LogFAQs > #907222017

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You can get a better result by directly addressing issues than crying about the general situation.

But it's not trying to directly address issues. It's a slogan on the wall of an elementary school that reminds them to be nice to each other. Or, as it stands, reminds women that they're responsible for getting men to be nice to them.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You know what neutralises a threat? Demonstrating how much they will lose by fighting.

You have a terribly myopic understanding of self-defense.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

All harm is a legitimate threat

It really isn't. Do you take a chainsaw to your bed every time you stub your toe?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

not responding is inviting further/heavier harm of undetermined value.

If you have no capacity for extrapolative thinking, sure. For intelligent species, though, it's usually possible to make some reasonable guesses about how much harm will arise as a consequence of various courses of action, including choosing to do nothing or saying "dude, **** off" (intelligent species having language and all).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A 100% punch for a 100% punch is an equal response

Only if the denominator is the same. 100%*100N=/=100%*300N. Now you're being bad at math AND logic.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Do you f*** with a lion? Does it need to fight you to keep peace between you and it? Point made.

Except that we're talking about the conduct of the retaliator, not the instigator. Everyone agrees that the person who starts hitting people shouldn't do that. The question is how the victim/"victim" responds. You're citing a sub-sentient apex predator's response as though it justifies disproportionate violence from an intelligent human, which is really not making a case for disproportionate violence being a reasonable, intelligent response.