• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Is saying "they started it" childish?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JayDub

Member
Inspired by that thread asking how you feel when you saw that .gif:

Is saying, "they started it" childish?

Personally, if someone hit me, either I walk away or I hit back. If I happened to hit them back and a big brawl went off, the person at fault is DEFINITELY the person who hit me first.

So, what say you GAF? Is pointing out who started the confrontation childish?
 
Y

YYZ

Junior Member
Well, formally, it's called "instigation" so no, it's not childish. It can be used to defend yourself legally.
 
S

Scribble

Member
I think it's a bit childish, NORMALLY. I take responsibility for my actions, unlike that OTT big muscle guy that keeps posting threads about him overreacting.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
No, because part of many countries' legal code is based around self defense.
 
J

JayDub

Member
Dali said:
Considering it's a solid legal defense, I'd say no.
Click to expand...

Lets just say that your friend started an argument, and you end up hating each other for years. Your defense of not apologizing because "they started it" is justified?
 
G

gerg

Member
JayDub said:
Personally, if someone hit me, either I walk away or I hit back. If I happened to hit them back and a big brawl went off, the person at fault is DEFINITELY the person who hit me first.
Click to expand...

Why? You're ability not to hit them back wasn't compromised at any time.

So, what say you GAF? Is pointing out who started the confrontation childish?
Click to expand...

On the one hand, if you "attack" someone, you have to expect a reasonable response. The question, therefore, seems to concern what is accepted as "reasonable". If a person is set upon by a group of men who proceed to attack that person, then it's probably considered that a physical response, as self-defense, is acceptable. That it is considered acceptable probably lies in the fact that the victim would be in danger if he did not react. However, if someone punches you, once, out of a drunken rage, you are not in danger, so I would suggest that a physical response is not reasonable, nor acceptable. Here the "He started it!" response seems to aim at denying the moral culpability of one's actions. So yes, (here) it is childish.

Reilo said:
No, because part of many countries' legal code is based around self defense.
Click to expand...

Self-defense, but only to the point that reasonable force is used. Aren't people successfully prosecuted for shooting thieves, for example?
 
S

Scribble

Member
About the argument situation.

If your reason for not apologising is just "they started it", it couldn't have been such a big thing in the first place, right? As opposed to "They really hurt my feelings"
 
The Faceless Master

The Faceless Master

Member
saying "they started it" isn't childish, but it's usually the excuse for the childish behavior that happened immediately before the statement was used.
 
A

AtomskEater

Member
Depends on the situation. If you're defending yourself after someone attacks you, it's fine and dandy. If someone called your mother a bad name and things got heated from there, it's pretty childish. I kind of think the wording itself is childish, as other users have said there are specific phrases adults use that mean the same thing. :D
 
A

Asmodai

Banned
Who started it is what makes the difference between battery and self-defence in most cases.

Since it has a hell of a lot of legal meaning, no, it is most definitely not childish.

And remember, something doesn't have to be a physical attack to be assault.
 
M

Mudkips

Banned
MojoRisin said:
I still use "Finders keepers, losers weepers"
Click to expand...

Do you still "call" things?

Pro tip for Californians: If someone "calls" something, go for "recall, special election, I win". Works every time.
 
D

Dali

Member
gerg said:
Self-defense, but only to the point that reasonable force is used. Aren't people successfully prosecuted for shooting thieves, for example?
Click to expand...
Some people, yes. Others, no. Take Bernhard H. Goetz for example. The thing is jurors and judges alike take 'who did it first' into consideration and if the answer is the other guy that's a very powerful thing to have in your favor.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
It works on GAF.

WWRU: Hey, guys, look at these Professor Layton twitters I found!
GAF: That's really cool. Viral marketing?
WWRU: I'm not sure, but I'll update you guys if and when more tweets appear!

*some time later*

WWRU: Hey, GAF, look at all this information I conveniently posted so that you can trace the Professor Layton twitters all the way back to me!
GAF: These twitters are fake. You're behind them.
WWRU: NO! GAF!!!! PLEASE DON'T BAN ME!!! I love this place SO much! Please don't ban me! I promise I won't do something like this ever again! Am I safe? Am I safe? I hope I'm safe.
GAF: If you haven't been banned yet, it seems you're safe.
EviLore: You started it.
 
A

Althane

Member
Dax01 said:
It works on GAF.

WWRY: Hey, guys, look at these Professor Layton twitters I found!
GAF: That's really cool. Viral marketing?
WWRY: I'm not sure, but I'll update you guys if and when more tweets appear!

*some time later*

WWRY: Hey, GAF, look at all this information I conveniently posted so that you can trace the Professor Layton twitters all the way back to me!
GAF: These twitters are fake. You're behind them.
WWRY: NO! GAF!!!! PLEASE DON'T BAN ME!!! I love this place SO much! Please don't ban me! I promise I won't do something like this ever again! Am I safe? Am I safe? I hope I'm safe.
GAF: If you haven't been banned yet, it seems you're safe.
EviLore: You started it.
Click to expand...

What's this topic, because it sounds hilarious.

(then again, anything with EviLore banning someone ends up being hilarious)
 
F

Fimbulvetr

Member
Like with most things in life it depends on the situation.
Especially if you're the one who started it but wanted everyone to not like the guy who started fighting/arguing with you; that would be a childish example.
You were attacked by someone(they hit you first) and got in a fight, so you claim self-defense so you don't go to jail with them; that's a non-childish example.
 
G

gerg

Member
Dali said:
Some people, yes. Others, no. Take Bernhard H. Goetz for example. The thing is jurors and judges alike take 'who did it first' into consideration and if the answer is the other guy that's a very powerful thing to have in your favor.
Click to expand...

Although that may not absolve you completely. It all depends on what we consider reasonable and what we consider excessive. Maiming a thief? Probably alright. Killing them? No.
 
M

MojoRisin

Member
Mudkips said:
Do you still "call" things?

Pro tip for Californians: If someone "calls" something, go for "recall, special election, I win". Works every time.
Click to expand...
I call things all the time, that's the only thing we have left to keep this society together. If we didn't have it there would be riots.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
It's certainly not mature.

It really depends on the situation, if someone gives you a slap and you beat them within in an inch of their lives, no, it's not an excuse at all, but if you put someone in their place, then yeah, I'd say it's a valid response.

That video of the woman though, no. Who fuck hits women?
 
D

Dali

Member
gerg said:
Although that may not absolve you completely. It all depends on what we consider reasonable and what we consider excessive.
Click to expand...
It may not absolve you completely, but either way it helps you out. Murder may turn into manslaughter. Assault becomes self-defense. Maybe you'll still get a murder charge but serve a reduced sentence. The discussion isn't about whether you get off the hook completely but rather if asking the question is silly.

Maiming a thief? Probably alright. Killing them? No.
Click to expand...
Look up Joe Horn.
 
E

Ember128

Member
It's not what you say, it's how you say it. If you say it like you're a whiny five year old, then yes. If you say it like Obama denouncing people who think the healthcare bill is engineered to kill old people, then no.
 
B

BladeWorker

Member
Mudkips said:
Do you still "call" things?

Pro tip for Californians: If someone "calls" something, go for "recall, special election, I win". Works every time.
Click to expand...
:lol

Accordingly, for the last five years up here in Canada, if someone calls "nonconfidence!" it's a $300-million scramble to the ballot box. Or a head-scratcher.
 
I

ianp622

Member
Here's a question for you:

If a 5 year old hit you in some way that hurt, would you hit him back?

If a 10 year old hit you, would you hit him back?

If a 20 year old hit you, would you hit him back?

Why would you only strike back when the person is at a certain age? It's obvious they haven't grown up mentally, so you should treat them like the age they are mentally. Be the bigger man and walk away.
 
A

Asmodai

Banned
ianp622 said:
Here's a question for you:

If a 5 year old hit you in some way that hurt, would you hit him back?

If a 10 year old hit you, would you hit him back?

If a 20 year old hit you, would you hit him back?

Why would you only strike back when the person is at a certain age? It's obvious they haven't grown up mentally, so you should treat them like the age they are mentally. Be the bigger man and walk away.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they don't know better, because at that age they should know better.

After you hit the 20 year old back, chances are he won't be hitting people so much. That's the way violent people learn its not always a good idea. If a 20 year old guy hasn't learned that he can't hit people without consequence, you might have to teach him that.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
ianp622 said:
Here's a question for you:

If a 5 year old hit you in some way that hurt, would you hit him back?

If a 10 year old hit you, would you hit him back?

If a 20 year old hit you, would you hit him back?

Why would you only strike back when the person is at a certain age? It's obvious they haven't grown up mentally, so you should treat them like the age they are mentally. Be the bigger man and walk away.
Click to expand...
a 5 or 10 year old wouldn't hurt you, you wouldn't be angry, a 20 year old would.
 
S

spliced

Member
Absolutely not, instigators get away with far too much. They need to be called on it and face the consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Any Gaffers Won Anything Decent on the Lotto?
2
53
1K
Garibaldi replied
GAF Alpha Males, what have you repaired lately?
2
58
2K
DeceptiveAlarm replied
Things in games that you are Masochistic towards.
47
1K
Kiya's Guard replied
Larry David assaults Elmo on Today. Forced to apologize.
2
73
6K
ManaByte replied
  • Locked
A 22•22 Tribute Thread!
24
1K
mansoor1980 replied
Top Bottom