THE DISRESPECT

[Different]

Listen, everybody wants to be respected no matter who they are. When someone is disliked by an individual, it's one thing. But, we will not tolerate the disrespect because now we have a problem. It's the disrespect that drives us insane forcing us to do things that we wouldn't normally do. I don't know about you guys, but for me, I think these are the ultimate, 5 most disrespectful tactics that you can ever do to somebody (it's like having the Dead Man's Hand using physical tactics):

• Spitting in somebody's face
  

• Slapping them in the face
  

• Shoving them in the face
  

• Sexually assaulting or harassing somebody
  

• Sleeping with somebody's significant other
  

I call these physical tactics the Dead Man's Hand (aka the 5, savage S's of doom) because not only are they universally disrespectful, but they can get you killed for being stupid. They're also the fastest way to instigate aggressive behavior out of somebody. The Dead Man's Hand (in this case) leads to violent and dangerous situations. Over 80% of people around the world are ready to fight you if you do one of these things to them. The ultimate form of universal disrespect is sleeping with someone's significant other, aka the Ace of Spades in your hand. There's a lot of emotional distress that goes along with this one, and you certainly don't want to be on the receiving end of it all. 

It may seem like you're a savage for pulling off one of these tactics, but I highly recommend that you don't because reality says that you're setting yourself up for a fight that you don't want any part of. 9/10 times, there's going to be a nasty receipt for you at the end (depending on the person). If they're 100% pussy-whipped, not a chance. If they're fearless vultures, then you're a dead man. There's an old saying: "Never throw the first punch". In your case, don't be disrespectful. If you ever do perform one of these tactics, then be prepared to match the receiver's energy because you best believe they're coming at you with an ass-whoopin'.

Everybody has a tolerance meter. Depending on what triggers us, we're all different. There are certain types of shit that we will and will not put up with. I'm telling you... should someone play one of the Dead Man's cards, and I guarantee you your blood is going to boil towards the red zone. Nobody should put up with one of the deadly 5! It's the ultimate level of disrespect! Words won't resolve the Dead Man's Hand. You'll need to match their energy by throwing hands, should they ever perform one of those tactics on you. Otherwise, the behavior will continue to happen. But hey, everybody is different. So, you people tell me what you consider to be disrespectful. Or you can agree with my list. The choice is yours.

Links to help you decide:

https://www.ismp.org/resources/disrespec...-them-part

https://www.learning-mind.com/disrespect...or-causes/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/descendin...arger-phd/

[Overbeing]

For one, the only people who are capable of disrespecting me at the ultimate level, are loved ones. And once they disrespected me "at the ultimate level", I wouldn't care what they think or say anymore because they would no longer be one of my loved ones. Most of your possible answers are forms of physical violence. Violence is up there for me, but not from a stranger. Someone I dont know and dont care about could never disrespect me in a way that I'd care about. It would just be assault.

Insulting my mom wouldnt offend me. You dont know my mom, and I would just think you were a juvenile idiot. Sleeping with my partner, to disrespect me? I'm ethically non monogamous and polyamorous. My partner can do what they like as long as it is within the boundries we have set. I have been sexually harassed and sexually assaulted. The ones from strangers didnt matter. The one that mattered was from a partner who did that to me.

The ultimate for me has more to do with my relationship to that person. It is lying, but in the big way. Or talking poorly about me behind my back. Stealing from me, breaking trust, ignoring my boundries and taking actions that directly harm me, violence included.

The ultimate disrespect is betraying my trust. And someone I dont know or care about cant do that to me.

[Different]

Someone I dont know and dont care about could never disrespect me in a way that I'd care about. It would just be assault.

...

The ultimate disrespect is betraying my trust. And someone I dont know or care about cant do that to me.

Those are pretty powerful statements coming from you. This is how you control your anger, which at least 80 - 90% of people fail, universally. Believe it or not, a lot of people regardless of whether you're a stranger or not, would figure out a way to label the Dead Man's Hand as a display of disrespectful tactics depending on the circumstance. Sexual assault is definitely part of this situation as well.

...

Since you said "The ultimate disrespect is betraying my trust"... where exactly do you place yourself on the anger tolerance meter? Would you address the issue while your emotions are at the boiling point, frustration occurs, or being calm about it when it comes to receiving disrespect from your partner?

The ultimate for me has more to do with my relationship to that person. It is lying, but in the big way. Or talking poorly about me behind my back. Stealing from me, breaking trust, ignoring my boundries and taking actions that directly harm me, violence included.

...

I have been sexually harassed and sexually assaulted. The ones from strangers didnt matter. The one that mattered was from a partner who did that to me.

So, let's say money is the biggest issue here, and the violence just happens to be repeated slaps because as you know, if you don't address the issue probably (and I'm not saying hit the girl), then it continues to happen. In other words, multiple boundaries are crossed by your partner even though you've warned them about it, but the behavior persists.

...

The sexual assaults from strangers didn't matter? Really? Wow, that's a big one. These sexual assaults could be related to grabbing your ass, touching your genitals, etc. Bro if that were me, I'd consider that to be disrespectful. That's when you let them know what the deal is and warn them about what's going to happen if the behavior persists.

[Overbeing]

When I get upset, my instinct is to remove myself from the situation. To de-escalate. Clearly, their action was taken in a moment where they aren't feeling well and aren't thinking clearly. Otherwise, that would make my decision in this case easy. Theoretically, I would take time to cool down and to process what happened and how I felt about it before confronting them. In my case, this has only happened with people I was in a position to easily part ways with them, and that is the action I took. I've ended relationships and friendships several times in the past like this. Why would I want someone in my life who thinks that it is ok to treat me like that? I think in most of the cases, their actions were specifically intended to end the relationship, they just lacked the maturity to express their intentions in a mature way. I dont need to lash out at them or get revenge. I need to move forward without them. They aren't worth my time or energy.

On the issue of sexual assault, I'm not saying that it doesnt matter. I was talking in the context of "ultimate disrespect". Another person grabbing at me without consent is disrespectful, but it is not about me. The type of person who is doing that is immature and pathetic. Consider their motives. They are doing it because they want to feel powerful, or they incorrectly consider it flirting. Either way, this person is incapable of "the ultimate disrespect". They are a sad, pathetic, and in every case ive been involved in, drunk.

I think a big part of why they are doing it is to illicit a reaction. If they can get a rise out of me, it makes them feel more powerful. If you feel safe and really want to get them, give them the opposite. Make them feel small, but dont let them show that they have gotten to you. If it is a risky situation, "Grey Rock" them. Ignore them. At least until you can get to a safe place and report their behavior to the correct people. If they dont allow you to remove yourself from the situation, and you have already asked them to stop, that is where self defense comes in. Use violence to create space between you that gives you a chance to get out of there. My safety matters more than "defending my honor" to someone who's opinion means 0 to me. Especially after their actions.

In my experiences, I've only had this happen when I've been with friends and they have noticed, and immediately helped create space. I have always been blessed with great friends.

[Delphinoid_]

This is kind of interesting. To preface, I want to define what I think it means to feel "respected" and "disrespected" to the best of my ability. To feel "respected" by someone is, I think, to feel regarded with the additional consideration, courtesy or humility you feel you deserve due to the nature of your relationship with them. To be "disrespected" then is to feel as though the treatment you have received is insufficient compared to what you feel you deserve. In order to be disrespected, I think you first need to feel entitled to some particular kind of treatment. In other words, "disrespect" to me evokes feelings of some kind of narcissistic injury, like you feel as though your ego or self-worth has just been damaged by someone.

When you mention spitting, slapping, shoving and sexual assault, these are all (obviously) assault. They're all criminal offenses. They are technically also disrespectful in the sense that most of us feel like we do not deserve this kind of treatment from a stranger, but so is robbing or murdering someone, yet rarely do we explicitly refer to these acts as disrespectful.

I think the reason why I in particular find it strange to refer to any of these as disrespectful is because my response to being the victim of physical or sexual assault isn't thinking that I haven't received the kind of treatment I feel entitled to. It doesn't hurt because I feel like this random person isn't treating me how I feel I deserve to be treated; it hurts because it's physically painful, because it makes me feel uncomfortable, because it's gross or disgusting, etc.

As for the 5th item, I think it deserves some clarification. If it refers to someone sleeping with my hypothetical significant other without their consent (i.e. rape), then my feelings are totally irrelevant, it's my partner's feelings that matter. If my partner did consent to it, I would feel extremely hurt by my partner and break up with them as soon as possible for abusing my trust. That being said, in both cases I find that 1. the mysterious 3rd party who slept with my hypothetical partner does not matter at all and 2. I still wouldn't be viewing this through the lens of (dis)respect.

I think I've been talking a lot without saying very much. On a different note to the above, I'm having trouble thinking of a time when I explicitly felt disrespected... to be honest "disrespect" is not a word I really like to use very much anymore. There have definitely been many times where people have made me feel hurt by abusing my trust or extremely uncomfortable by repeatedly ignoring my personal boundaries, but I never really felt disrespected in those scenarios. I also definitely didn't respond with anger either.

[Different]

I think the reason why I in particular find it strange to refer to any of these as disrespectful is because my response to being the victim of physical or sexual assault isn't thinking that I haven't received the kind of treatment I feel entitled to. It doesn't hurt because I feel like this random person isn't treating me how I feel I deserve to be treated; it hurts because it's physically painful, because it makes me feel uncomfortable, because it's gross or disgusting, etc.

I would say it depends on the situation. Yes, your emotions are violated during the process, which would then make you feel uncomfortable. But, this is regarding a situation where they've initiated a behavior that you don't approve of. They wouldn't just approach you and randomly slap you... something had to have initiated their behavior. Here's an example (I see this happening all the time at fast food joints): You order something, the employees screw up your order after you've received it, you then politely confront them about the issue, but then the employees refuse to correct it and display an ugly attitude towards you.

So then what happens next, you asked?... they get into an argument with you for about 5 minutes and they haul off and slap you. It's disrespectful because first of all, they had no business putting their hands on you in the first place. Second, you don't treat customers that way because then they could just decide to eat elsewhere. It really depends on the situation, bro.

As for the 5th item, I think it deserves some clarification. If it refers to someone sleeping with my hypothetical significant other without their consent (i.e. rape), then my feelings are totally irrelevant, it's my partner's feelings that matter. If my partner did consent to it, I would feel extremely hurt by my partner and break up with them as soon as possible for abusing my trust. That being said, in both cases I find that 1. the mysterious 3rd party who slept with my hypothetical partner does not matter at all and 2. I still wouldn't be viewing this through the lens of (dis)respect.

The fifth item refers to your partner fully consenting to sleeping with a stranger even though they were in a relationship with you. It really is disrespectful because like you said before, your feelings were hurt, your trust was abused, and your partner acted as though you didn't even matter to them. Not only are your boundaries broken, but your partner just showed you the authentic side of them. I know it's difficult to view these things as disrespectful, but trust me, they're very disrespectful.

I think I've been talking a lot without saying very much. On a different note to the above, I'm having trouble thinking of a time when I explicitly felt disrespected... to be honest "disrespect" is not a word I really like to use very much anymore. There have definitely been many times where people have made me feel hurt by abusing my trust or extremely uncomfortable by repeatedly ignoring my personal boundaries, but I never really felt disrespected in those scenarios. I also definitely didn't respond with anger either.

Yeah, that's 100% disrespectful, bro. If they do those things to you, then it's time to find some new friends because otherwise, the behavior that they're giving you is going to persist, especially if you don't say anything to them. Basically, they're saying that you're worthless and your feelings are irrelevant to them. That's like someone using you as a doormat and stepping all over you with their filthy, muddy shoes.

You have every right to be angry and raise your voice at them. Remember, your personal boundaries were attacked; therefore, this opens the door for you to lash out at them. I'm not sure how it is in your country, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but over here in America, it's a different tone. You know what starts to happen? All these past memories of repeatedly having your boundaries stepped on, eventually triggers an angry response out of you. C'mon bro, there had to have been one time before, where you thought enough was enough, and you've felt disrespected.

[Delphinoid_]

I would say it depends on the situation. Yes, your emotions are violated during the process, which would then make you feel uncomfortable. But, this is regarding a situation where they've initiated a behavior that you don't approve of. They wouldn't just approach you and randomly slap you... something had to have initiated their behavior. Here's an example (I see this happening all the time at fast food joints): You order something, the employees screw up your order after you've received it, you then politely confront them about the issue, but then the employees refuse to correct it and display an ugly attitude towards you.

So then what happens next, you asked?... they get into an argument with you for about 5 minutes and they haul off and slap you. It's disrespectful because first of all, they had no business putting their hands on you in the first place. Second, you don't treat customers that way because then they could just decide to eat elsewhere. It really depends on the situation, bro.

I dunno. I've had my order screwed up at restaurants before but it has never really bothered me. Mistakes happen, and honestly bringing it up is a waste of my time and energy (as well as theirs). Not to mention it's also wasteful to just throw the food away.

I see what you're saying, but when it comes to strangers I always try to remain courteous and prioritize not making a scene. You also just don't know what someone else is going through, so meh.

You have every right to be angry and raise your voice at them. Remember, your personal boundaries were attacked; therefore, this opens the door for you to lash out at them. I'm not sure how it is in your country, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but over here in America, it's a different tone. You know what starts to happen? All these past memories of repeatedly having your boundaries stepped on, eventually triggers an angry response out of you. C'mon bro, there had to have been one time before, where you thought enough was enough, and you've felt disrespected.

I think this heavily depends on your personal moral philosophy, but I certainly give myself no such right. I disagree with the pervasive idea that "two wrongs make a right" (and more generally with retributive justice, but that's another tangent altogether). I just do my best to avoid the person or tolerate their behaviour if it's not too serious. If it is serious, I'd rather contact the relevant authorities and let them handle it.

[Different]

I think this heavily depends on your personal moral philosophy, but I certainly give myself no such right. I disagree with the pervasive idea that "two wrongs make a right" (and more generally with retributive justice, but that's another tangent altogether). I just do my best to avoid the person or tolerate their behaviour if it's not too serious. If it is serious, I'd rather contact the relevant authorities and let them handle it.

You know what, it does. But, sometimes those personal moral philosophies can teach others a lesson. It teaches them that you're not playing any games with them anymore. If you match their energy, then I guarantee you they'll start to change their behavior and develop a different opinion about you. Get in their face and let them know what the deal is.

If the big dog starts barking at you, bark back at them. Remember, every scenario can't be avoided because there are times where you'll have to handle certain situations on your on. If it's a gang of people, yeah I'd avoid it and call the authorities. But not for just one person.

[Master Raiden]

You know what, it does. But, sometimes those personal moral philosophies can teach others a lesson. It teaches them that you're not playing any games with them anymore. If you match their energy, then I guarantee you they'll start to change their behavior and develop a different opinion about you. Get in their face and let them know what the deal is.

That won't happen. If you match their energy, you're just lowering yourself to their level and they will feel less bad about disrespecting you.

Kind of like in the thread about corporal punishment, people are more likely to respect you if you show them that you are someone who deserves respect. Why would they want to respect you if you yell back at them and tell them that they're wrong for acting the way they did? Show them respect and they will feel worse when they don't return the favor.

Another reason why matching their energy won't work is because it didn't work on you. If getting aggressive and confrontational shows that they're "not playing any games", then why didn't you back down? It seems like it just makes things worse.

If the big dog starts barking at you, bark back at them.

And what if both people think the same way? You're just going to end up with two people trying to overpower each other. What is the result you are trying to achieve with this?

[Delphinoid_]

<stuff>

This is exactly right, and it's a very good pragmatic justification.

Regardless, for me it's also about upholding my moral principles. I can tolerate being mistreated if I don't perceive the alternatives to be just. If it's instead someone I care about who is the victim, things are slightly different. I'll defend them to the best of my ability, but I'll still prioritize defending them in a way that aligns as closely as possible with my own code of ethics if possible. Ultimately I value the people I care about over my own personal principles though, for better or worse.

I think the only time I've ever used violence was when I was really young (maybe around 7 or so). My mother was in a bad mood one night and was taking it out on my brother, beating him really hard for no reason. I tried to get her off him by hitting her - I wasn't really able to hit very hard, but I think it made her realize what she was doing, since she laughed and let us both go. I was terrified and balling at the time.

I still regret this entire series of events and how I capitulated like that though. I came out of it only with the regret that I resorted to violence. It never made her respect me either obviously, nothing I've ever done has made her respect me - in general, standing up for myself and others in any capacity (no matter how) has only ever made the offender respect me less and hate me more. There are just no winners in these kinds of situations, all you can do is try your best to avoid them and hope they don't come to you or the people you care about.

[Different]

That won't happen. If you match their energy, you're just lowering yourself to their level and they will feel less bad about disrespecting you.

Kind of like in the thread about corporal punishment, people are more likely to respect you if you show them that you are someone who deserves respect. Why would they want to respect you if you yell back at them and tell them that they're wrong for acting the way they did? Show them respect and they will feel worse when they don't return the favor.

Another reason why matching their energy won't work is because it didn't work on you. If getting aggressive and confrontational shows that they're "not playing any games", then why didn't you back down? It seems like it just makes things worse.

I hear you, and I understand what you're saying, but there's a problem here. Basically, you're saying that everyone is more likely to respect you if you prove to them that you're worthy of respect. Unfortunately, that doesn't work on everybody. You can calmly and politely call them out on their disrespectful tactics. But the problem is that this strategy doesn't work on everybody because everyone is different.

If you play the nice guy card, and they don't hear you, then that's when you raise your voice at them at least. Otherwise they're going to continue to disrespect you and push you around. There are just some people in this world that you have to get aggressive with and raise your voice at them. I'm not saying throw the first punch, I'm saying don't get pushed around. Over here in America, it's different I'm telling you. People are very disrespectful over here. Also, you can't tell me it won't work unless you try it.

And what if both people think the same way? You're just going to end up with two people trying to overpower each other. What is the result you are trying to achieve with this?

Same situation with getting into a fight with somebody. You just duke it out until somebody wins. Don't ever be perceived as the weak individual who just avoids confrontation because sooner or later, somebody else is going to challenge you as well.

[Different]

In general, standing up for myself and others in any capacity (no matter how) has only ever made the offender respect me less and hate me more. There are just no winners in these kinds of situations, all you can do is try your best to avoid them and hope they don't come to you or the people you care about.

It's never ok to live in fear, trust me. By standing up for yourself (including your loved ones), you're setting a good example of what a real man is supposed to be like. As a man, your job is to protect your loved ones, not hide in fear. If you hide in fear, people are going to disrespect you just for that. Every time you avoid your problems, God will always make sure that you'll face them eventually until you learn to deal with them.

If you saw your best friend getting beat up by somebody, are you going to jump in and fight the guy, or run away and allow him to wail on him like that?

[Delphinoid_]

It's never ok to live in fear, trust me. By standing up for yourself (including your loved ones), you're setting a good example of what a real man is supposed to be like. As a man, your job is to protect your loved ones, not hide in fear. If you hide in fear, people are going to disrespect you just for that. Every time you avoid your problems, God will always make sure that you'll face them eventually until you learn to deal with them.

If you saw your best friend getting beat up by somebody, are you going to jump in and fight the guy, or run away and allow him to wail on him like that?

For starters, "being a man" has nothing to do with anything. I don't know if it's accurate or not, but what you're saying sounds like it's rooted in an intense insecurity. The impression I'm getting is that you stand up for yourself and protect your loved ones at least in part because you think this will make others see you as a "real man". I disagree with this mindset.

Being a man has nothing to do with anything. It's everyone's responsibility to protect their loved ones. It's also ok for people, men included, to be afraid; fear is a natural and healthy human reaction. "Living in fear" is obviously another thing entirely, but I don't think anyone is talking about debilitating amounts of fear.

To clarify, I believe that everyone should stand up for themselves (not just men, and not just to set a good example for others). That said, throwing your weight around and yelling at people is NOT standing up for yourself. Standing up for yourself means being authentic; not being afraid to say no to people, being open about your boundaries and how you feel (but not in an aggressive or threatening way - it's important to give other people the benefit of the doubt), and so on. Obviously this is important because people aren't mind-readers. The goal of standing up for yourself is to let other people know how you genuinely feel rather than immediately yielding to their whim. If you're getting aggressive, you're not standing up for yourself, you're just being a bully.

I personally would never "jump in to fight" someone, ever. I'd try to get the guy off him or put myself between them. I disagree with fighting people full-stop. Because I don't believe in hurting others under any circumstances, my goal would be to redirect the guy's aggression towards myself. If I can get someone to beat me to death instead of my friend, that's honestly good enough for me. But ideally one should try to prevent these kinds of situations at all cost, since again, no one wins.

[Different]

For starters, "being a man" has nothing to do with anything. I don't know if it's accurate or not, but what you're saying sounds like it's rooted in an intense insecurity. The impression I'm getting is that you stand up for yourself and protect your loved ones at least in part because you think this will make others see you as a "real man". I disagree with this mindset.

Ok, let's back up for a second... you're telling me that being a man has nothing to do with anything?? If that's the way you think, then you obviously don't understand your traditional roles as a man. This is what happens when you don't have a father figure around. No one's taught you how to conquer adversity and take risks. You disagree because no one's stopped you and given you a reality check, yet. This is also why the roles between a man and woman are reversed, nowadays.

Being a man has nothing to do with anything. It's everyone's responsibility to protect their loved ones. It's also ok for people, men included, to be afraid; fear is a natural and healthy human reaction. "Living in fear" is obviously another thing entirely, but I don't think anyone is talking about debilitating amounts of fear.

With the impression you're giving off, it certainly sounds like you're the one debilitating excessive amounts of fear because you've never been taught any better. The nice guy method doesn't always work, I'm telling you. At some point, quarrels will eventually turn into dangerous, fighting situations. Running away allows the enemy to perceive you as a weak-minded individual. So just like playing chess, you're exposing a weak side on the board for the enemy to attack you whenever they want. Playing it safe won't always work. Being aggressive has benefits! I'm not saying it does all the time. I'm saying it does in certain situations.

You know what's not healthy?... The advice you're trying to get me to adopt. It tells me that you're a pacifist who'd rather have someone else fight his own battles for him. This is exactly how people get bullied, disrespected, and taken advantage of which is something I won't tolerate! There's an appropriate time to be fearful of something, but this isn't the case. Unless you're held at gunpoint, you better not show any weak signs of fear to the enemy, I'm telling you. Unless you have a medical condition, or you're sick, you better not rely on your wife or girlfriend to fight your own battles for you because now the roles are switched. The traditional way is better... not this soft, modern bullshit (about everything being neutral-gender) they keep poisoning our minds with.

To clarify, I believe that everyone should stand up for themselves (not just men, and not just to set a good example for others). That said, throwing your weight around and yelling at people is NOT standing up for yourself. Standing up for yourself means being authentic; not being afraid to say no to people, being open about your boundaries and how you feel (but not in an aggressive or threatening way - it's important to give other people the benefit of the doubt), and so on. Obviously this is important because people aren't mind-readers. The goal of standing up for yourself is to let other people know how you genuinely feel rather than immediately yielding to their whim. If you're getting aggressive, you're not standing up for yourself, you're just being a bully.

Yeah, I hear you, and I understand what you're saying, perfectly. But, what happens when your method doesn't work anymore, huh? All of a sudden the aggressor just put his hands on you. How are you going to react to it? Running away?... Really?? All you're doing is causing the situation to escalate to a dangerous level for you because you refuse to defend yourself. You have this false narrative that running away is going to solve all your confrontational problems. Then, you think it's ok to live in this false reality based on your method of working on everybody, which is highly illogical and insufferable.

So when your words didn't convince the enemy to see the error of their ways, and they're a different breed who responds to quarrels with violence, you must defend yourself. Otherwise, it is you who gets bullied. I do, however, agree that some people who are aggressive and cantankerous can be calmed down with your method. But there is no one-size-fits-all, if you know what I mean. There's a reason why self-defense exists.

I personally would never "jump in to fight" someone, ever. I'd try to get the guy off him or put myself between them. I disagree with fighting people full-stop. Because I don't believe in hurting others under any circumstances, my goal would be to redirect the guy's aggression towards myself. If I can get someone to beat me to death instead of my friend, that's honestly good enough for me. But ideally one should try to prevent these kinds of situations at all cost, since again, no one wins.

I know because you're obviously a pacifist. What ever happened to the message you told me earlier, huh? "It's everyone's responsibility to protect their loved ones". So that means it's YOUR responsibility too, to protect your loved ones. Standing in-between them won't always work. They'll push you outta the way and continue whaling on your best friend. Your method is based on fairy tales - nothing but fictions only. They're not guaranteed outcomes with authenticity attached to them. In a perfect world, maybe. But not with monsters. You can't keep doing the same thing over again and expect Grade A results all the time.

Stop thinking that these situations are avertible because that's not always the case. A man with low testosterone will always avoid dangerous situations (including fighting)! No acts of valour detected in your statement when you mentioned, "I don't believe in hurting others under any circumstances." This sounds weak! If you were my best friend, and I saw someone whaling on you, I'd beat the hell out of them!

Look man, I'm trying to help you because I care, ok? If I came off a little too aggressive then I apologize. I've been in your shoes before, and all it showed me was that you can't avoid every situation.

[Delphinoid_]

With the impression you're giving off, it certainly sounds like you're the one debilitating excessive amounts of fear because you've never been taught any better. The nice guy method doesn't always work, I'm telling you. At some point, quarrels will eventually turn into dangerous, fighting situations. Running away allows the enemy to perceive you as a weak-minded individual. So just like playing chess, you're exposing a weak side on the board for the enemy to attack you whenever they want. Playing it safe won't always work. Being aggressive has benefits! I'm not saying it does all the time. I'm saying it does in certain situations.

For starters I'm not sure why you're talking about running away. Second, it sounds like you're prioritizing what strangers think of you over the safety of yourself and the people you care about. If you and your loved ones are safe, why does it matter if someone thinks you're weak-minded? Not to mention that I personally think that someone who doesn't let themselves be controlled by their emotions or their perceptions of what others think about them is the opposite of weak-minded. I think it speaks very positively of their maturity and self-confidence, but that's just me.

You know what's not healthy?... The advice you're trying to get me to adopt. It tells me that you're a pacifist who'd rather have someone else fight his own battles for him. This is exactly how people get bullied, disrespected, and taken advantage of which is something I won't tolerate! There's an appropriate time to be fearful of something, but this isn't the case. Unless you're held at gunpoint, you better not show any weak signs of fear to the enemy, I'm telling you.

There's a difference between being afraid and showing that you're afraid. I agree that in these kinds of situations it's usually better not to show when you're afraid. But it's okay to be afraid deep down.

Unless you have a medical condition, or you're sick, you better not rely on your wife or girlfriend to fight your own battles for you because now the roles are switched. The traditional way is better... not this soft, modern bullshit (about everything being neutral-gender) they keep poisoning our minds with.

This is a weird thing to say... I believe that all humans should act within their moral and physical capacity to protect those they care about. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. You can advocate for women protecting others while still maintaining that men should equally protect others. I don't really understand your point. I strongly feel that the way you seem to view both men and women is dehumanizing.

Yeah, I hear you, and I understand what you're saying, perfectly. But, what happens when your method doesn't work anymore, huh? All of a sudden the aggressor just put his hands on you. How are you going to react to it? Running away?... Really?? All you're doing is causing the situation to escalate to a dangerous level for you because you refuse to defend yourself. You have this false narrative that running away is going to solve all your confrontational problems. Then, you think it's ok to live in this false reality based on your method of working on everybody, which is highly illogical and insufferable.

I don't think I mentioned running away. It's true that are many situations that just aren't worth engaging in in the first place, but I think this is different to running away. Keep in mind that by causing a scene, everyone around you is affected, not just you and the other person. If things look like they're going to get physically violent, often de-escalating / disengaging is best for everyone, and it takes a great deal of strength, mental fortitude and self-confidence to be able to be the better person without letting it affect your ego. Often it's worth standing your ground (especially when you know things won't get physical), but it really depends. I just don't personally agree with using physical violence to do so.

Of course, if there was some hypothetical supervillain situation where someone I cared about was going to be dunked into a vat of acid unless I shot the "supervillain", and I knew that nothing else could save my friend, then I would regretfully do it (I would rather take the burden of this sin than have the person I care about perish), but I would do so with the consequence of knowing that I've committed a grave sin (according to my own personal morals) that I'll now have to live with. This is a really weird hypothetical though.

So when your words didn't convince the enemy to see the error of their ways, and they're a different breed who responds to quarrels with violence, you must defend yourself. Otherwise, it is you who gets bullied. I do, however, agree that some people who are aggressive and cantankerous can be calmed down with your method. But there is no one-size-fits-all, if you know what I mean. There's a reason why self-defense exists.

This is where people just have different ideologies. I don't care if someone wants to beat me up; I would rather be hurt myself than inflict pain on someone else. That's just me though, and I don't really condone anyone else taking this approach. Morality is a largely personal thing. What matters to me is when people hurt those I care about.

I know because you're obviously a pacifist. What ever happened to the message you told me earlier, huh? "It's everyone's responsibility to protect their loved ones". So that means it's YOUR responsibility too, to protect your loved ones.

Of course it's my responsibility too. I just don't believe that using physical violence to do this is just or righteous. If others see violence as being reasonable, that's up to them.

Standing in-between them won't always work. They'll push you outta the way and continue whaling on your best friend. Your method is based on fairy tales - nothing but fictions only. They're not guaranteed outcomes with authenticity attached to them. In a perfect world, maybe. But not with monsters. You can't keep doing the same thing over again and expect Grade A results all the time.

Then I would try even harder to get them off and take their hits, or come up with a new strategy that prioritizes not committing what I believe to be an immoral act. There are plenty of ways you can divert someone without resorting to physical violence. These kinds of situations are nuanced and don't really respond well to flowchart solutions though. If somehow I was totally convinced that there was no other solution then I would have to resort to some degree of violence (hopefully only a very low level of it), but 1. this would be an absolute last resort and 2. I would still hold myself morally accountable for this. When it comes to people I care about, I do still value their safety over my own personal morality, but harming another human is still harming another human in my book.

I want to mention though that we can talk about hypotheticals all day, but they're just hypotheticals. For example, what if you give the guy a right hook and becomes even more furious than before? What if this causes him to turn around, shoot you in the face and then go back to beating your friend? What if it makes him more aggressive and brutal towards your friend? What if your offense causes him to go hunt down your family after you're dead? We can keep going on like this, but it's very reminiscent of the way children talk about battles between their favourite fictional characters, where you keep developing them into more and more fantastic and unrealistic situations in order to ensure that the only "correct" outcome is the one you personally prefer. At the end of the day it's just a waste of time.

What I believe from my own experience (and the experience of everyone I know) is that you're heavily exaggerating how often these situations happen and how hard they are to quell, possibly because you want them to be common in order to justify your own approach. Certainly there are in theory times where violence is inevitable, but these are like... once in a lifetime occurrences at best. Despite what you might believe from fictional media, most people (even at their worst) aren't "monsters" that will maul anyone who looks at them funny, and the very few people who are like that are typically avoidable. You seem to think that brawling with someone over a pack of McNuggets is reasonable though, so this could explain why you see things differently. This might just have to be something we disagree on.

[Different]

For starters I'm not sure why you're talking about running away.

Because previously, you've been insinuating about avoiding tough situations by running away. Look, if you would have told me that you were trying to de-escalate a dangerous situation where you're being held at gunpoint or something, then I could see your perspective about avoiding tough situations. But no, you've made it sound like you were labeled as the hopeless and helpless coward (with only one method at his disposal) who deems every situation as avertible.

Second, it sounds like you're prioritizing what strangers think of you over the safety of yourself and the people you care about. If you and your loved ones are safe, why does it matter if someone thinks you're weak-minded? Not to mention that I personally think that someone who doesn't let themselves be controlled by their emotions or their perceptions of what others think about them is the opposite of weak-minded. I think it speaks very positively of their maturity and self-confidence, but that's just me.

I could care less what strangers think of me. I'm just trying to get you to see that everyone's response to quarrelsome situations isn't the same; therefore, you will encounter some people who respond with violence and rage. Aside from "prioritizing what strangers think of you", you have some strong viewpoints in the rest of your paragraph. I'll admit that this is usually the first way to respond to a dangerous situation.

However, I think you're stuck on the idea that you can de-escalate this situation in more than one way. You should know that you can't achieve any good results by using the same method all the time. If you're not allowing your emotions to puncture a hole in your back, then you should have no problems responding to the enemy with violence. Basically, you're telling them that I've already warned you at least once or twice, and when the behavior persists (especially invading your personal space which is off limits), connect a right hook to the jaw. It's how some people learn the hard way. So if you're so confident in your statements, then you should know that you have to get rid of your emotions and teach them a lesson with violence.

This is a weird thing to say... I believe that all humans should act within their moral and physical capacity to protect those they care about. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. You can advocate for women protecting others while still maintaining that men should equally protect others. I don't really understand your point. I strongly feel that the way you seem to view both men and women is dehumanizing.

Listen, I never said that a woman can't fulfill the roles that men have historically and traditionally been assigned to do. Also, there's nothing wrong with a man asking for help. But the situation at hand that I'm referring to specifically, consists of you being able to solve confrontational issues on your own instead of asking your significant other to do them for you. The modern world has taught you that men should be spineless weasels who are incapable of fighting their own battles.

Let me give you an example: You get into a quarrel with another guy. He initiated the quarrelsome situation and even when you attempted to de-escalate it, he resorted to violent tactics anyway. He pops you right in the mouth and you fall backward. You're in great shape and there's nothing wrong with you. Now why the hell would you ask your wife to fight this battle for you? You might not ask her, but you'd be surprised to know how many weak and pathetic men do. Dust yourself off, get up, and sock his ass!

I don't think I mentioned running away. It's true that are many situations that just aren't worth engaging in in the first place, but I think this is different to running away. Keep in mind that by causing a scene, everyone around you is affected, not just you and the other person. If things look like they're going to get physically violent, often de-escalating / disengaging is best for everyone, and it takes a great deal of strength, mental fortitude and self-confidence to be able to be the better person without letting it affect your ego. Often it's worth standing your ground (especially when you know things won't get physical), but it really depends. I just don't personally agree with using physical violence to do so.

You surely insinuated running away based on your previous solutions to deal with confrontational issues. Deep down, you're too afraid to take an ass whoopin' from somebody because your moral principles have deemed it as impermissible. Do you realize how dangerous it is to think this way? If everybody adopted the same mindset and advice that you're trying to instill in them, then they might as well toss Ju Jitsu, wrestling, and boxing out the window.

Yes, it's justifiable that your actions can cause a scene and affect others around you. But, you're making yourself look like a pathetic fool by restraining yourself from physical violence when the time deems it necessary. You can't always take down an enemy's territory with soft words. You use any form of weapon necessary to repeatedly strike the predator until they learn a lesson. Sometimes, restraining yourself from physical violence can cause someone else to lose their life because you took the cowardly way out.

What kind of example are you setting for your future children who want to become strong men who protect their future wives, huh? Real men aren't cowards... they're fearless leaders and protectors! All you're doing is telling me that you're a weak-minded individual who would rather be on the receiving end of an ass-whoopin' as opposed to the giving end. This is one of the main reasons why women leave their spouses because they instinctively know that a pacifist cannot protect them from danger!

This is where people just have different ideologies. I don't care if someone wants to beat me up; I would rather be hurt myself than inflict pain on someone else. That's just me though, and I don't really condone anyone else taking this approach. Morality is a largely personal thing. What matters to me is when people hurt those I care about.

So you would rather risk losing your life as opposed to defending yourself? You sound ridiculous. Anything could happen to you. It could be a situation where they subdue you to the ground and repeatedly elbow you to the frontal part of your skull until you suffer from a brain hemorrhage and die. Your careless actions are what caused your loved ones to be placed on stretchers because you've allowed your moral principles to steer the wheel.

You need to understand that sometimes, there's a lot more that's involved in a situation that utilizes you as a shield for your loved ones. When you make the rational decision to barricade yourself from the enemy and your loved ones, then it's understood that you must be prepared to use self-defense in the process. This justifies that you will not tolerate the enemy inflicting pain and suffering on you, or your loved ones. It's a moral code that I highly recommend you adopt before you get somebody seriously hurt.

Then I would try even harder to get them off and take their hits, or come up with a new strategy that prioritizes not committing what I believe to be an immoral act. There are plenty of ways you can divert someone without resorting to physical violence. These kinds of situations are nuanced and don't really respond well to flowchart solutions though. If somehow I was totally convinced that there was no other solution then I would have to resort to some degree of violence (hopefully only a very low level of it), but 1. this would be an absolute last resort and 2. I would still hold myself morally accountable for this. When it comes to people I care about, I do still value their safety over my own personal morality, but harming another human is still harming another human in my book.

Try harder? Why bother squandering time to protect your moral principles when you can consider teaching them a valuable lesson with violence? It just sounds so narrow-minded of you to refuse violence as a solution because of your moral principles. By the time you're convinced, it would be too late because you're preoccupied with considering other solutions to divert someone. It's like I told you before... some people learn the hard way through violence. If they sense that you're a pacifist, then I guarantee you you will get disrespected all over the place. What amazes me is that while they're physically disrespecting you, you're restraining your angry emotions and absorbing the pain like a sponge. This is very traumatizing because eventually, another part of you is going to say, "You know, you really should have just fought back." At least choke them out or something! People have lost their lives and their loved ones because they refused to fight back!

I want to mention though that we can talk about hypotheticals all day, but they're just hypotheticals. For example, what if you give the guy a right hook and becomes even more furious than before? What if this causes him to turn around, shoot you in the face and then go back to beating your friend? What if it makes him more aggressive and brutal towards your friend? What if your offense causes him to go hunt down your family after you're dead? We can keep going on like this, but it's very reminiscent of the way children talk about battles between their favourite fictional characters, where you keep developing them into more and more fantastic and unrealistic situations in order to ensure that the only "correct" outcome is the one you personally prefer. At the end of the day it's just a waste of time.

Then you know what you should have done first? You should have paid attention to your surroundings and become fully aware of the enemy's body language and his tool belt. His tool belt consists of any weapons strapped to his waste. If there's no gun in sight, then you shouldn't allow hypotheticals to cloud your judgment that is based on "what they might do to you". You're giving the enemy the upper hand when you do this. Everything you do in life, sooner or later, is going to be solely based on taking risks. It's how you take those risks that determine whether you'll be successful or fail in the process.

What I believe from my own experience (and the experience of everyone I know) is that you're heavily exaggerating how often these situations happen and how hard they are to quell, possibly because you want them to be common in order to justify your own approach. Certainly there are in theory times where violence is inevitable, but these are like... once in a lifetime occurrences at best. Despite what you might believe from fictional media, most people (even at their worst) aren't "monsters" that will maul anyone who looks at them funny, and the very few people who are like that are typically avoidable. You seem to think that brawling with someone over a pack of McNuggets is reasonable though, so this could explain why you see things differently. This might just have to be something we disagree on.

That's the problem! You've been hanging around people who've taught you to disconnect yourself from any form of self-defense! That's exactly what the modern world is teaching your generation. But you guys are too blindsided to see that their manipulation tactics are emasculating men. You've successfully allowed your emotions to falsely justify that it's ok to withdraw from any form of self-defense because you don't believe in "harming another human". This sounds weak! This is exactly why it's important for men specifically, to have a strong father figure in their lives. When you withdraw yourself from self-defense or violence, then you are psychologically damaging your brain because you have these preconceived expectations that violence won't resolve anything. There's violence every single day. Your subconscious mind is telling you to take my advice out of context so that I'll look like the bad guy.

Part of adopting the stoicism habit consists of going through hardship without whining and moaning about how you feel. This is part of the masculinity code that teaches men how to develop the courage and strength to deal with adversity. So, if you're placed in a situation where you're forced to fight, then do not withdraw yourself from doing so. Do it anyway. Otherwise, you will be traumatized by the fact that you didn't even try to put up a fight. Yeah, you're right. We'll probably never disagree on this discussion because we have opposing viewpoints. Just watch Joe Rogan talk about how he got into martial arts, and maybe you'll learn something.

[Delphinoid_]

Because previously, you've been insinuating about avoiding tough situations by running away. Look, if you would have told me that you were trying to de-escalate a dangerous situation where you're being held at gunpoint or something, then I could see your perspective about avoiding tough situations. But no, you've made it sound like you were labeled as the hopeless and helpless coward (with only one method at his disposal) who deems every situation as avertible.

This is very clearly an insincere interpretation of my position.

I could care less what strangers think of me. I'm just trying to get you to see that everyone's response to quarrelsome situations isn't the same; therefore, you will encounter some people who respond with violence and rage. Aside from "prioritizing what strangers think of you", you have some strong viewpoints in the rest of your paragraph. I'll admit that this is usually the first way to respond to a dangerous situation.

However, I think you're stuck on the idea that you can de-escalate this situation in more than one way. You should know that you can't achieve any good results by using the same method all the time. If you're not allowing your emotions to puncture a hole in your back, then you should have no problems responding to the enemy with violence. Basically, you're telling them that I've already warned you at least once or twice, and when the behavior persists (especially invading your personal space which is off limits), connect a right hook to the jaw. It's how some people learn the hard way. So if you're so confident in your statements, then you should know that you have to get rid of your emotions and teach them a lesson with violence.

"Teaching them a lesson with violence" is a purely emotional response. It's succumbing to your anger and your low self-esteem. I'm sure you know this. I believe there are very few situations where violence is actually the best option, and the few situations where it is are not ones most people will typically run into in their lifetime (although aggressive, irresponsible and immature people certainly do not have the odds in their favour). Of course, self-defence is often the easiest solution, and most people consider it morally permissible. I don't have an issue with other people using it if that's what they deem appropriate, since again: morality is subjective. But I would at the very least encourage people to consider what is appropriate when it comes to defending oneself. The law would also agree with me here, given that excessive force is a criminal offence.

Also for the record, "I could care less what strangers think of me" means "I care to some degree what strangers think of me". I think you meant to say "I could not care less what strangers think of me" (as in, I care so little that it is impossible for me to care any less). It's a common mistake.

The modern world has taught you that men should be spineless weasels who are incapable of fighting their own battles.

I don't believe men should be "spineless weasels who are incapable of fighting their own battles". I don't think many people do. Are you basing this claim on actually talking to people, giving them the benefit of the doubt and genuinely trying to understand their perspective? Or are you basing it on making assumptions about people you don't know, who vaguely seem to disagree with you?

Let me give you an example: You get into a quarrel with another guy. He initiated the quarrelsome situation and even when you attempted to de-escalate it, he resorted to violent tactics anyway. He pops you right in the mouth and you fall backward. You're in great shape and there's nothing wrong with you. Now why the hell would you ask your wife to fight this battle for you? You might not ask her, but you'd be surprised to know how many weak and pathetic men do. Dust yourself off, get up, and sock his ass!

1. If an argument with a complete stranger starts to get heated and it's going in circles, it's not worth having at that time. No one is going to learn anything from it. That's the first sign to either de-escalate, take a break or walk away. You don't have to concede your position to do any of these things. You don't need to panic and "run away" either. I can genuinely understand not having the mindfulness or the self-confidence to be able to do these things (it's hard, and I mean that), but by failing to do so you've made your first mistake (at least if your goal is to protect yourself and others).

2. If he got violent and hit me, the correct response would depend a lot on what happens next and what I believed he would do next, but the ultimate goal would be to disengage and walk away. There's no reason for me or anyone else to fight him. What do I personally get out of fighting in this situation? Protecting my "pride" or "honour"? My priority is to protect myself and others, not to protect my ego. People like this want you to keep fighting them. They want you to try and protect your bruised ego so they have an outlet for their anger. Having the strength to walk away demonstrates an immense amount of courage, self-confidence and maturity; it also tells the offender that their anger is their problem, and that they'll have to find a way to deal with it in a healthier manner than taking it out on other people.

This is how I look at these kinds of situations. If a child calls you a rude name and laughs at you, what do you do? Do you turn it into a huge heated argument to "defend yourself", or do you just let it go and walk away? What if a child hits you? Are you gonna go and bash their skull in to protect your "valour"? You can think about that and why you'd respond the way that you would. The only thing that changes with a grown adult is that they're bigger and hit harder. That's it; adults aren't really any different from children outside of their size and their age, and unfortunately age doesn't guarantee wisdom or maturity. Childlike behaviour is, at the end of the day, still childlike behaviour, regardless of who commits it.

Of course, if it looked like the guy was going to ape out and kill someone then the situation would have to be handled differently. Luckily this sort of thing doesn't really happen though. To be clear: if it did happen, things would be different, but generally it won't happen.

You surely insinuated running away based on your previous solutions to deal with confrontational issues. Deep down, you're too afraid to take an ass whoopin' from somebody because your moral principles have deemed it as impermissible.

You know this isn't an accurate reflection of my position.

Do you realize how dangerous it is to think this way? If everybody adopted the same mindset and advice that you're trying to instill in them, then they might as well toss Ju Jitsu, wrestling, and boxing out the window.

I said this in the previous post, but I don't necessarily condone other people subscribing to my own moral philosophy. It's not "advice" that I'm trying to "instill" in you or anyone else. Morality is subjective, there is no right or wrong approach. I understand that my approach isn't for everyone. If I ever had children, I wouldn't push it on them, I would encourage them to independently explore morality on a personal level, and also possibly to read other people's perspectives on it. I also mentioned that I have no issue taking a beating, I only care if someone I care about is on the receiving end.

Yes, it's justifiable that your actions can cause a scene and affect others around you. But, you're making yourself look like a pathetic fool by restraining yourself from physical violence when the time deems it necessary. You can't always take down an enemy's territory with soft words. You use any form of weapon necessary to repeatedly strike the predator until they learn a lesson.

Again, why should I care if someone thinks I look like a "pathetic fool"? You keep circling back to what other people think of you. My priority isn't what other people think about me; my priority is keeping myself and others safe.

By the way, you could face criminal charges for "using any form of weapon necessary to repeatedly strike the predator until they learn a lesson". Unless someone is threatening someone else's life, this response is likely a highly disproportionate one. Just something to keep in mind.

Sometimes, restraining yourself from physical violence can cause someone else to lose their life because you took the cowardly way out.

This is something you have to judge in the moment. If there really is no other option then I would try to use (the minimum amount of) violence to protect those who need it. We are incredibly fortunate though in that these situations don't really happen so much in real life.

What kind of example are you setting for your future children who want to become strong men who protect their future wives, huh? Real men aren't cowards... they're fearless leaders and protectors! All you're doing is telling me that you're a weak-minded individual who would rather be on the receiving end of an ass-whoopin' as opposed to the giving end.

I think my approach focuses strongly on developing virtuousness, self-confidence, maturity, courage, strength, empathy, mindfulness and forgiveness. Other approaches can successfully demonstrate these qualities too of course. I would above all encourage them to stand up for themselves; in other words, to be true to themselves and what they believe is right, rather than to yield to the hordes of people (such as yourself, apparently) telling them how they should act in order to be a "real" man or a "real" woman. I'd try my best to teach them that the opinions of bullies don't matter - that someone calling them a weak-minded coward is not worth their time - and that they should focus on developing themselves into the kind of person they think is just.

So you would rather risk losing your life as opposed to defending yourself? You sound ridiculous. Anything could happen to you. It could be a situation where they subdue you to the ground and repeatedly elbow you to the frontal part of your skull until you suffer from a brain hemorrhage and die. Your careless actions are what caused your loved ones to be placed on stretchers because you've allowed your moral principles to steer the wheel.

I value the lives of others over my own morality, but my own morality over my own life. I would never knowingly act in a way that would endanger the lives of those I care about. I understand the practical weaknesses of my philosophy, yet I believe I am fully capable of knowing when it is appropriate to follow it and when it should be sacrificed for the sake of protecting others who need protecting.

You need to understand that sometimes, there's a lot more that's involved in a situation that utilizes you as a shield for your loved ones. When you make the rational decision to barricade yourself from the enemy and your loved ones, then it's understood that you must be prepared to use self-defense in the process. This justifies that you will not tolerate the enemy inflicting pain and suffering on you, or your loved ones. It's a moral code that I highly recommend you adopt before you get somebody seriously hurt.

As you know (since I've mentioned it so many times), I understand that there are, in theory, situations that would require more, and if they ever occurred (which is unlikely) I would step up using the minimum amount of violence necessary to guarantee the safety of others. My point is that I would not be able to excuse myself on an ethical level for doing so, but protecting others who need it is worth more to me than the shame of committing what I believe to be an unethical act. Again, fortunately these situations don't really happen so much.

Try harder? Why bother squandering time to protect your moral principles when you can consider teaching them a valuable lesson with violence? It just sounds so narrow-minded of you to refuse violence as a solution because of your moral principles.

If you could easily get away with killing everyone who inconvenienced you in some way (maybe they pose some kind of threat, maybe it's totally minor), would you? If not, why? The reason is because you don't believe it to be a morally just thing to do. Your moral principles have just ruled out a potential solution that could have saved you from ever being harmed or inconvenienced again. I don't think that's particularly narrow-minded though is it?

Our moral principles are what guide us in these kinds of situations. All of us. Even your so-called "monsters". Even the people who would be fine with killing everyone in my previous thought experiment (see: "pure" egoism). These principles are what enable us to function in society. Refusing to do something because you don't see it as being ethical is perhaps the best justification you can ever have for any subjective matter.

What amazes me is that while they're physically disrespecting you, you're restraining your angry emotions and absorbing the pain like a sponge. This is very traumatizing because eventually, another part of you is going to say, "You know, you really should have just fought back."

Part of being a mature adult is learning to cultivate self-control. I aspire not to act on negative emotions like this, whether it be fear, anger, jealousy, etc.

I don't know if you've ever had to deal with trauma before, but growing up with a dysfunctional / abusive family, it was something I had to learn how to deal with. In addition to the previous anecdote, I've taken heavy beatings at a young age, being stomped on and kicked without being able to get away or retaliate, as well as just constantly being surrounded by angry, aggressive people.

I believe that learning to deal with trauma in a healthy way, not allowing it to take control of you, is an incredibly important skill to have. I think one should practice mindfulness to prevent themself from reacting in the moment, and then give themself time and space to deal with those emotions afterwards rather than continue to bottle them up.

By the time you're convinced, it would be too late because you're preoccupied with considering other solutions to divert someone.

Then you know what you should have done first? You should have paid attention to your surroundings and become fully aware of the enemy's body language and his tool belt. His tool belt consists of any weapons strapped to his waste.

Actually, I didn't react too late. I identified the nuances of the situation and correctly responded in a split-second. Meanwhile if you were in the same situation, you would have died and your loved ones would have all been killed (because I say so).

Oh, you weren't able to see his gun, it was concealed and he drew it before you could react. You die and your loved ones are all killed.

Do you see the issue with this now? To clarify, the two responses above are tongue-in-cheek. Remember when I mentioned children talking about battles between fictional characters? By adding random details to suit your own agenda, you're doing exactly what I was criticizing you of. To reiterate, we can keep going like this all day; we can keep going back and forth, making the scenario more and more detailed and ridiculous, but it remains an entirely imaginary hypothetical. They're not even helpful as thought experiments because they're so contrived.

That's the problem! You've been hanging around people who've taught you to disconnect yourself from any form of self-defense! That's exactly what the modern world is teaching your generation. But you guys are too blindsided to see that their manipulation tactics are emasculating men.

No one I know shares my views on self-defence. In general most people don't; most people believe in fighting back to some degree. I again don't even necessarily condone people sharing my beliefs on self-defense. I hold the views that I hold for personal reasons. Can we put down the conspiracy theories and just have a normal discussion?

You've successfully allowed your emotions to falsely justify that it's ok to withdraw from any form of self-defense because you don't believe in "harming another human". This sounds weak!

Morality is subjective; there is nothing that is objectively right or wrong, and so it is not a "false" justification. It is true that my justification stems from emotions, but it's impossible to make any moral judgement without emotions. When you say it's morally permissible to respond by hurting someone, you're implicitly justifying your response using the argument that any negative emotion you cause is "deserved", or that it somehow results in less net negative emotions, or something else to this kind of effect. Morality is inherently based on our emotions, there's really no escaping it.

I'd also like to point out that, again, you're drawing a lot of attention to what I said sounding "weak" to you rather than providing any kind of reasoning against it. I keep bringing it up because at this point the pattern seems pretty significant.

Part of adopting the stoicism habit consists of going through hardship without whining and moaning about how you feel. This is part of the masculinity code that teaches men how to develop the courage and strength to deal with adversity.

Ironically, stoicism is precisely what I believe in following in these kinds of situations. It is also very much the opposite of what you're advising. Remember when you mentioned how ridiculous it is to "[restrain] your angry emotions and [absorb] the pain like a sponge"? Not letting pain or emotions like anger affect your decision-making process is what it means to adhere to the philosophy of stoicism.

Being stoic also has nothing to do with "whining and moaning about how you feel", as you (disingenuously) put it. People can't read your mind. Communication is one of the cornerstones of humanity, and being able to express how you feel calmly, maturely and non-aggressively is one of the most important skills you can learn.

Your subconscious mind is telling you to take my advice out of context so that I'll look like the bad guy.

I'd appreciate it if you read the following paragraphs very carefully. If you don't read any of what I said above, I don't care, I just want you to really try to actively read these next ones without skimming them. I'm not trying to be rude, I just think the text below is particularly important.

As far as I'm aware I've been addressing your advice calmly, accurately and without misrepresenting it (based on the fact that you haven't really corrected anything I've said with respect to your position, asides from when you clarified your views on gender roles, which I appreciate). For the most part I've actually just been defending my own philosophy rather than explicitly criticizing yours, so I don't know why you're saying I'm taking your advice out of context. The only problems I have with your approach are as follows.

1. Based on your mannerisms and my previous history with you, it appears to me as though you allow your insecurities, your emotions and what you believe other people think of you to control you and your actions. But I don't know you, so I could be wrong. If you do struggle with these kinds of things though, I think you should be open to talking about it rather than denying it or lying (like in the infamous car thread, among others). A lot of popular figures (such as Joe Rogan) prey on sensationalism and the insecurities of young adult men ("if you want women, you need to be an aggressive 'alpha male' and get giga jacked!!"). While some of their content can be fine, it's important to be prudent and conscious of the kinds of messages they're sending. I unfortunately know too many guys who suffer from body-image and self-esteem issues due to religiously following these kinds of people's advice, and they're now having to deal with the tough process of overcoming these problems they've developed. It's a terrible rut to end up in. I don't know you or your situation though.

2. I have no issue with someone who believes in and practices self-defence, but I believe it should be practiced with care, and the priority should be on defence rather than offence (harming the offender only so much as is necessary to protect yourself, rather than going out of your way to "teach them a lesson"). To do anything more than this is revenge, and one can certainly argue that in practice this is generally antithetical to stoicism, as it is driven by anger. If you're fine with vigilantism and forcing your own moral views on others though then be my guest, I just don't personally agree with it. I understand that things can be hazy here for some people though.

3. I also disagree with responding to situations with aggression. Aggression is, by definition, characterized by anger, by violent, hostile and confrontational behaviour, and by attacking people without provocation. I don't know if you're just not fully aware of what it means to be aggressive though, so maybe it's a matter of miscommunication. But when you talk about aggressive behaviour, this is what you're actually referring to. Aggression is diametrically opposed to stoicism.

I'm therefore a bit confused, as some of your fundamental principles (as I understand them) seem to contradict the philosophy you claim to adopt. If you agree with me on these points, then I don't have any major issues with your philosophy. I don't want to adopt it myself, but I think it's fine.

If we want to talk about actually taking things out of context, you have been consistently misrepresenting my position and quite literally taking it out of context by continuing to tell me how I would supposedly act in certain (contrived) situations. You've then proceeded to ignore me when I've said how I would actually respond.

Moreover, you've accused me of having no valour, being "weak", "weak-minded", "pathetic", "ridiculous", "low-testosterone" (??), a "pathetic fool", a "hopeless and helpless coward" and a "spineless weasel" (by implication). You've accused me of wanting other people to fight my battles for me. You've accused me of "running away". I don't appreciate being the subject of this kind of language.

I find it a real struggle to discuss things with you. I feel like you're more interested in pushing people into imaginary boxes based on what you want to think they believe. You immediately labelled me as a "pacifist" and then proceeded to rant against some strawman that represents your ignorant idea of a pacifist is "supposed to be like"; never did you show any interest in trying to understand the nuances of what I actually believe in and how it could differ from your idea of pacifism. To complete the package you seem to be trying to speak down to me. This mirrors what happened when you labelled me a "liberal" a while ago. It's unnecessary and tiring.

It's a grand waste of my time to be trying to talk to someone who isn't willing to have a sincere debate. This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread; I think this is a perfect example of a situation where one needs to just walk away, since it's clear that it's not getting anywhere.

[Simon]

long post

I give you a lot of credit, I don't think I could ever even take someone seriously that has less than $7...

   

   

[Different]

I'd appreciate it if you read the following paragraphs very carefully. If you don't read any of what I said above, I don't care, I just want you to really try to actively read these next ones without skimming them. I'm not trying to be rude, I just think the text below is particularly important.

Believe me, I've read everything that you've written and I've learned more about you than I needed to know. I'm just going to address these viewpoints since they seem to be the most, prominent ones.

1. Based on your mannerisms and my previous history with you, it appears to me as though you allow your insecurities, your emotions and what you believe other people think of you to control you and your actions. But I don't know you, so I could be wrong. If you do struggle with these kinds of things though, I think you should be open to talking about it rather than denying it or lying (like in the infamous car thread, among others). A lot of popular figures (such as Joe Rogan) prey on sensationalism and the insecurities of young adult men ("if you want women, you need to be an aggressive 'alpha male' and get giga jacked!!"). While some of their content can be fine, it's important to be prudent and conscious of the kinds of messages they're sending. I unfortunately know too many guys who suffer from body-image and self-esteem issues due to religiously following these kinds of people's advice, and they're now having to deal with the tough process of overcoming these problems they've developed. It's a terrible rut to end up in. I don't know you or your situation though.

No, you don't know me. So don't assume anything and insist on summing up threads that I've made in the past assuming that that's who I am. It's disrespectful and you know that. It's obvious the two of us are two, very different people. Two different people learn something from each other, just like I've learned something from you. We think differently, we see the world differently, and at this point, we're just budding heads. Listen, you're smart enough to decipher between what's bullshit and what isn't. I'm not going to dive too deeply into this topic, but many popular figures such as Joe Rogan, do have a positive influence on the world. They're not 100% right about everything, but they do have a positive influence on people. I myself, just don't buy into bullshit news on tv because it's NWO trash. Again, completely separate topic, let's nip this one in the bud.

2. I have no issue with someone who believes in and practices self-defence, but I believe it should be practiced with care, and the priority should be on defence rather than offence (harming the offender only so much as is necessary to protect yourself, rather than going out of your way to "teach them a lesson"). To do anything more than this is revenge, and one can certainly argue that in practice this is generally antithetical to stoicism, as it is driven by anger. If you're fine with vigilantism and forcing your own moral views on others though then be my guest, I just don't personally agree with it. I understand that things can be hazy here for some people though.

Self-defense consists of defensive and offensive tactics. If you're the one who initiated the problem and threw the first punch, then yes, it's revolves around offense. But not if they're the one's who initiated the problem, first. When they initiated the problem in a physical manner, your first instinct should be to survive and live to see another day. Even if you don't know self-defense, and they have you subdued to the ground, you could at least poke his eyes out. The last thing you want is for the guy to whale on you because then that'll lead to serious medical problems. The reason you're teaching them a lesson is because they need to know that it's not ok to take advantage of people, physically. I hate to reiterate it again, but this is how some people learn. An inexperienced person doesn't understand that.

"If it is not possible to de-escalate, and you are in a situation that is threatening your life, when violence is the only answer, it must be given swiftly and devastatingly." The stoics may not believe in using violence, but they do believe in hardship and survival. Part of hardship is dealing with things that you don't want to do.

Look pal, I'm not forcing my viewpoints on you at all. All I was trying to do was to get you to see another pathway to a devastating situation. It's not logical to restrain yourself from violence when your life could potentially be on the line.

Moreover, you've accused me of having no valour, being "weak", "weak-minded", "pathetic", "ridiculous", "low-testosterone" (??), a "pathetic fool", a "hopeless and helpless coward" and a "spineless weasel" (by implication). You've accused me of wanting other people to fight my battles for me. You've accused me of "running away". I don't appreciate being the subject of this kind of language.

I find it a real struggle to discuss things with you. I feel like you're more interested in pushing people into imaginary boxes based on what you want to think they believe. You immediately labelled me as a "pacifist" and then proceeded to rant against some strawman that represents your ignorant idea of a pacifist is "supposed to be like"; never did you show any interest in trying to understand the nuances of what I actually believe in and how it could differ from your idea of pacifism. To complete the package you seem to be trying to speak down to me. This mirrors what happened when you labelled me a "liberal" a while ago. It's unnecessary and tiring.

It's a grand waste of my time to be trying to talk to someone who isn't willing to have a sincere debate. This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread; I think this is a perfect example of a situation where one needs to just walk away, since it's clear that it's not getting anywhere.

Listen, my goal wasn't to verbally attack you and criticize you for not adopting violence, if that's what you think. Also, no one's calling you a liberal, but I can tell that you do have some liberal characteristics. On the other hand, the only thing that's really ignorant here is your way of responding to violent situations that require you to fight back. This is why my initial goal was to convince you that sometimes, part of managing a stressful situation may require you to use self-defense (violent tactics). Set aside your negative experiences to survive another day. It's hardship, it's disgusting, but it gets the job done. Yes, controlling your emotions and properly assessing the situation involves being aware of your surroundings & being able to determine the enemy's intentions. If his body language says that he's prepared to fight you, and somehow you end up with no other alternative, then don't ever use the bare minimum of violence to take him out. Use force to survive.

I suppose that's why, sometimes you find it exasperating to reply to my threads, huh? Because you find it a "real struggle" to "discuss things" with me. Also, since we're on the topic of "labeling" someone. At some point, I was irritated with you because you kept telling me things like "I would let the guy beat me up", and "I don't believe in attacking a human being". It just got to a point where I had to kick it into high gear and tell you off because I've had a few friends who used to get taken advantage of, and they never fought back. So I can see the pathway it leads down to, which is why I was trying to help you. Who says I'm not willing to have a sincere debate with you? Things were just fine until you pulled back the curtain and showed me what's really going on.

Bro, I don't care whether you think it's a waste of your time or not. You needed someone to tell you that the way you're going about these situations is harming you because you think that it's going to work on everybody. If you find it a "real struggle" to discuss things with me, then why are you still replying to me then?

Look man, I'm not here to "bully" you, criticize you, or "speak down" to you. The reason I previously made insinuations about how your moral principles and solutions were weak is because you made it sound like that's how you deal with every dangerous problem. I was only challenging you to see exactly where you're coming from, and now I know that you don't like to tolerate violence because of your childhood experiences.

I don't know if you've ever had to deal with trauma before, but growing up with a dysfunctional / abusive family, it was something I had to learn how to deal with. In addition to the previous anecdote, I've taken heavy beatings at a young age, being stomped on and kicked without being able to get away or retaliate, as well as just constantly being surrounded by angry, aggressive people.

Most people who grew up abused during their childhood, end up angry so they take up a physical sport like boxing or Ju Jitsu. I highly suggest that you do the same. I've heard many stories where boxing and Ju Jitsu helped others cope with stressful issues, especially during childhood. Hit the gym and lift weights. It helped me out, tremendously.

You know what, I used to get bullied as a child, too. I understand what it's like to be in a helpless situation where you're being overpowered by someone who's bigger and much more dominate than you. But notice that these are all negative experiences from childhood, which has a reflection on your adulthood. This is why I've been trying to tell you before, that you need to put aside your differences and learn self-defense because a lot of people take advantage of others. I hear plenty of people who became UFC fighters to cope with the stress of negative, childhood experiences. Nate Diaz is a perfect example. Self-defense is violence.

A lot of your statements seem to dive deeper and deeper into your childhood, and I caught that pretty early, which is why I was trying to teach you to stand up for yourself, even if it means using violence. Listen, I understand where you're coming from. You don't like to use any violent tactics on another human being because you think it'll psychologically and traumatically damage you, eternally. Not to mention, you're worried about potentially putting the person in the hospital. It's a reflection of your childhood that damaged you. I see this in a lot of people. But sometimes, when your back is up against the wall, by any means necessary you have to do what you have to do to survive (even if you don't like it).

Bottom line: This conversation with you has gone long enough, now. I was pretty much done going back and forth with you about this during my last post because I felt like I was pulling teeth with somebody. But, you wanted me to address the last few points that you've made, so I did. But now, I can see why you've told us in the past that you're planning on committing suicide, isolating yourself from people, etc. It all makes sense, now. Had I known about you being abused as a child, I would have diverted this conversation in a different direction. I think you need to talk to somebody about that because that currently has a massive impact on your adulthood. I can see that it's made you emotionally distressed causing you to miss out on a bunch of opportunities in life that can be achieved.

You gotta understand that I'm not just here to make interesting threads... I'm here to teach things as well. If it weren't for people like you who challenge me and heavily engage in some of my threads, then I would have quit this place a long time ago. I'll admit that sometimes, I'm in the wrong when I don't always carefully consider others' viewpoints because I'm preoccupied with getting my point across. A lot of what I do is based on experiments, alone. Based on last year's experiments, I've concluded that this site is highly liberal. I just think it's important to do experiments like that to understand what I'm getting myself into. It's not fun being the odd one out who has completely different viewpoints from everybody else.

On the other hand, there are just some people on here who irritate the hell outta me, based on their ridiculously stupid ass, posts alone. I choose to ignore them because they act like children. If somebody doesn't like me, then I could care less. If you think my ideas are ignorant, then I really don't give a damn because I say what's on my mind.

[Simon]

I was trying to teach you to stand up for yourself

A lot of what I do is based on experiments, alone.

On the other hand, there are just some people on here who irritate the hell outta me, based on their ridiculously stupid ass, posts alone. I choose to ignore them because they act like children. If somebody doesn't like me, then I could care less. If you think my ideas are ignorant, then I really don't give a damn because I say what's on my mind. [/color][/b]

Hey I wanted to say sorry for my above comment, it was disrespectful but that is why I left it. I saw one of the options on your poll was 'Blatantly disrespecting somebody', so I wanted to do my own experiment to see how you would act if 'blatantly disrespected'. I wanted to see if you would listen to the advice you were giving but instead of confronting the problem you chose to ignore.

Interesting...