This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
I punched a girl in the face.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
471651
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
451455
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Unnecessary violence is wrong.
As evil-dictator like as it may seem, I disagree. Sometimes violence is not necessary but is the best option. He clearly showed self restraint and attempted to use non-violent methods at first, but the opposition was determined to elevate the problem. Even as he was being assaulted, he still tried to talk. True, he could have told an adult, and she might have gotten an in school suspension at most. However, outside of school the problem would elevate to a much higher level. No one was seriously hurt, and it probably stung for about twenty minutes. She learned that the world does not revolve around her as well as that she cannot shout and hit whoever she wants, and he resolved the conflict with a clear cut "You started a fight you cannot win." Even if he could have kept talking, he's only human, and even that aside I think that this was probably the best way to resolve it at that point.
Post by
Orranis
Unnecessary violence is wrong.
So is necessary violence right?
It can be. More often than not it's
amoral
though.
To the issue here. Can you honestly say that your violence was necessary to stop the violence she was committing? I doubt it -- in fact the way you describe it, it only aggravated her. Causing her to hit you more.
And that is why hitting women is generally frowned upon. In most cases, they are not strong enough to nor have the intention of hurting you more than the little they can do. There is no
need
to strike back. When a man strikes you it is usually either the case that he is strong enough or intent enough to warrant a defense on your part. Those are only generalizations, however -- there will be plenty of exceptions.
Once he actually hit her, not started to and stopped himself, the conflict was put at an end. She aggravated him
and
herself (I'll remind you that she took a respectful gesture the wrong way) to the point of violence. She was the first to assault someone.
Post by
Squishalot
Can you honestly say that your violence was necessary to stop the violence she was committing? I doubt it -- in fact the way you describe it, it only aggravated her. Causing her to hit you more.
Yeah, I'm with Faceshield on this one. Although the general principle is fair enough, Hyper, this statement is completely incorrect, as the actual violence he commited resulted in an end to the violence she was committing. His earlier non-violent attempt at ending the confrontation (by holding her wrists) aggravated her, not his punch.
Those are only generalizations, however -- there will be plenty of exceptions.
Unfortunately, people judge you on generalisations, even if you're the exception. So even if a little shrimp like me (<170cm) pushes away (non-violent) a giant amazon warrior woman (>180cm with martial arts background) of a girl in the playground, it will still be seen as girlbashing, despite the fact that she'd pummelled me to the ground and I was pushing her off me to run away.
Tale is just a hypothetical fictional scenario and is not based on a real story. Any resemblance to any person, living or deceased is purely coincidence.
Post by
351418
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Tale is just a hypothetical fictional scenario and is not based on a real story. Any resemblance to any person, living or deceased is purely coincidence.
Its ok to admit a giant Amazon warrior woman took your lunch money. She is gone now.
But seriously the situation could have gone better is if he was able to de-escalate the situation by talking. But from the way he worded the OP he was yelling and shouting back and that only makes matters worse. I agree with HSR it shouldn't have ended in violence, but when it did, he handled the physical altercation right.
But it didn't just
end
in violence, it was violent from the near beginning. Both the conflict and the violence was caused by her.
Post by
351418
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Yes "near the beginning" She didn’t just walk up to him and start hitting, words were exchanged first. If that exchange of words had happened differently there would not have been a fight.
She got angry, he gets angry back. She starts shouting, he starts shouting back. This is his natural reaction, but it doesn’t have to happen that way. Instead of raising his voice and tensing up he could have talked calmly tried to stay relaxed.
When two people get in a fight there are a lot of pre-attack indicators. The two people feed off each other.
If one of the people remains calm and talk quietly then that can keep the other person from getting to aggressive.
How we talk and the words we use can de-escalate just about any argument of confrontation.
Heh that's a good one...
Post by
351418
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Yes "near the beginning" She didn’t just walk up to him and start hitting, words were exchanged first. If that exchange of words had happened differently there would not have been a fight.
She got angry, he gets angry back. She starts shouting, he starts shouting back. This is his natural reaction, but it doesn’t have to happen that way. Instead of raising his voice and tensing up he could have talked calmly tried to stay relaxed.
When two people get in a fight there are a lot of pre-attack indicators. The two people feed off each other.
If one of the people remains calm and talk quietly then that can keep the other person from getting to aggressive.
How we talk and the words we use can de-escalate just about any argument of confrontation.
Heh that's a good one...
I'm sorry that you don’t believe me, but I use tactics like this almost every day in my job. How I talk and act when things start to get tense is most important. It doesn't always work but in many situations it does.
Perhaps its where I live, but when I talk calmly most often people take that as an excuse to shout louder at me. After awhile I don't even talk anymore and just ignore them. That is what I find works best...
Post by
Squishalot
How we talk and the words we use can de-escalate just about any argument of confrontation.
Yes, but only to some extent. Because different personalities react to stimuli in different ways, once someone is worked up, you require a very tailored approach to the person.
I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt when he says that he asked casually / politely in the first instance (relative to after), and once she was riled, it would have been very difficult for him to calm her down.
Having said that, it's not exactly his fault either that his psychological reaction to "Don't tell me what the $%^& to do" is an aggressive one. The problem in this case is that it escalated very quickly, as it does with teenagers. Talking things through works better with people who can deal with reason (like working adults), and won't object to what you say simply because you exist.
Post by
351418
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I agree with all of this. I was just saying that if anything could have gone better it would have been the begining. But like you said teenages at the peak of puberty. the situation wouldnt have happened any other way.
Fair enough. :)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Unnecessary violence is wrong.
As evil-dictator like as it may seem, I disagree. Sometimes violence is not necessary but is the best option. He clearly showed self restraint and attempted to use non-violent methods at first, but the opposition was determined to elevate the problem. Even as he was being assaulted, he still tried to talk. True, he could have told an adult, and she might have gotten an in school suspension at most. However, outside of school the problem would elevate to a much higher level. No one was seriously hurt, and it probably stung for about twenty minutes. She learned that the world does not revolve around her as well as that she cannot shout and hit whoever she wants, and he resolved the conflict with a clear cut "You started a fight you cannot win." Even if he could have kept talking, he's only human, and even that aside I think that this was probably the best way to resolve it at that point.
Once you say that unnecessary violence is
not
wrong, then you have no right saying the girl was wrong in the first place. She was using violence (not necessary, but usually effective) so she would stop getting bossed around. Once you get rid of the line, you have no right arbitrarily drawing it wherever you want.
Although the general principle is fair enough, Hyper, this statement is completely incorrect, as the actual violence he commited resulted in an end to the violence she was committing.
You can't make that judgment. She had to stop hitting him as some point. Chances are it would have ended a lot earlier if he hadn't fought back. Fighting back helps justify a continued assault.
Secondly, who should be the one making the judgment that it is the best option to fight back? Is someone who is mad and annoyed in a position to make an ethical decision about the situation? No. Which is why, unless there is danger of major harm, it is always better to take it to some authority.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
149668
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.