4 ms·
Violence without immediate danger is never morally ok. It is vile and barbaric.
by arrrg 13y ago
Violence without immediate danger is never morally ok. It is vile and barbaric.
- Nrsolis 13y agoBy whose moral code? Yours? Society lays out the rules by law. And society judges when those rules have been breached. I think people forget that they have to live in a world where people other than themselves might have a different idea of what constitutes an acceptable response to distinctly discouraged behavior. Is a woman who is being filmed naked against her will unjustified if she smacks the guy doing the filming when she learns of the violation?
- arrrg 13y agoYes, by mine. I thought this was a pretty uncontroversial view. Self defense and not one millimeter more.
- freehunter 13y agoYou know what's vile and barbaric? Sexual harassment. Just because it's easier to see your broken nose than it is to see how traumatized a victim of sexual harassment is doesn't mean violence is immediately wrong. What you're arguing is for blaming the victim.
- pavel_lishin 13y ago> What you're arguing is for blaming the victim. Telling the victim to not automatically respond with disproportionate violence is not "blaming the victim". If he'd said, "if you don't want pictures of your dick on the internet, don't pee at Google I/O," then you might have a point.
- freehunter 13y agoListen to yourself, man! If someone peeked their head under a stall, would it be disproportionate violence to push him back out with your foot? Seriously, sexual harassment is not a light crime. It does serious damage to the victim's mental state. There's no way of knowing if the perpetrator is going to take things further. If you want to state here right now that you feel that violence as a way to stop an ongoing act of close-quarters sexual harassment is a disproportionate response, then that's fine. But don't be surprised if other people in your society don't agree. And yes, violating someone's privacy to see them naked when they obviously don't want to be seen is sexual harassment. Filming that takes it to the next level.
- Dylan16807 13y agoPushing them away seems reasonable. Punching them in the face both escalates and doesn't actually get them further away from you. And if you are seriously worried about someone solely because of peeking then you need to learn how to handle that worry.
- freehunter 13y agoYou wouldn't reel back if I punched you in the face? You're man enough to shrug it off without so much as flinching? The idea is to get you to take a step back and pause so I can walk away.
- Dylan16807 13y agoI'd flinch and stumble in some direction, it might or might not be away. There's a good chance I'd fall on you.
- arrrg 13y agoSomeone who is violent without reason is not just a victim, they are also a perpetrator. There is no reason to ever be violent if it isn’t absolute necessary to defend oneself. Ok, maybe pushing someone away can be ok in that moment, however the glee with which people here talk about violence is absolutely vile. Violence is not ok. It is to never ever be used, only in the most dire emergencies.
- Zikes 13y agoA person that has already eschewed the moral code of society to such an extent would not be phased by their targets' words of disapproval. A voyeur would consider the risk of being yelled at, reported to a local authority (such as a bar owner), being thrown out of an establishment, etc. They would consider these risks and weigh the consequences and determine that they are worth it in the end. They would still get what they wanted, and would be free to carry on their activities in the future, perhaps at another establishment or after enough time had passed. But the risk of physical violence, that's not so easily dismissed.