If a man insults you, is it ever alright to respond with violence?
>>34634435In a better world, yes. Physical force is far more honest, and keeps verbal rats in check. But in the modern day good behavior is often punished.
>>34634444Checked
>>34634435If its a mere insult then no, its not okay to strike them.
>>34634435>is it ever alright to respond with violence?If the insult is directed toward you, respond with nothing - not even a frown. If you refuse to let an insult affect you, the person who made the comment will feel confused and embarrassed at your lack of a reaction. If the insult is directed toward your mother, father, or sibling, you offer the person a chance to apologize. If they refuse, they must be taught humility. As a kid, my friend Tom's mother was dying of cancer, and she went bald during chemo. Another kid made a nasty comment about how she looked and refused to take it back, so Tom smashed his face in the ground and forced him to eat wood chips. Some people only learn through violence.
Yes
>>34634435If you have to respond violently, it indicates that the insult was true.
>>34634684>if you kill your enemies they win!Get the fuck out of here
>>34634435No, only hit women.
>>34634435No because it means your brain was too unga bunga to come up with an actual retort or counter-argument to undermine their insult. Which then suggests their insult was actually the truth, because you had no logical argument against it.
>>34634435maybe
>>34634435The one who throws the first punch has declared himself the loser.
>>34634435>If a man insults you, is it ever alright to respond with violence?Absolutely never, no. If you are *certain* he is about to attack you physically, then you can; but if it's merely verbal, never.
>>34634613I like Tom. Tom seems like a good guy
>>34634435Personally I'm not a fan of it. I can understand people who have fantasies of hurting others and how they are desperate for the world to be based on physical violence. But I don't think that's a healthy mindset, nor helpful. Physical violence has a substantially higher chance of causing permanent damage than words. The balance between the two is pretty clear in terms of where risk and damage sit. I can understand the desire, monkey brain is quite strong. Me no like something, me want kill it. And I'm not antithetical to all violence. I just think that during that moment of being insulted, you aren't being rational when being reactionary. I'd rather you have more time to decide the appropriate response. Which when it's words, is often words.
>>34634435yeah, id put people in a wheelchair for much lesseveryone deserves a good beatingpeople got way too used getting away with shitanyone who tells you otherwise is a woman or a delusional fag
>>34634899Checked. Violence is a losing move.
>>34634752Anger is a feminine emotion.
>>34635089Unless you win, in which case it's a winning move.
>>34635128That's the thing though, try to imagine a realistic scenario where violence would lead to "winning" if you really think it through to the end.
>>34635174Guy insults your honor. Knock him out. I have now won. If he then later calls the police it sues, then we return to>>34634444Like how nowadays good men using violence to stop bad men are often punished by the decadent falling civilization we live in (e.g. Daniel Penny).Understand that underlying everything is ultimately the threat of physical force. Don't pay your taxes, and resist enough, uncle Sam will use physical force to imprison you, lethal if you push it. A great psy-op is "violence is never the answer". It's actually always the answer, if you have the power to get away with it. Like Mao said, all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Or Thucydides "what is right is only in question between equals in power, and the strong do what they can, and weak suffer what they must". Also, don't confuse a good man for a harmless man. Common error.
>>34635432You destroyed your own honor by failing to control your emotions, which means you lost. The weakest and most miserable kind of man is the one who has no notion of self mastery.
>>34635432I actually agree with a lot of what you said. But if you're dangerous enough to simply knock out a guy he is probably not going to insult you in the first place. And even if he does, at that point you would probably not take it seriously. So the only realistic scenario where an insult is something that you need to respond to is the same type of situation where a physical fight would be dangerous for both. It's just not worth the risk.
>>34635455Practically I agree with what you're saying. I was more defending the principle.
>>34634435ya, "fighting words" is in the law
>>34634435depends on the situation and what would be applicable and appropriate. if force is needed, sure. however in most cases i don’t think being physical with another is always a good choice in many generalities
>>34635100>erm don't get angry show no emotions caring is cringe nothing matters were all star dust
>>34634435It's just dumb.You don't win even if you win.There are legal and social consequences.Best case, you are exactly as before the violence. That's best case.Worst is you end up dead, in prison life ruined.
>>34636013The importance of principle and virtue is the reason why you're supposed to master yourself, and not let passions master you. You're advocating for a weak and feminine way of life.
>>34634435>If a man insults you, is it ever alright to respond with violence?Lashing out with violence because someone hurt your feelings is how children behave. If your emotional regulation is this low you need to either be accompanied by a state assigned care worker who can be legally responsible for you or sent to a re-education camp of some kind until you are able to live in society with the cognitive function greater than that of a orangutan.
>>34634435the world runs this experiment every daycountries where people retain themselves thrive countries where people resort to violence are shit holessimple as
>>34636109Finally a reasonable non retarded statement
>>34636259Those countries "thriving" are currently being desecrated and the people are going extinct. There is a happy medium. Over-civility is a thing. The "savages" of the old world that would do duels and lynchings also created the modern world, the beauty of Michaelangelo and Beethoven, the genius of Gauss and Newton.What do you think the British men from a hundred years ago would do in light of the third-world rape gangs in the UK? They'd deal with it fast, violently. And that's a GOOD thing.
>>34636329so which countries are you claiming have the right level of violence
>>34636404He has no clue. He's been mind captured by the onlin conservative chud romanticization of "the old days" where people shit, fuck and murdered each other in the streets like animals. He's guzzled so much of the koolaid he unironically thinks that the days of public executions, open air brothels and people violently stabbing each other to death over minor disagreements is a state of human existence somehow more advance than what we have now. It boggles the mind how much internet propaganda you must boil your own brain in to render yourself this retarded.
>>34634435Getting angry is something children do that don't understand their emotions and lack self awareness, so no you aren't a man if someone calling a meany meany word triggers you lol.
i don't know why anyone wouldn't just scamper off unless you're literally the host of a function in which case you must excuse them from said functionall these fucking respect from mutual violence cowboys are being silly there's no good reason to stay in a space where someone's making evil eyes at you especially if they got niggas with them ??? just standing around with high cortisol?are you at work? scampermaxxing is even more important if you are the punching bag at work you need to start again somewhere elsewhat are you, are you the fucking guardian of the galaxy someone throwing insults is a liability and shit goes sideways around people like thati guess if you are single and ready to mingle you can fightmaxx and get some attention from f*ids but that's a high risk low reward endeavor because whatever you catch with that is going to expect to see you fight again
>>34634435No
>>34634435If you respond with violence I will respond with even more violence then claim self defense.
>>34634435No, this makes you a weak beta faggot. Just laugh at him. You may only strike if he tries to strike you or obviously becomes a safety risk. But dogs that bark don’t bite. Be ready to kill him, but try to deescalate and avoid any physical confrontation as much as possible. A fight is never worth it. If you must, strike quick and dirty until he is not a thread anymore
>>34636329this is what happens when your cops are all freemasons
>>34634435>If a man insults you, is it ever alright to respond with violence?Ideally yes, realistically no. Because one man's insult is the next man's banter. And some people are sensitive pussies who are shit at detecting malice and will overreact. The way it should work is this: If a man threatens you, show him violence.But as others said the world is clown world. If someone threatens to kill you and you pre-emptively kill them first, you're the bad guy somehow. If someone attempts to kill you, and fails, they don't get the full prison sentence as a murderer would. Even though they would have killed you had they not failed. We live in a world that is no longer preventative of evil. Just reactive. Society doesn't act before bad shit happens, they wait like cattle and allow it to happen first and then react to it.
