2 ms·
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
by 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 agousing 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.