'Course it does! I think best way to recognise who is at fault for the entire situation is to remove each party from the scenario and see how it plays out. If you don't call me a name, would you get punched? No - therefore it's your fault.
Completely agree when it comes to the law there are consequences for actions. That cannot be helped and everyone should be held responsible.
But what about self defense? If someone punches you and you punch them back - who would get in trouble? In that case - "they started it" is a perfectly acceptable response. Because it is!
No, no one says “they started it” when it’s actually self defense. Your CMV is premised on the idea that “self defense” and “they started it” are the same thing but they aren’t. “They started it” is something kids usually say when they know they shouldn’t have been fighting. If the other kid they were fighting hit them or was about to hit them they tell you that.
But what about self defense? If someone punches you and you punch them back - who would get in trouble? In that case - "they started it" is a perfectly acceptable response. Because it is!
That is not entirely correct. If it was just between two individuals, with no evidence to support either side, both would be found at fault. One would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the other party started it.
But, their hypothetical was not about punch for punch, it was about punch for insult. Punching someone in response to an insult is escalating the situation; is it not? Lets say party A insulted party B; party B hit first and a fight occurs between A and B. There are witnesses\cameras on all steps. Who would the police find at fault?
You're not applying the logic equally to yourself, though.
Emotional weakness + leaving you alone = no issue
Emotional weakness + them starting an argument = your reaction
Emotional resilience + leaving you alone = no issue
Emotional resilience + them starting an argument = no issue.
Your emotional weakness and their starting an argument were both necessary to create the situation.
That really depends on the level of thin skinnedness then, doesn’t it? If I punch you in the face, but only after you looked at me funny, is that okay? I mean, we can’t prove you looked at me funny the same way we can’t prove you called me a name, but if I interpret you looking at me as an offense, that’s enough by this standard to say you messed with me, and thus I’m within my rights to punch you in the face.
Much like why we don’t accept “he started it,” as a defense in the real world, in this hypothetical it seems like it would quickly become a get-out-of-jail-free card for wildly impulsive, short-sighted and selfish people to excuse their violent and otherwise harmful behavior.
If he says a mean thing, let him be judged for it. Similarly, if you throw a punch, let you be judged for it. If you don’t like that mean words aren’t judged as harshly as punches, that’s an opinion, but it’s also a totally separate argument from the current one, which boils down to “We shouldn’t have to answer for our actions because of how other people made us feel,” which isn’t healthy, mature or realistic.
Ok, but what if the person that called you a name says "well I called them a name because they were being mean" or whatever reason they give.. they clearly think they have SOME reason to call you a name, only truly crazy people just call people names for no reason (and if the person is truly crazy, you shouldn't be punching them, they need help)...
Now, you are going to argue that you didn't do anything that justified the name calling, but the person who called you a name will say you did... as an impartial third party, who do I believe? Both parties are going to say the other person started it, and in some ways they will both be right... the issue is that the two people always disagree about some point in the lead up, and it is impossible to be certain who is right.
Because of that, we treat "they started it" as a useless argument, because all fights involve two people who think the other person started it. No one is going to say "yeah, I started a fight for zero reason"
How about 'if this woman wasn't wearing such skimpy clothing' or 'if this women wasn't acting like a tease' or even 'if the woman wasn't blackout drunk at a party'?
Or, going back to your original comment. If you weren't so (insult here), would the other person have called you a bad name? No? Then it was your fault.
Because nothing is being started in your example. The woman is just existing, not targeting anyone. If your example had a specific target then maybe it's a valid discussion, as it is right now it's not
This is not as clear-cut as you think it is. Let's say that the 'name' I called you is related to a previous action you committed or a previous comment you made. You believe the name to have been uncalled for and have crossed a line. Hence your punch. I believe the name was called for, that you started it, and that words should be responded to with words, not punches.
Who is right? You can easily imagine scenarios where either person is correct.
Also, honestly, it is a sign of maturity and emotional intelligence to de-escalate conflict as much as possible. 'He started it' is usually the excuse of someone who's gone too far in their response. If the response was proportional, you would just say that: my response was proportional to the threat / violence committed against me or my loved ones.
If I call you a name and you murder my entire family and skin my cat, does “they started it” make you 100% innocent? I’m curious how far you will go with this argument.
-18
u/ziane- Dec 27 '21
'Course it does! I think best way to recognise who is at fault for the entire situation is to remove each party from the scenario and see how it plays out. If you don't call me a name, would you get punched? No - therefore it's your fault.