As soon as society refuses to adequately intervene to stop the harm, any degree of harm justifies any level of force necessary to end that harm. Your position is only valid so long as society is willing to intercede on behalf of the victim.
The content in question also isn’t actually them.
The content in question is harassment at a minimum. It is harm. Serious harm.
Being violent just because your feeling are hurt is barbaric and has no place in a society.
So long as society is willing to intercede against the harm caused by harassers, I agree. Here, that intercession was explicitly denied. The school refused to act. The school failed to even separate or supervise the two parties. Consequently, society lost its ethical justification for criticizing the victim’s efforts to end her victimization. With the school failing to act reasonably or responsibly, we don’t get to criticize the victim’s actions.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Society fails at justice all the time, but it will respond with force and punishment if you take justice into your own hands. The failure of society to adequately address these scenarios is one of the reasons exacting your own justice is unwise, because society will punish you for it, as it did to the girl when she tried. Violence is not acceptable.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Yes.
Society fails at justice
I see the problem. You are conflating “stopping harm” with “justice”. There is a massive difference between the two concepts, and we aren’t talking about justice here.
Asking police to stop the woman from keying his car is an attempt to stop harm. Asking the prosecutor to charge her with destruction of property is an attempt to seek justice. You described a scenario where the woman is actively harming the man. He is, indeed, justified in using any level of force necessary to end that harm. You did not describe a scenario where the woman has previously caused harm, but is no longer doing so.
Keep in mind that the boy on the bus was actively engaged in harassing his victim at the time his victim used physical force against him. She was not attempting to retaliate for past harms; she was not attempting to seek justice. She was attempting to end the harm he was in the process of perpetrating.
We’re at the point of the conversation where you recognize her actions in these specific circumstances were at least understandable, if not reasonable and rational. We’re at the point of the conversation where you acknowledge she was the victim. We’re at the point in the conversation where you acknowledge the school failed to properly supervise her and her harasser on the bus, and erred greatly in their disciplinary action.
We’re at the point where you point out that violence is not acceptable, but that given his actions and the multiple failures of the school pushed her to do something that she would not normally do, and should not have been punished for.
We’re at the point in the conversation where you recognize you have been improperly assigning excessive blame to the victim, and decide to delete, or at least amend your previous arguments to portray yourself as a reasonable person.
As soon as society refuses to adequately intervene to stop the harm, any degree of harm justifies any level of force necessary to end that harm. Your position is only valid so long as society is willing to intercede on behalf of the victim.
The content in question is harassment at a minimum. It is harm. Serious harm.
So long as society is willing to intercede against the harm caused by harassers, I agree. Here, that intercession was explicitly denied. The school refused to act. The school failed to even separate or supervise the two parties. Consequently, society lost its ethical justification for criticizing the victim’s efforts to end her victimization. With the school failing to act reasonably or responsibly, we don’t get to criticize the victim’s actions.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Society fails at justice all the time, but it will respond with force and punishment if you take justice into your own hands. The failure of society to adequately address these scenarios is one of the reasons exacting your own justice is unwise, because society will punish you for it, as it did to the girl when she tried. Violence is not acceptable.
Yes.
I see the problem. You are conflating “stopping harm” with “justice”. There is a massive difference between the two concepts, and we aren’t talking about justice here.
Asking police to stop the woman from keying his car is an attempt to stop harm. Asking the prosecutor to charge her with destruction of property is an attempt to seek justice. You described a scenario where the woman is actively harming the man. He is, indeed, justified in using any level of force necessary to end that harm. You did not describe a scenario where the woman has previously caused harm, but is no longer doing so.
Keep in mind that the boy on the bus was actively engaged in harassing his victim at the time his victim used physical force against him. She was not attempting to retaliate for past harms; she was not attempting to seek justice. She was attempting to end the harm he was in the process of perpetrating.
Then by your reasoning, if a woman rejects a man and she hurts him, he can beat her. Glad that’s clear.
What?
You said yes, any amount of force is acceptable.
Not quite. You shortened the phrase. You dropped five critical words that were present in the original phrase:
Further, you’re dishonestly relying on a colloquial definition of “harm”, rather than a legal one. “Rejection” does not qualify.
I used what was necessary for the reference, I assumed you didn’t need the entire quote.
Are we at the ‘define your terms’ stage of the conversation, then, or are you starting to probe with the plausibly deniable personal attacks?
We’re at the point of the conversation where you recognize her actions in these specific circumstances were at least understandable, if not reasonable and rational. We’re at the point of the conversation where you acknowledge she was the victim. We’re at the point in the conversation where you acknowledge the school failed to properly supervise her and her harasser on the bus, and erred greatly in their disciplinary action.
We’re at the point where you point out that violence is not acceptable, but that given his actions and the multiple failures of the school pushed her to do something that she would not normally do, and should not have been punished for.
We’re at the point in the conversation where you recognize you have been improperly assigning excessive blame to the victim, and decide to delete, or at least amend your previous arguments to portray yourself as a reasonable person.