[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If anyone was looking for an example of ad hominem



Ahh so you're using frustration as a justification for an onlooker advocating violence, rather than frustration of those involved being used as a reason for advocating violence.

I can see the difference but I still don't agree with you. Honestly this thread is an eye opener although I'm not sure why at this point. "How DARE you say that advocating retaliatory violence isn't a good idea!!". It could only be 2020.

Never been guilty of that have you TS?
You're projecting now I never said that advocating retaliatory violence was a good idea at all... But I can get my head around the reasons why others may find being in that situation more challenging, and not just cos they is fick.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

But I can get my head around the reasons why others may find being in that situation more challenging, and not just cos they is fick.

I've said (repeatedly) that I understand why the men involved were so angry and frustrated and I empathise with the reasons they were lashing out. But there are people on this thread not just saying they understand why it happened, or that it was inevitable that something like that would happen - they're arguing that it was the right course of action. Applauding it. That's what I find immature and/or "fick". The people in this thread were not there, they don't have the defense of it being "in the heat of the moment", their reasoned response is that responding with violence was the right thing to do. Frankly if this was 5 years ago, I'd be flabbergasted that I have to defend thinking that that sentiment is wrong and stupid. Not any more, sadly.

[Ammi]

...anyways, last few thoughts ..(...for the moment...)...it isn’t reasoned or relevant to ask...’what would you do...’...on a personal level...because it is obviously very personal and emotional and not reasoned at all to have that asked of you in discussions such as this...and there has also very much been a repeated vein of thought of looking at the older guy possibly becoming physical first, which isn’t for me as clear as maybe it is for some...’ I don’t condone but, though.../...this isn’t all completely clear..’...type thing...


...’Always’ and ‘Never’ are two of the most powerful words and the middle ground and also reasoned ground, imo...would be ‘human’ ...and that must have a ‘right’ to that as well...Jack, I think...always adds very interesting discussions and thoughts to stories like this, which are topics in their own right, as he said...


“all violence is bad and never acceptable” argument cropping up, and thought it was relevant to illustrate that that argument is founded on a lot of false equivalences. I think it’s an interesting topic in its own right.”

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I've said (repeatedly) that I understand why the men involved were so angry and frustrated and I empathise with the reasons they were lashing out. But there are people on this thread not just saying they understand why it happened, or that it was inevitable that something like that would happen - they're arguing that it was the right course of action. Applauding it. That's what I find immature and/or "fick". The people in this thread were not there, they don't have the defense of it being "in the heat of the moment", their reasoned response is that responding with violence was the right thing to do. Frankly if this was 5 years ago, I'd be flabbergasted that I have to defend thinking that that sentiment is wrong and stupid. Not any more, sadly.

You are still not getting it... the reason (potentially) may be due to not a reasoned response but learned behaviour, when faced with an aggressive challenge and fight or flight kicks in , who are we to say that someone's response is to fight, It's innate isn't it?

I may be wrong it's just a theory that the gay men in the thread feel the same way as they have been in similar threatening situations.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You are still not getting it... the reason (potentially) may be due to not a reasoned response but learned behaviour, when faced with an aggressive challenge and fight or flight kicks in , who are we to say that someone's response is to fight, It's innate isn't it?

I may be wrong it's just a theory that the gay men in the thread feel the same way as they have been in similar threatening situations.

Again, though, empathising with them isn't the problem, and you can empathise with them and say that you understand why it happened, without stating that they did the right thing. Even if you're saying that these are the things that make them more inclined to think that they DID do the right thing... all your saying is that their objectivity is hampered by their own experiences. Which is also totally fine - but absolutely NOT a reason for anyone who can see that this action was wrong, reckless and dangerous to shy away from saying so. What sort of world are we looking for here, really? "I can understand why you think this was right, so I'm not going to discuss why I think it was not."?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again, though, empathising with them isn't the problem, and you can empathise with them and say that you understand why it happened, without stating that they did the right thing. Even if you're saying that these are the things that make them more inclined to think that they DID do the right thing... all your saying is that their objectivity is hampered by their own experiences. Which is also totally fine - but absolutely NOT a reason for anyone who can see that this action was wrong, reckless and dangerous to shy away from saying so. What sort of world are we looking for here, really? "I can understand why you think this was right, so I'm not going to discuss why I think it was not."?

Right so you've taken on board the difference in life experience being a factor. However, that was not your explanation for the thought process, it was age.

You cited the reason many agreed with the action was predominantly due to their maturity. All I argued against was that point.