First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Is vengeance self defense?
17191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

Nightblade370 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

It seems like people are defining revenge from how they are use to perceiving it. For this topic, revenge is strictly used in the way that's defined here. This does not include a plot to get back at someone after days it has happened, or anything premeditated.

Nightblade370 wrote:

I think it really has to do with two things: time and intent.

Revenge requires a lot of time and a desire to harm an individual/a group of people. Reacting to someone attacking to you is on-the-spot thinking, which is justified self-defense. Reacting violently to a situation not as dire immediately after it happens (like if someone's bullying you verbally) is considered malicious intent and has consequences depending on the severity, but that isn't revenge either (it's not self-defense as well).

Revenge would be like a wife killing the woman her husband is having an affair with after several days of planning or a man trying to severely maim another man for bulling him in high-school. These plans require more time and more harmful intent than a mere reaction.

Hence, self-defense and revenge have a large difference in both time and in harmful intent.





The problem is that you can't just redefine a term, especially if you want an argument to hold up (ie from a legal perspective). If you're going to make a topic trying to challenge what self defense is considered by society and qualify what should be considered self defense, then calling it revenge and furthermore using a personal definition of revenge would not only be confusing, but would also deliver an unwanted connotation of malevolence to how you are defining it. In this case, the topic really should be "what should be considered self-defense"; the word "vengeance" or "revenge" shouldn't have any place in this discussion or topic, really, unless you intend to use the actual definition of revenge.
I just copied what I heard in my lecture...
36147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Cloud 9.
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:


Nightblade370 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

It seems like people are defining revenge from how they are use to perceiving it. For this topic, revenge is strictly used in the way that's defined here. This does not include a plot to get back at someone after days it has happened, or anything premeditated.

Nightblade370 wrote:

I think it really has to do with two things: time and intent.

Revenge requires a lot of time and a desire to harm an individual/a group of people. Reacting to someone attacking to you is on-the-spot thinking, which is justified self-defense. Reacting violently to a situation not as dire immediately after it happens (like if someone's bullying you verbally) is considered malicious intent and has consequences depending on the severity, but that isn't revenge either (it's not self-defense as well).

Revenge would be like a wife killing the woman her husband is having an affair with after several days of planning or a man trying to severely maim another man for bulling him in high-school. These plans require more time and more harmful intent than a mere reaction.

Hence, self-defense and revenge have a large difference in both time and in harmful intent.





The problem is that you can't just redefine a term, especially if you want an argument to hold up (ie from a legal perspective). If you're going to make a topic trying to challenge what self defense is considered by society and qualify what should be considered self defense, then calling it revenge and furthermore using a personal definition of revenge would not only be confusing, but would also deliver an unwanted connotation of malevolence to how you are defining it. In this case, the topic really should be "what should be considered self-defense"; the word "vengeance" or "revenge" shouldn't have any place in this discussion or topic, really, unless you intend to use the actual definition of revenge.
I just copied what I heard in my lecture...



If you are hit by someone, your immediate reaction is to hit them back. This is not self defense, it is revenge. You are hitting them back out of revenge for getting a hit in on you. Regardless of the impact of the action (murder, or a small punch) it will always end up as being revenge.
29840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
That's so weird, my dad had the same conversation with me last night. He said to just take the hit and tell someone else, you'll be the victim.
26434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Future Gadget Lab...
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:


Nightblade370 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

It seems like people are defining revenge from how they are use to perceiving it. For this topic, revenge is strictly used in the way that's defined here. This does not include a plot to get back at someone after days it has happened, or anything premeditated.

Nightblade370 wrote:

I think it really has to do with two things: time and intent.

Revenge requires a lot of time and a desire to harm an individual/a group of people. Reacting to someone attacking to you is on-the-spot thinking, which is justified self-defense. Reacting violently to a situation not as dire immediately after it happens (like if someone's bullying you verbally) is considered malicious intent and has consequences depending on the severity, but that isn't revenge either (it's not self-defense as well).

Revenge would be like a wife killing the woman her husband is having an affair with after several days of planning or a man trying to severely maim another man for bulling him in high-school. These plans require more time and more harmful intent than a mere reaction.

Hence, self-defense and revenge have a large difference in both time and in harmful intent.





The problem is that you can't just redefine a term, especially if you want an argument to hold up (ie from a legal perspective). If you're going to make a topic trying to challenge what self defense is considered by society and qualify what should be considered self defense, then calling it revenge and furthermore using a personal definition of revenge would not only be confusing, but would also deliver an unwanted connotation of malevolence to how you are defining it. In this case, the topic really should be "what should be considered self-defense"; the word "vengeance" or "revenge" shouldn't have any place in this discussion or topic, really, unless you intend to use the actual definition of revenge.
I just copied what I heard in my lecture...


I must admit, that's a strange definition for a professor to use. Personally, I just don't see it as logical is all.
17191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

Nightblade370 wrote:

I must admit, that's a strange definition for a professor to use. Personally, I just don't see it as logical is all.
The definition is the same, it just included specification for the topic at hand.
5250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Online
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/10/15
Hell no! and I see nothing wrong with a woman who pepper sprays a random pervert who tries to rape her. I also see nothing wrong with a large-breasted female severely injuring some creep who randomly harasses her. Self-defense is just the result of you or another person threatening someone else, nothing more.
26434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Future Gadget Lab...
Offline
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:


Nightblade370 wrote:

I must admit, that's a strange definition for a professor to use. Personally, I just don't see it as logical is all.
The definition is the same, it just included specification for the topic at hand.


From an English perspective, though, it doesn't make sense considering the original definition and the connotation. Idk, I've had professors who have taken creative liberties before. I'm just going to end it here before I get more confused.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:

During a lecture my business law professor said "vengeance isn't self defense". Revenge meaning a person hits someone as a response to being hit. According to law, a reasonable person would walk away and not retaliate.

Shocking? Not really, this same idea has been taught since primary school. If someone hits you, report it to a teacher, don't ever hit them back. What do you think of this? It's unfair if you came out as the only injured party. Shouldn't you be able to hit them back?

This topic strictly covers assault and/or battery***


While it may seem unfair that is how the legal system works do not at anytime take the law into your own hand you only hurt yourself in those cases. The golden rule about revenge when you start the path dig two graves one for your target and one for yourself since you will suffer as well. This is why revenge is pointless it is simple self gratification.
Posted 9/10/15
You hit/stab someone more than once and it's hard to dismiss it as self defence. isn't this only about how the damage done looks to other people?
6024 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
in runescape it is
20921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 9/10/15

spensaur wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


Nightblade370 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

It seems like people are defining revenge from how they are use to perceiving it. For this topic, revenge is strictly used in the way that's defined here. This does not include a plot to get back at someone after days it has happened, or anything premeditated.

Nightblade370 wrote:

I think it really has to do with two things: time and intent.

Revenge requires a lot of time and a desire to harm an individual/a group of people. Reacting to someone attacking to you is on-the-spot thinking, which is justified self-defense. Reacting violently to a situation not as dire immediately after it happens (like if someone's bullying you verbally) is considered malicious intent and has consequences depending on the severity, but that isn't revenge either (it's not self-defense as well).

Revenge would be like a wife killing the woman her husband is having an affair with after several days of planning or a man trying to severely maim another man for bulling him in high-school. These plans require more time and more harmful intent than a mere reaction.

Hence, self-defense and revenge have a large difference in both time and in harmful intent.





The problem is that you can't just redefine a term, especially if you want an argument to hold up (ie from a legal perspective). If you're going to make a topic trying to challenge what self defense is considered by society and qualify what should be considered self defense, then calling it revenge and furthermore using a personal definition of revenge would not only be confusing, but would also deliver an unwanted connotation of malevolence to how you are defining it. In this case, the topic really should be "what should be considered self-defense"; the word "vengeance" or "revenge" shouldn't have any place in this discussion or topic, really, unless you intend to use the actual definition of revenge.
I just copied what I heard in my lecture...



If you are hit by someone, your immediate reaction is to hit them back. This is not self defense, it is revenge. You are hitting them back out of revenge for getting a hit in on you. Regardless of the impact of the action (murder, or a small punch) it will always end up as being revenge.


what if hitting them back is a reaction you don't control (i have those if someone pokes me on the back i would turn around and whack them. ...not on purpose but thats how i react

If someone hits you , you hit them back and that's fine i see that as self defense if there going to hit you once there likely to hit you twice you have a better chance of surviving if you respond with hitting them in which i did at my school and ran whilst they were shocked by the hit.
20921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 9/10/15

gvblackmoon wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

During a lecture my business law professor said "vengeance isn't self defense". Revenge meaning a person hits someone as a response to being hit. According to law, a reasonable person would walk away and not retaliate.

Shocking? Not really, this same idea has been taught since primary school. If someone hits you, report it to a teacher, don't ever hit them back. What do you think of this? It's unfair if you came out as the only injured party. Shouldn't you be able to hit them back?

This topic strictly covers assault and/or battery***


While it may seem unfair that is how the legal system works do not at anytime take the law into your own hand you only hurt yourself in those cases. The golden rule about revenge when you start the path dig two graves one for your target and one for yourself since you will suffer as well. This is why revenge is pointless it is simple self gratification.


No reasonable person would go oh you just stabbed me or punched me in the face and walk away/ not retaliate i cannot fathom someone being able to do that.
52866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
Ah yes.. Revenge.. Is something Karkarov I mean Colin Macleod know best! :p He can give you meaning of that word Vengeance!

I took life of someone very important to him! -evil smirks- back in 125 AD

(I'm role playing as Marcus Octavius from Highlander: The Search for Vengeance)

Karkarov/Colin and I crossed our path many many time.. with our Sword!, Of course he so easily to defeat! Here picture of me calling him Barbarian! :p



Marcus Octavius
36147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Cloud 9.
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

Ryulightorb wrote:


spensaur wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


Nightblade370 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

It seems like people are defining revenge from how they are use to perceiving it. For this topic, revenge is strictly used in the way that's defined here. This does not include a plot to get back at someone after days it has happened, or anything premeditated.

Nightblade370 wrote:

I think it really has to do with two things: time and intent.

Revenge requires a lot of time and a desire to harm an individual/a group of people. Reacting to someone attacking to you is on-the-spot thinking, which is justified self-defense. Reacting violently to a situation not as dire immediately after it happens (like if someone's bullying you verbally) is considered malicious intent and has consequences depending on the severity, but that isn't revenge either (it's not self-defense as well).

Revenge would be like a wife killing the woman her husband is having an affair with after several days of planning or a man trying to severely maim another man for bulling him in high-school. These plans require more time and more harmful intent than a mere reaction.

Hence, self-defense and revenge have a large difference in both time and in harmful intent.





The problem is that you can't just redefine a term, especially if you want an argument to hold up (ie from a legal perspective). If you're going to make a topic trying to challenge what self defense is considered by society and qualify what should be considered self defense, then calling it revenge and furthermore using a personal definition of revenge would not only be confusing, but would also deliver an unwanted connotation of malevolence to how you are defining it. In this case, the topic really should be "what should be considered self-defense"; the word "vengeance" or "revenge" shouldn't have any place in this discussion or topic, really, unless you intend to use the actual definition of revenge.
I just copied what I heard in my lecture...



If you are hit by someone, your immediate reaction is to hit them back. This is not self defense, it is revenge. You are hitting them back out of revenge for getting a hit in on you. Regardless of the impact of the action (murder, or a small punch) it will always end up as being revenge.


what if hitting them back is a reaction you don't control (i have those if someone pokes me on the back i would turn around and whack them. ...not on purpose but thats how i react

If someone hits you , you hit them back and that's fine i see that as self defense if there going to hit you once there likely to hit you twice you have a better chance of surviving if you respond with hitting them in which i did at my school and ran whilst they were shocked by the hit.


I'm only trying to understand the professor's point of view here so hear me out. Regardless of the amount of times you are hit, regardless of the extent of the injury, it's always revenge. I believe that Nightblade370 is confusing "self-defense" with an act of aggression/attack/retaliation. As defined by dictionary.com - the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant. No where in there does it say that this involves retaliating (revenge) against your foe. Self defense is defined differently in court of law. But the professor is trying to explain that any type of reaction back against an attacker is revenge at it's core.
20921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 9/10/15

spensaur wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


spensaur wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:


Nightblade370 wrote:


FlyinDumpling wrote:

It seems like people are defining revenge from how they are use to perceiving it. For this topic, revenge is strictly used in the way that's defined here. This does not include a plot to get back at someone after days it has happened, or anything premeditated.

Nightblade370 wrote:

I think it really has to do with two things: time and intent.

Revenge requires a lot of time and a desire to harm an individual/a group of people. Reacting to someone attacking to you is on-the-spot thinking, which is justified self-defense. Reacting violently to a situation not as dire immediately after it happens (like if someone's bullying you verbally) is considered malicious intent and has consequences depending on the severity, but that isn't revenge either (it's not self-defense as well).

Revenge would be like a wife killing the woman her husband is having an affair with after several days of planning or a man trying to severely maim another man for bulling him in high-school. These plans require more time and more harmful intent than a mere reaction.

Hence, self-defense and revenge have a large difference in both time and in harmful intent.





The problem is that you can't just redefine a term, especially if you want an argument to hold up (ie from a legal perspective). If you're going to make a topic trying to challenge what self defense is considered by society and qualify what should be considered self defense, then calling it revenge and furthermore using a personal definition of revenge would not only be confusing, but would also deliver an unwanted connotation of malevolence to how you are defining it. In this case, the topic really should be "what should be considered self-defense"; the word "vengeance" or "revenge" shouldn't have any place in this discussion or topic, really, unless you intend to use the actual definition of revenge.
I just copied what I heard in my lecture...



If you are hit by someone, your immediate reaction is to hit them back. This is not self defense, it is revenge. You are hitting them back out of revenge for getting a hit in on you. Regardless of the impact of the action (murder, or a small punch) it will always end up as being revenge.


what if hitting them back is a reaction you don't control (i have those if someone pokes me on the back i would turn around and whack them. ...not on purpose but thats how i react

If someone hits you , you hit them back and that's fine i see that as self defense if there going to hit you once there likely to hit you twice you have a better chance of surviving if you respond with hitting them in which i did at my school and ran whilst they were shocked by the hit.


I'm only trying to understand the professor's point of view here so hear me out. Regardless of the amount of times you are hit, regardless of the extent of the injury, it's always revenge. I believe that Nightblade370 is confusing "self-defense" with an act of aggression/attack/retaliation. As defined by dictionary.com - the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant. No where in there does it say that this involves retaliating (revenge) against your foe. Self defense is defined differently in court of law. But the professor is trying to explain that any type of reaction back against an attacker is revenge at it's core.


that makes more sense but i will have to disagree with him whole heartedly :P
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.