When is Violence Justified?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

3 minutes ago, A Red said:

Throwing a milkshake = assault = violence

I've already stated many posts back that I'm not discussing the milkshake incident. 

 

I was clearly dealing with your unambiguous claim that assault = violence. Let's not be silly and try and change the subject/the content of your claim. 

[aRdja]

Just now, A Red said:

Says the son of 2 doctors who is convinced the mccanns murdered their own daughter, when we all know the biggest crime commited by 2 doctors was producing a cunt like you.

Jesus, that’s a bit harsh.

[Dr Nowt]

[A Red]

12 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I've already stated many posts back that I'm not discussing the milkshake incident. 

 

I was clearly dealing with your unambiguous claim that assault = violence. Let's not be silly and try and change the subject/the content of your claim. 

So you change my assertion. Which clearly was in simple terms chucking a milkshake in these instances is violence. I think it is, you dont. No more going round and round

[TheHowieLama]

This may not end well

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

2 minutes ago, A Red said:

So you change my assertion. Which clearly was in simple terms chucking a milkshake in these instances is violence. I think it is, you dont. No more going round and round

Where have I said that chucking a milkshake isn't violence? Please back this up. 

 

Can you not read? I've clearly stated from the outset that I'm not discussing the milkshake issue, but rather your wider assertion (which you clearly made) that assault=violence. 

 

You're either being disingenuous or stupid. Either way, neither of them is a good look. 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, Nelly-Torres said:

The intent of the Corbyn egger is immaterial anyway. The mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness. That's without even discussing the issues of direct and oblique intention. 

So if the mens rea is immaterial it means the political aspect is removed?  Good. Done. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

So if the mens rea is immaterial it means the political aspect is removed?  Good. Done. 

You seem to be confusing mens rea with motive.

 

I also said the intention was immaterial, not the mens rea. Glad to clarify. Of course the mens rea is material. 

 

Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

[A Red]

12 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Where have I said that chucking a milkshake isn't violence? Please back this up. 

 

Can you not read? I've clearly stated from the outset that I'm not discussing the milkshake issue, but rather your wider assertion (which you clearly made) that assault=violence. 

 

You're either being disingenuous or stupid. Either way, neither of them is a good look. 

Go read my posts again, i cant think of anything different to say

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just now, A Red said:

Go read my posts again, i cant think of anything different to say

Like this one? 

[A Red]

 Assault means "make a physical attack upon" The law enables you to be charged for a non violent act as Assault, it treats non violent acts as violence. It must do or there would be a separate act.

 

I've said all of this before

[Dr Nowt]

[Jairzinho]

[AngryOfTuebrook]

5 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

Still seems to be a little silly to try to parse the legal definition to get around the fact that it is not okay to throw stuff at people. 

 

Maybe then we can at least agree it is not okay to ASSAULT someone? 

Whether or not milkshaking is OK is a separate question; a moral judgement which has absolutely nothing to do with any legal definition. 

 

I've been arguing that milkshaking doesn’t even belong in a thread set up to discuss the moral implications of violence, because slopping a cold drink on someone is not, in and of itself, by any generally accepted meaning of the word, violent; it doesn't hurt anyone and there's no intention to hurt anyone. A Red has been doggedly (and incorrectly) trying to argue that it must be violent, because it fits within the legal definition of common assault. 

[Rico1304]

10 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Whether or not milkshaking is OK is a separate question; a moral judgement which has absolutely nothing to do with any legal definition. 

 

I've been arguing that milkshaking doesn’t even belong in a thread set up to discuss the moral implications of violence, because slopping a cold drink on someone is not, in and of itself, by any generally accepted meaning of the word, violent; it doesn't hurt anyone and there's no intention to hurt anyone. A Red has been doggedly (and incorrectly) trying to argue that it must be violent, because it fits within the legal definition of common assault. 

You don’t have to hurt someone to be violent. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

You don’t have to hurt someone to be violent. 

Most generally accepted, widely understood, dictionary and everyday definitions of violence (at least outside of this thread) would include acts or threats of physical harm or injury, up to and including killing.

 

If anyone had asked you a couple of weeks ago whether you thought slopping a cold drink on someone was a violent act  - not whether you thought it was acceptable; not whether you thought it was dickish; not even whether you thought it constituted common assault; specifically, whether you thought it was a violent act  - would you really have said yes?

[3 Stacks]

5 hours ago, A Red said:

Says the son of 2 doctors who is convinced the mccanns murdered their own daughter, when we all know the biggest crime commited by 2 doctors was producing a cunt like you.

[s(k)aturation]

 

Might be worth re-stating:  When is violence justified?

 

 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Most generally accepted, widely understood, dictionary and everyday definitions of violence (at least outside of this thread) would include acts or threats of physical harm or injury, up to and including killing.

 

If anyone had asked you a couple of weeks ago whether you thought slopping a cold drink on someone was a violent act  - not whether you thought it was acceptable; not whether you thought it was dickish; not even whether you thought it constituted common assault; specifically, whether you thought it was a violent act  - would you really have said yes?

Yes of course. How else could it be viewed ? It’s either an accident or deliberate. If it’s deliberate its violence. 

 

If if I turn up at your house every day and chuck a drink in your face how are you viewing it? ‘Fucking hell, there goes big nose Rico with his passive action’. It’s fucking mental!  

[Rico1304]

32 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

I missed this - lovely. TK is another Ubercunt. 

[Jose Jones]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

Yes of course. How else could it be viewed ? It’s either an accident or deliberate. If it’s deliberate its violence. 

 

If if I turn up at your house every day and chuck a drink in your face how are you viewing it? ‘Fucking hell, there goes big nose Rico with his passive action’. It’s fucking mental!  

Was it violence when Robben poured a beer over the head of his manager the other day?

How about in American sport when they chuck the gatorade over the coach when they win stuff?

[A Red]

3 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

Was it violence when Robben poured a beer over the head of his manager the other day?

How about in American sport when they chuck the gatorade over the coach when they win stuff?

If any of those were of malicious intent then they were violent.

 

If I put you over my knee and spank you, gently, against your will - violent. If you ask me to, not violent. If Farage got elected and his supporters gave him the bumps and threw champagne or milk over him to celebrate, not violent.

 

This really isnt difficult

[aRdja]

If you have to resort to verbal abuse, then you’ve lost the argument IMO.

[A Red]

7 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Whether or not milkshaking is OK is a separate question; a moral judgement which has absolutely nothing to do with any legal definition. 

 

I've been arguing that milkshaking doesn’t even belong in a thread set up to discuss the moral implications of violence, because slopping a cold drink on someone is not, in and of itself, by any generally accepted meaning of the word, violent; it doesn't hurt anyone and there's no intention to hurt anyone. A Red has been doggedly (and incorrectly) trying to argue that it must be violent, because it fits within the legal definition of common assault. 

If it is not an act of violence why is the bloke that did the milkshaking being prosecuted for Assault? The law considers spitting as an assault - it doesnt hurt anyone and there is no intention to hurt anyone. I would consider it a violent act, would you? 

 

I'm afraid the law agrees with me.

[A Red]

12 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

If you have to resort to verbal abuse, then you’ve lost the argument IMO.

Even in retaliation?