3 ms·

Because it doesn't apply in the context of OP where they said > Violence isn't restricted to physical harm, though. Bullying people is a violent process. Wher

Because it doesn't apply in the context of OP where they said > Violence isn't restricted to physical harm, though. Bullying people is a violent process. Where even the WHO definition requires physical force to be a part of the calculation. Calling someone insulting names could easily be considered bullying, but that has nothing to do with violence. All that aside, I'm fine with words being 'abused' to help make a rhetorical point. My issue was attempting to redefine the word rather than acknowledge it as an attempt to borrow the connotation. I.e. borrowing violence to describe bulling by name calling is fine, but saying that bullying is violent by definition does a disservice to both.

pyrale 5y ago
I mean, PTSDs only started being documented about a century ago, for instance. Before that, sufferers were just called wimps. Of course, you may want to use a dated definition of violence, which doesn't account for the evolution of our medical knowledge. You may find out that it's not very helpful to establish an open discussion. > even the WHO definition A quick lookup at the WHO page [1] further clarifies this point by listing different types of violence: > This typology distinguishes four modes in which violence may be inflicted: physical; sexual; and psychological attack; and deprivation. This is not an invitation to debate the definition of violence, though, and my initial message isn't an appeal to a rhetorical debate. This topic is covered by an extensive litterature, and my initial message was merely a reminder of what people currently understand to be violence. [1]: https://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/ https://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/e...
- grayhatter 5y ago
  using your own PTSD example they created a new word (initialism) rather than try to redefine what a whimp is. if you want to include actions that aren't physical in any reasonable way why not use the word abuse or abusive which carries a similar connotation to violence without actually corrupting the word violence. The word literally also includes the definition for the word figuratively. Just because a word happens to include additional definitions doesn't make those additional definitions reasonable or beneficial. > Of course, you may want to use a dated definition of violence, which doesn't account for the evolution of our medical knowledge. You may find out that it's not very helpful to establish an open discussion. I never claimed to want to use a dated definition of the word violence but I think you'll find that straw manning an argument is also counterproductive to establishing an open discussion.

pyrale 5y ago

I mean, PTSDs only started being documented about a century ago, for instance. Before that, sufferers were just called wimps. Of course, you may want to use a dated definition of violence, which doesn't account for the evolution of our medical knowledge. You may find out that it's not very helpful to establish an open discussion. > even the WHO definition A quick lookup at the WHO page [1] further clarifies this point by listing different types of violence: > This typology distinguishes four modes in which violence may be inflicted: physical; sexual; and psychological attack; and deprivation. This is not an invitation to debate the definition of violence, though, and my initial message isn't an appeal to a rhetorical debate. This topic is covered by an extensive litterature, and my initial message was merely a reminder of what people currently understand to be violence. [1]: https://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/ https://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/e...

grayhatter 5y ago
using your own PTSD example they created a new word (initialism) rather than try to redefine what a whimp is. if you want to include actions that aren't physical in any reasonable way why not use the word abuse or abusive which carries a similar connotation to violence without actually corrupting the word violence. The word literally also includes the definition for the word figuratively. Just because a word happens to include additional definitions doesn't make those additional definitions reasonable or beneficial. > Of course, you may want to use a dated definition of violence, which doesn't account for the evolution of our medical knowledge. You may find out that it's not very helpful to establish an open discussion. I never claimed to want to use a dated definition of the word violence but I think you'll find that straw manning an argument is also counterproductive to establishing an open discussion.