

I've always told myself that it wouldn't be, but I'm almost 30 now and still often wonder if there weren't occasions when I should have fought for myself, even knowing that I would have been giving into provocation.  I never fought, because I never found myself in fear of serious physical harm.  Even though I was physically assaulted, I never faced a prolonged or deadly assault.  What I didn't understand was how difficult those experiences were going to make my life long after they were over.

I used to be near 100% pacifist.  I'm not so much today.  After so long digesting things, I've found I don't really have much of a problem with violence between individuals.  The motivations or outcome may be good or bad, but human relationships are complex and varied enough to the point that I understand if it's something a person feels they must do.  The most important thing is that violence between individuals begins and ends.  What I still oppose is large-scale or institutional violence.  If it involves more than a couple people, it's not something that should be happening.

[Scoops Novel]

I'd say if it's something you or they wont be able to handle (needlessly), and alternatives are unavailable, violence to deter this is acceptable. To be honest, that's all this thread is going to wind up saying. I'm not sure why we're still bothering.

[Leafsnail]

I basically just punch everyone I meet in the face, in order to establish physical dominance.  It just feels soooooo gooooooooooooooood, and also forces them to surrender before they can inflict emotional harm on me.

[Neonivek]

I basically just punch everyone I meet in the face, in order to establish physical dominance.  It just feels soooooo gooooooooooooooood, and also forces them to surrender before they can inflict emotional harm on me.

Did you remember to yell "CONAN!"?

[Lagslayer]

I'm more curious as to people's thoughts on emotional/passive aggressive abuse.  We all understand that stuff can be severely scarring, right?  Is it ever excusable, as a last resort, to respond physically to such abuse?  Sometimes people find themselves in unavoidable situations (school/family/work/etc) involving frequent emotional abuse, where there is no recourse and/or they simply do not have the social skills or knowledge to defend themselves non-physically.  I understand that the majority here is quite strictly non-violent, but if a physical response can get the aggressor to back off, possibly preventing long-term psychological damage, is that excusable?

Psychological/reputational damage can be every bit as severe as physical damage, and often times more permanent. Bruises heal, but mental scarring not so easily. Would you rather have an arm cut off, or for everyone you ever know and loved to suddenly hate you with an intense passion?

Is preemptive self-defense a thing?

Han shot first.

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm more curious as to people's thoughts on emotional/passive aggressive abuse.  We all understand that stuff can be severely scarring, right?  Is it ever excusable, as a last resort, to respond physically to such abuse?  Sometimes people find themselves in unavoidable situations (school/family/work/etc) involving frequent emotional abuse, where there is no recourse and/or they simply do not have the social skills or knowledge to defend themselves non-physically.  I understand that the majority here is quite strictly non-violent, but if a physical response can get the aggressor to back off, possibly preventing long-term psychological damage, is that excusable?

I think that assuming that the outcome of such an outburst would be possitive is quite an assumption. It might well make things worse.

[Loud Whispers]

My entire bloody point is that when you must resort to violence, don't leave someone who not only holds a grudge, but is unafraid of you.

See, there is the one problem in that there is this concept humans are fond of called "revenge."

Revenge transcends rational thought and emotion and enters the realm of eye for a nail.

I understand that the majority here is quite strictly non-violent, but if a physical response can get the aggressor to back off, possibly preventing long-term psychological damage, is that excusable?

Resort to violence and:

• You ignore what it is supposedly causing psychological damage.
• You ignore why they are attempting to hurt you.
• You very much can end up losing much more.

Psychological/reputational damage can be every bit as severe as physical damage, and often times more permanent. Bruises heal, but mental scarring not so easily. Would you rather have an arm cut off, or for everyone you ever know and loved to suddenly hate you with an intense passion?

Would you rather strike your mother or endure her hatred?

[Gamerlord]

My entire bloody point is that when you must resort to violence, don't leave someone who not only holds a grudge, but is unafraid of you.

See, there is the one problem in that there is this concept humans are fond of called "revenge."

Revenge transcends rational thought and emotion and enters the realm of eye for a nail.

Trust me on this: one of the only things that can prevent revenge being exacted is fear.

[Loud Whispers]

Trust me on this: one of the only things that can prevent revenge being exacted is fear.

Not even close.

[Gamerlord]

Trust me on this: one of the only things that can prevent revenge being exacted is fear.

Not even close.

Oh? I'm speaking from experience here, from both sides of it. I know what I'm talking about.

[SalmonGod]

I understand that the majority here is quite strictly non-violent, but if a physical response can get the aggressor to back off, possibly preventing long-term psychological damage, is that excusable?

Resort to violence and:

• You ignore what it is supposedly causing psychological damage.
• You ignore why they are attempting to hurt you.
• You very much can end up losing much more.

1.  Don't understand.
2.  What if you aren't ignoring it, and understand that the reason is simply it makes them feel good?
3.  I don't disagree.  However, risks are something unique to every situation, and rather beside the point anyway.

[Soadreqm]

My entire bloody point is that when you must resort to violence, don't leave someone who not only holds a grudge, but is unafraid of you.

I don't think that's a very good point. Beating someone to (near)death to make his friends fear you is a terrible plan. They might be afraid of getting into fistfights with you, but if you're going all in with the violence, and not following the established rules of drunken bar brawls, that won't really matter much, will it? Suppose one of his friends owns a gun. Or a cell phone. Calling the cops might not have been on the table when it was one of his own buddies attacking you, but now that you are systematically breaking every bone in the drunken assailant's body? Yeah, he might think his chances of making the police see things his way are pretty good. Or he might not care about what the police are going to think about the finer points of who started what, since he's afraid that you're going to kill him.

FAKE EDIT:

Oh? I'm speaking from experience here, from both sides of it. I know what I'm talking about.

Oh you have got to be kidding me. Are you seriously telling me that you are so afraid of someone that even though you think you have every reason to seek revenge, you just can't? That makes no sense! He can't beat you up if he's dead or in jail! There is no reason to be afraid of what he'd do!

[Loud Whispers]

Oh? I'm speaking from experience here, from both sides of it. I know what I'm talking about.

Your experience is as valid as mine. However, mine disagrees. It also has the backing of all human history whereupon people encountered with scary things didn't give up the pursuit of violence and vengeance.

Humans are not dogs that instinctively follow the one with the biggest stick and the strongest arms.

Or else we'd live under one planet of fear, unified in terror.

[Soadreqm]

I'm more curious as to people's thoughts on emotional/passive aggressive abuse.  We all understand that stuff can be severely scarring, right?  Is it ever excusable, as a last resort, to respond physically to such abuse?  Sometimes people find themselves in unavoidable situations (school/family/work/etc) involving frequent emotional abuse, where there is no recourse and/or they simply do not have the social skills or knowledge to defend themselves non-physically.  I understand that the majority here is quite strictly non-violent, but if a physical response can get the aggressor to back off, possibly preventing long-term psychological damage, is that excusable?

I've always told myself that it wouldn't be, but I'm almost 30 now and still often wonder if there weren't occasions when I should have fought for myself, even knowing that I would have been giving into provocation.  I never fought, because I never found myself in fear of serious physical harm.  Even though I was physically assaulted, I never faced a prolonged or deadly assault.  What I didn't understand was how difficult those experiences were going to make my life long after they were over.

Well, a major point of pacifism is that it actually works, and you can make the emotional abuse stop with just a calm demeanor and well-meaning diplomacy. If that doesn't cut it, though, I'd consider getting your violence on a reasonable contingency. Non-violent resistance is great if you can actually pull it off, but that doesn't mean that you should just take abuse lying down if you lack the willpower of a wizened Indian mystic.