[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

As usual on this forum.

Ikr. Contrary Mary always comes into these threads to come up with a myriad of excuses for racist people.

[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.

[Black Dagger]

YASSSS SIS beat his ass x

[Toy Soldier]

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.”

[caprimint]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The reaction should never be violence, filming and reporting him was enough.

Exactly, people never learn

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

It's when I quote slim that we know we are in the End Days

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Jesus said..turn the other cheek

Wise words

[caprimint]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If he's man enough to slug out an old man, he's man enough to ignore nasty words.

Right? It's so tragic that people's first thoughts are to be violent because they can't control themselves. It's a massive problem

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by caprimint

Right? It's so tragic that people's first thoughts are to be violent because they can't control themselves. It's a massive problem

tbf judging by the video, that wasn't actually the men's first thoughts, they became violent not after the verbal insults but after the man made a swing for them, not saying I think that was the right thing to do, clearly the man wasn't ever going to be a real physical threat to them, but there was a fair bit of provocation from him before they reacted that way

[LeatherTrumpet]

takes verbal assault, catches punch, no violence - lesson learned

Youtube video

[caprimint]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I can't imagine that you'd be approached by a child saying that another child did something to them - even something awful - and the response would be "Oh you should have socked them one back, right in the side of the head, little Jimmy".

[Livia]

Provocation is not a defence for assault.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Provocation is not a defence for assault.

I didn't say it was?

*If that was aimed at me

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I didn't say it was?

*If that was aimed at me

It wasn't aimed particularly at you, but at everyone who said they were provoked.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

It wasn't aimed particularly at you, but at everyone who said they were provoked.

Well, my last post where I used that word was just pointing out that violence wasn't their first thought(judging by the video), I wasn't defending their "right" to be violent, just saying there was more provocation than what was being made out in the post I quoted.

Again, I'm not for a minute saying that how they reacted was the right thing to do but I can see why they got so angry as well

[Livia]

Yes, I can see why they got angry. And the old man was out of order. But I abhor the support they seem to have got on here for beating up an old man. And that is not aimed at you.

[Tom4784]

I wonder if people would be so defensive of the racist if he was black and the two guys were white.

If you're going to abuse someone and then try to hit them, you're provoking a fight. None of this wouldn't happen if he had kept his racist mouth shut.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I wonder if people would be so defensive of the racist if he was black and the two guys were white.

No one (really) has been defensive of the racist rather than critical of resorting to unnecessary physical retaliation, and it would be exactly the same no matter who was involved.

[Niamh.]

If I'm being totally honest I think I'd be more inclined to swing a little more towards it being an OK thing to do had he been a younger, stronger looking man, rather than an older, frail looking guy. Not sure if that's being a bit biased or maybe then it would seem more like self defense because there would have been more of a threat (psychically) to the two men? hhmmm

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

If I'm being totally honest I think I'd be more inclined to swing a little more towards it being an OK thing to do had he been a younger, stronger looking man, rather than an older, frail looking guy. Not sure if that's being a bit biased or maybe then it would seem more like self defense because there would have been more of a threat (psychically) to the two men? hhmmm

I agree and not just because of him being more of a threat, I think people (in not wanting to offend older people maybe?) really underestimate how much the human body declines past 60. You can see it quite visibly in this video - massive contusion appears on the side of his head in minutes, from a punch that wasn't even that hard, and would most likely not even put a mark on a 40 year old. The bones and blood vessels of a 70 year old are not robust. If you punch a 40 year old you're probably going to cause a black eye or a bust nose (note: you CAN still do a lot more damage accidentally so it's st5ill not a great idea). If you punch a 70 year old in the head... you're at serious risk of causing a skull fracture or bleed on the brain. There's a reason that "having a fall" is a much more serious thing when you're past a certain age.

Again even if you want to take the old guy out of the equation completely in terms of caring what happens: There isn't a judge in the world who is going to hear that a 30 year old punched a 70 year old in the head and caused a brain haemorrhage that resulted in death - for ANY reason other than to stop a real, immediate, active threat to themselves or others - and not have it result in the person throwing the punch going to jail on a manslaughter charge. Not worth it, stupid idea, stupid and reckless action.

And no, before we start pretending again, this weak-arse 70 year old bloke throwing his boney little hands around does not constitute a real or active threat.

[bitontheslide]

everyone appears to want a more tolerant society, but that works both ways. Tolerance means you don't beat the **** out of someone if they say some bad things. Equally of course, people should be more respectful of everyone around them

[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.

[Toy Soldier]

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

I agree and not just because of him being more of a threat, I think people (in not wanting to offend older people maybe?) really underestimate how much the human body declines past 60. You can see it quite visibly in this video - massive contusion appears on the side of his head in minutes, from a punch that wasn't even that hard, and would most likely not even put a mark on a 40 year old. The bones and blood vessels of a 70 year old are not robust. If you punch a 40 year old you're probably going to cause a black eye or a bust nose (note: you CAN still do a lot more damage accidentally so it's st5ill not a great idea). If you punch a 70 year old in the head... you're at serious risk of causing a skull fracture or bleed on the brain. There's a reason that "having a fall" is a much more serious thing when you're past a certain age.

Again even if you want to take the old guy out of the equation completely in terms of caring what happens: There isn't a judge in the world who is going to hear that a 30 year old punched a 70 year old in the head and caused a brain haemorrhage that resulted in death - for ANY reason other than to stop a real, immediate, active threat to themselves or others - and not have it result in the person throwing the punch going to jail on a manslaughter charge. Not worth it, stupid idea, stupid and reckless action.

And no, before we start pretending again, this weak-arse 70 year old bloke throwing his boney little hands around does not constitute a real or active threat.

Right ...so you've changed your stance now from violence is never an answer to it us if it's a fair fight?...pfft.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Right ...so you've changed your stance now from violence is never an answer to it us if it's a fair fight?...pfft.

No and I'd be interested to see if you can point out where I said that (which you won't be able to, because I didn't).