Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begin

Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ialdabaoth
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 166

05 Jan 2013, 7:03 am

Why do we so frequently hear that phrase, while more often observing that "my right to have a face ends where your swinging fist connects"?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jan 2013, 8:33 am

ialdabaoth wrote:
Why do we so frequently hear that phrase, while more often observing that "my right to have a face ends where your swinging fist connects"?


Because hitting is wrong, unless done in self defense.

Swinging at faces is also wrong unless done in self defense.

No one has the -right- to initiate violence on another. That being said, note well that there are people who do not give a tinkers damn about other people's rights and do initiate violence. Which is why we have governments and police forces.

ruveyn



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

05 Jan 2013, 1:31 pm

Because having a face is not a right, it is a characteristic.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

05 Jan 2013, 1:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ialdabaoth wrote:
Why do we so frequently hear that phrase, while more often observing that "my right to have a face ends where your swinging fist connects"?


Because hitting is wrong, unless done in self defense.

Swinging at faces is also wrong unless done in self defense.

No one has the -right- to initiate violence on another. That being said, note well that there are people who do not give a tinkers damn about other people's rights and do initiate violence. Which is why we have governments and police forces.

ruveyn


Cant help feeling if the philosophy proposed by the OP was practiced on the global political stage, Israel wouldnt exist.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

05 Jan 2013, 1:35 pm

Can't help feeling that this thread is about to be derailed. :?

Oops! :oops:

It already has! :roll:



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

05 Jan 2013, 1:50 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Cant help feeling if the philosophy proposed by the OP was practiced on the global political stage, Israel wouldnt exist.


And that goes a thousand times over for Islam, because the 'Religion' of Permanent War and Submission wouldn't exist, full stop, because Muhammad wouldn't have had people murdered and tortured for not converting to his foul makey-uppy totalitarian cult* in the first place. In fact, Muhammad would have been a completely different person, and not a warmongering child rapist, murderer and criminal. What a lovely world that would be. The entire edifice of Islam is built on war, blood and violence, terror, fear and hatred, especially of gay people and Jews.

As for Israel - neither would the British Mandate. In fact, neither would anything. Violence is inherent in human behaviour, and it can be utilised for many things - sometimes positive, sometimes not.

And why are you bringing your Israel obsession into unrelated threads?

If the Arabs laid down their weapons in the Disputed Territories, there would be a two-state solution, a happy and prosperous Palestine.
If the Israelis laid down their weapons, the Jews of the Middle East would be subject to a religious genocide.

Do you want to tell us how you "jokingly" support Hamas again? Your mask slipped big-time then.

* I believe this to be true of all organised religion. The difference with the mass religions like Christianity and Islam is that they have too many members to be dismissed as a cult. If Scientology had that many members, it wouldn't be called a cult by anyone.



Last edited by Tequila on 06 Jan 2013, 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jan 2013, 2:02 pm

thomas81 wrote:

Cant help feeling if the philosophy proposed by the OP was practiced on the global political stage, Israel wouldnt exist.


All the wars Israel has fought so far are defensive wars. Including the 1967 war. The Mossad uncovered the battle plan that Egypt Syria and Jordan had cooked up and they attacked first. From the Babylonian Talmud: If he is coming to slay you, rise up early and slay him first.

If the Isrealis had awaited the first blow they would not now exist.

ruveyn



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

05 Jan 2013, 3:50 pm

ialdabaoth wrote:
Why do we so frequently hear that phrase, while more often observing that "my right to have a face ends where your swinging fist connects"?

You just assume fists are like ceiling fans and you turn them on and they start oscillating.



ialdabaoth
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 166

05 Jan 2013, 9:09 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ialdabaoth wrote:
Why do we so frequently hear that phrase, while more often observing that "my right to have a face ends where your swinging fist connects"?

You just assume fists are like ceiling fans and you turn them on and they start oscillating.


No, it's more like... I just assume that some faces are like magnets, if they get close enough to some people fists are just drawn to them.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

05 Jan 2013, 9:14 pm

ialdabaoth wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ialdabaoth wrote:
Why do we so frequently hear that phrase, while more often observing that "my right to have a face ends where your swinging fist connects"?

You just assume fists are like ceiling fans and you turn them on and they start oscillating.


No, it's more like... I just assume that some faces are like magnets, if they get close enough to some people fists are just drawn to them.

Ample description.



Ramba_Ral
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 110
Location: Wellford, South Carolina

05 Jan 2013, 9:18 pm

:lol: i chuckled. :)



Cei
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 155
Location: USA

06 Jan 2013, 12:44 am

Does this mean it's perfectly ethical to punch the air, say, a centimeter or two short of your face? :twisted:



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

06 Jan 2013, 12:58 am

Cei wrote:
Does this mean it's perfectly ethical to punch the air, say, a centimeter or two short of your face? :twisted:


Swinging your fists in the air a centimeter from someone's face is the equivalent of pointing a gun at them. So I would NOT consider that ethical at all.

So...yes it is rather dumb to say "your right to swing your fist stops at my face". You have no right to 'swing your fists' even in the direction of someone's face at all.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

06 Jan 2013, 3:05 am

thomas81 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ialdabaoth wrote:
Why do we so frequently hear that phrase, while more often observing that "my right to have a face ends where your swinging fist connects"?


Because hitting is wrong, unless done in self defense.

Swinging at faces is also wrong unless done in self defense.

No one has the -right- to initiate violence on another. That being said, note well that there are people who do not give a tinkers damn about other people's rights and do initiate violence. Which is why we have governments and police forces.

ruveyn


Cant help feeling if the philosophy proposed by the OP was practiced on the global political stage, Israel wouldnt exist.

By that logic, Islamic armies would have never entered into any former Roman territory, which means that the Byzantine empire would probably still exist in some form, and those barbarians would have mainly stayed east of the Jordan river.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

06 Jan 2013, 5:09 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Swinging your fists in the air a centimeter from someone's face is the equivalent of pointing a gun at them. So I would NOT consider that ethical at all.


It's not really. It's a bad analogy. It's more like pointing a whip, or a cricket bat at someone and gesturing to them as a threat. Fists don't generally kill people (although they certainly can with the wrong hands). Guns often do.

John_Browning wrote:
By that logic, Islamic armies would have never entered into any former Roman territory, which means that the Byzantine empire would probably still exist in some form, and those barbarians would have mainly stayed east of the Jordan river.


Islam wouldn't exist without delivering violence to those who didn't ask for it or invite it. It certainly wouldn't have gotten anywhere near being outside Saudi Arabia. Medina would still be called Yathrib to this day. As I said, Muhammad and the other Arab warlords wouldn't have existed either.

As I said: the very foundations of human society are built on violence.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

06 Jan 2013, 7:38 am

Tequila wrote:

As I said: the very foundations of human society are built on violence.


That logic nulls any criticism you have of violent means used by your political opponents.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile