Xeke said:I feel the majority of people who say they would kick somebody's ass for saying something would probably get their ass beat by most people, I know I would.:lol
Say that to my FACE! :lol
Xeke said:I feel the majority of people who say they would kick somebody's ass for saying something would probably get their ass beat by most people, I know I would.:lol
Flo_Evans said:Heres a tip: most women do NOT like their men getting in bar fights.
Wasn't that his dad he did that to?MoxManiac said:Hey, you guys remember Bob White? The guy that beat a guy within an inch of his life and took out one of his eyes?The guy that said he thinks he was in legal trouble because of it, and then vanished - presumably to jail?
Yeah.
HotByCold said:Wow, you guys are pretty barbaric.
Freshmaker said:Glad you agree with your own response.
Aaanyhooo...
The way I chose to respond requires that I make at least one character outside of the quote box. I'll respond to your last comment outside of the quote box to make myself seem a little less pompous!
He forfeits the right to live in a civil manner if he elects to be uncivil. There's a wacky (since you seem determined to tone the nature of the comment down progressively with each new post) comment, then there's a focused, direct attack that has no other purpose than to wound.
Isn't civility at least partially defined by law? The guy, as rediculous as it was, had every single legal right to say what he said. It's simple freedom of speech, right? The attack on him was in no way legal. And if a civil society isn't defined by obeying laws, then how would you define it?
There was no precedent for that lawsuit. It was fueled by sheer malice.
Meh, I don't know the details of the case, but rediculous lawsuits have been filed for a long long time, no matter the reason.
Both. It's not a binary choice.
Fair enough.
Whoopie. Nancy Grace has talked people into killing themselves etc. Vicious comments aren't exactly immune to causing harm as well. (The odds of one punch leading to serious harm are about the same.)
Who's Nancy Grace? She's insulted people to the point of them killing themselves? Or she's talked them into it? There's a difference. You can talk someone into killing themselves without saying anything vicious.
Pfft.
You seem to not care about legal matters much. If I were the guy I would have sued. The guy who said what he did legally did nothing wrong. The kid who punched him did.
Both would be better.
If the offended parties needed that for satisfaction, then I guess. I just think it's too bad they need to hit someone to get satisfaction, or that they need satisfaction at all. It seems way too close to the whole vigilante justice thing to me.
.
That's a very interesting situation, and also the fact that you think about it a lot.Timedog said:God, I think about this all the time. Also I think about when it's okay to hit a woman, and when it's crossed the line enough to kill someone badly. If a guy is threatening to put me into a weird sex machine to rip my junk off, and his stamina is better than mine, so I cannot run away, I might resort to physical violence if my strength is higher than his(probably). I'm just tired of weird guys downtown that keep saying weird stuff to me, even when I'm with my girlfriend. I might fight back if a guy says something too insane.
Freedom of speech has limits, and you really can't go around spewing invectives, get punched and expect a judge to sympathize with you.Nicktals said:Isn't civility at least partially defined by law? The guy, as rediculous as it was, had every single legal right to say what he said. It's simple freedom of speech, right? The attack on him was in no way legal. And if a civil society isn't defined by obeying laws, then how would you define it?
Nancy Grace runs some kind of talk show on Court TV. She's a former prosecutor and she spends a lot of time deciding who's right and who's wrong in a legal case then she doggedly attacks the party she thinks is in the wrong.Who's Nancy Grace? She's insulted people to the point of them killing themselves? Or she's talked them into it? There's a difference. You can talk someone into killing themselves without saying anything vicious.
I doubt he'd have won.You seem to not care about legal matters much. If I were the guy I would have sued. The guy who said what he did legally did nothing wrong. The kid who punched him did.
If the offended parties needed that for satisfaction, then I guess. I just think it's too bad they need to hit someone to get satisfaction, or that they need satisfaction at all. It seems way too close to the whole vigilante justice thing to me.
That's great, but there are occasions where it's not just a matter of ego. Smugly dismissing all altercations as ego's nice and all, but it's not reality.Let me just add that I think most people feel the need to respond violently when their pride is hurt, or when they feel they need to defend someone's honor.
PrinceAdam said:That's a very interesting situation, and also the fact that you think about it a lot.
xabre said:The people that say otherwise are people who haven't had to deal with verbal abuse to the point where their mental wellbeing suffers to such an extent that their self-esteem and self-confidence plummet.
Jasoco said:He seemed a harmless little fuck, but we unleashed a lion. Jeremy spoke in class today.
JayDubya said:Not true, actually.
sonarrat said:Yes. And if the other guy escalated it I'd have my phone out to call the cops.
Karma Kramer said:Anyway... if you were me what would you do? I contacted my mother's sister and texted her about it and told her she should call my mom to talk about it... but what should be my next step?
The Faceless Master said:if there's an implied future physical threat in the verbal abuse, then yes.
JayDubya said:Never justifiable, unless the words are coupled with another action, which itself warrants action.
Which brings us back to "never justifiable" if you think about it.
Mistouze said:its not like you have total control of yourself all the time.