4 ms·

Violence is always abuse, and it’s significantly worse when an adult is targeting a child.

Supermancho 4y ago
> Violence is always abuse, So any form of self defense is abuse? I'm not sure you've thought this through. Trivializing complex issues is the kneejerk response for many, but there isn't a simple moral line of thinking that billions of people have overlooked.
- vidarh 4y ago
  Yes, it's abusive, and with self defence that is the point: your attacker has deprived you of safety and of another immediate recourse, so you're forced to lower yourself to their level. It doesn't make it good; it makes it necessary, and for that reason we often consider it legitimate. If an adult tried to assault my son, and he hit back, I wouldn't consider it good, but I would be proud he felt able to defend himself against a violent attacker. Even if that attacker was a teacher.
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > > > Violence is always abuse, > > So any form of self defense is abuse? > Yes, it's abusive Abuse is a term used to describe impropriety of action. The idea that impropriety is used to counter impropriety is not coherent. Self-defense is proper (suitable, appropriate, etc) use of force, insofar as an individual values safety of their person. Self-defense is necessarily not abuse. I dont think any amount of rewording will change this.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      Since English is my second language, I checked a few dictionaries just now to check if I got what I intended wrong. Only one (Cambridge) restricted abuse to only the sense of impropriety of action. The others included variations such as physical maltreatment (Merriam Webster, American Heritage Dictionary), to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way (Collins / dictionary.com), "Abuse of someone is cruel and violent treatment of them" (Collins, collinsdictionary.com). If we restrict it to the impropriety of action, then I agree it does not apply to self defence, but that was not the meaning of my reply. I of course can't speak to the poster of the original statement, so if we interpret it as impropriety of action, I agree with you; in the broader sense allowed by the other dictionaries I stand by what I wrote.

> Violence is always abuse, So any form of self defense is abuse? I'm not sure you've thought this through. Trivializing complex issues is the kneejerk response for many, but there isn't a simple moral line of thinking that billions of people have overlooked.

vidarh 4y ago
Yes, it's abusive, and with self defence that is the point: your attacker has deprived you of safety and of another immediate recourse, so you're forced to lower yourself to their level. It doesn't make it good; it makes it necessary, and for that reason we often consider it legitimate. If an adult tried to assault my son, and he hit back, I wouldn't consider it good, but I would be proud he felt able to defend himself against a violent attacker. Even if that attacker was a teacher.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > > > Violence is always abuse, > > So any form of self defense is abuse? > Yes, it's abusive Abuse is a term used to describe impropriety of action. The idea that impropriety is used to counter impropriety is not coherent. Self-defense is proper (suitable, appropriate, etc) use of force, insofar as an individual values safety of their person. Self-defense is necessarily not abuse. I dont think any amount of rewording will change this.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Since English is my second language, I checked a few dictionaries just now to check if I got what I intended wrong. Only one (Cambridge) restricted abuse to only the sense of impropriety of action. The others included variations such as physical maltreatment (Merriam Webster, American Heritage Dictionary), to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way (Collins / dictionary.com), "Abuse of someone is cruel and violent treatment of them" (Collins, collinsdictionary.com). If we restrict it to the impropriety of action, then I agree it does not apply to self defence, but that was not the meaning of my reply. I of course can't speak to the poster of the original statement, so if we interpret it as impropriety of action, I agree with you; in the broader sense allowed by the other dictionaries I stand by what I wrote.