4 ms·
The WHO includes emotional and psychological in the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence That said, I do p
by wintermutestwin 7y ago
The WHO includes emotional and psychological in the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
That said, I do prefer the AKA of "Compassionate Communication"
- uk_programmer 7y ago> The WHO includes emotional and psychological in the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence And? They have also redefined violence to mean something else. It doesn't mean they are correct in doing so and in no way does this address my complaint. In the link you posted the very first line: > Violence is "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy." That is the definition and that is what most people think when they hear the term violence. Your link itself says it is a unconventional definition. One that I do not care for. So both the WHO and this acronym as far as I am concerned is redefining violence. > That said, I do prefer the AKA of "Compassionate Communication" Again. This is more newspeak. It just being empathetic. I absolutely abhor people inventing their own terms when there is already suitable word.
- invalidOrTaken 7y agoThe WHO can jump in a lake.
- jshevek 7y agoWhen I see someone earnestly citing the WHO to make a point I'm usually a bit nonplussed. This site has a culture of expectation that we make substantial responses, but how you respond substantially to irrelevancies like this? The best response is "So?" I understand that the WHO does a decent job of regurgitating data or facts derived from elsewhere, but otherwise they are not an authority worthy of respect.