The questions were recent and hard to miss.


If its not im not sure how you could see anything as a moral issue.

Why was it an inappropriate level of violence?

If it was an inappropriate level of violence does that mean the kid was wrong for doing it and if he sat on him it would of been right?

If he was not wrong how did you come to the conclusion it was an inappropriate level of violence and isnt saying it was inappropriate just another way of saying it was wrong?

Recent maybe. Hard to miss? Apparently not.

Your uncertainty is noted. You'd have to elaborate for it to mean anything to me though.

Why wasn't it? I'm not ducking, I want you to explain how body slamming a10 year old kid hald your size head first into concrete IS appropriate?

I've explained my view several times (easy to miss maybe?), their was a risk of death or serious injury, the kid was only 10, he was half the size of the victim who had a huge size and strength advantage. Innapropriate. Now you counter if you have one.

It was inappropriate to use such a dangerous move in that specific situation. Any move that didn't carry with an high risk of death or serious injury would have been more appropriate.

What's with the fixation on the word 'wrong'?

On what basis have you determined that there is a high risk of death or serious injury?

Apparently.

Really? Ok.

If slamming someone one their head is not a moral issue for you im not sure what could be. Nothing should be imo.

Between unjustified violence and you not considering stealing a moral question could you give me an example of a moral stance and why you consider it one and the others not? Because im lost in how you come up with what is and what isn't a morale issue for you.

If it quacks like a duck...

This does not tell me why it was inappropriate. All it does make me refine my question to why is it inappropriate to slam someone on their head and cause serious injury when you have a strength advantage?


Why?


Because you saying it was inappropriate is just a way to get out of saying it was wrong. Which i think you think it was.

Did you watch the video? People die all the time of head injuries sustained by falling on concrete (usually after being punched) and this kid was slammed into the concrete. He's lucky he landed the way he did and not on his head, or on his neck. I do BJJ/MMA and we're not allowed to use body slams in training where the head can be impacted because of the risk of injury, and that's on mats.

C'mon, I don't need to be a medical expert to be able to say that was stupidly dangerous.

Clearly not. (with brass knobs on)

I see people get slammed in MMA fights, it's sanctioned, let alone a moral issue. If I was being attacked in and felt my life was threatened I would use that move and not feel that I was being immoral. I would feel it was justified. In fact, 'unjustified' might be the word I should be using.

What moral is that you think is the issue here?

Well, if the answers in the question..... This was a playground fight, not a life and death situation or a martial arts competition. It was 'unjustified' in this context.

Now tell me why it's not inappropriate. I'm done answering this question only for you to repeat it.

Seriously? It was a playground fight between 10 year olds. Instead of landing slightly skewed and being mildly concussed he lands on his head, suffers serious brain injuries and dies. Are we still having this conversation then?

Think what you want about what I think, it doesn't make you right. I've never used the word wrong. I used the word appropriate because I thought it was appropriate.

MMA is a moral issue for some. Some think it is moral, some dont.


You didn't give me an example of a moral issue here and why some things are and why stealing and the kid getting his head slammed aren't.

You have never answered the question.

Yes. Because i dont get how you can say its inappropriate without thinking its wrong.

Think im right.

Mightyboosh: What is the difference between a thing being 'inappropriate' and it being 'wrong'?

MMA is a moral issue? Provide sources please.

I don't even know what this means.

I've answered it twice now, you just won't accept my answer. That's your issue, I'm not answering it any more.

And it matters because.....?

Ok. You don't really need to be talking to me then do you. Le fin?

Entirely depends on what Batair means by 'wrong', I just don't want to get railroaded into whatever cul-de-sac he has planned for me. If I thought 'wrong' was the word to use, I'd be using it but it's too open to interpretation. Unjustified and inappropriate aren't so much.

I think 'unjustified' might be a better word for what I'm trying to communicate than 'inappropriate' although it's a fine line.

I'm not really worried about what batair means by 'wrong'. You mean something by it, and there's a reason you reject that term and sub in 'unjustified'. I'm just wondering what that reason is.

I'm not rejecting it, I'm refusing to go along with it because 'wrong' can have so many connotations, and can be so subjectively interpreted, that I think Batair can twist it into something I don't mean. I don't want that to happen.

Is that not clear to you? I don't know how else to explain it and I don't know why he won't let it go. What's wrong with using the word 'unjustified' if that's how, in the course of the discussion, I've realised better describes how I feel about it?

Justification hinges on the criteria by which a thing is found to be justified or unjustified, no less so than 'wrong'. If the reason you're avoiding the word 'wrong' is that it might lead to misunderstandings and derails, well, I think we're already there, aren't we?

A toy example of what a response might look like: 'Wrong' might be taken to imply that the kid's actions are absolutely and immutably wrong, that there are no conceivable circumstances in which it would be right or good for the kid to do as he did. Whereas 'unjustified' makes the judgement specific to the circumstances in which he did take the action, rather than addressing all possible circumstances wherein he might have taken it.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a fine and dandy reason for preferring 'unjustified' to 'wrong'. My only issue with it is that it only defers the question of what the difference between the two is - having specified that the judgement is with respect to the circumstances, is it or isn't it 'wrong' for the child to have acted as he did?

Ironically, what's wrong with it is that you're refusing to justify it.

Look, it seems to me that at some point, it became important to you to avoid describing the kid's actions as 'wrong' because that would make it a moral judgement. But 'inappropriate' and 'unjustified' only prompt the question of what those terms represent - and ultimately, they represent a moral sense, don't they? The kid shouldn't have done that, you feel.

There are senses of 'moral' and 'wrong' which don't hinge on metaphysical justification. I'm an atheist and so is batair. Why do you fear you might need to explain to us that when you say 'wrong', you aren't invoking some dualist framework?

Yes.

How frequently do you think "all the time" is? Do you have some sort of data on the frequency with which people get punched and sustain fatal head injuries by falling on concrete? (Edit: You have made an oddly specific claim here, and the oddity of the claim makes me suspicious that you're pulling stuff of the air.)

I didn't say it wasn't dangerous. However, I do think that you're using an exaggerated sense of danger as part of your position, and I'm questioning how grounded that sense of danger really is. I do think that your argument needs to be grounded in more than a sense of hysteria and exaggeration.

Edit: FWIW - The reason that certain types of moves/strikes are disallowed in MMA is not because of the result of a single impact to the head, but the cumulative result of repeated impacts.

Edit x2: The only strike that I can think of as being particularly dangerous on a single blow is a rabbit punch.

This is perhaps a more clear insight to the sense I get that you're exaggerating your position:

Let's suppose that I accept your claim that "people die all the time of head injuries sustained by falling on concrete (usually after being punched). Would this mean that if the bullied kid had just punched the other kid once, that this would be "stupidly dangerous" as well? After all, people die "all the time" from that type of situation.

Lol.


Ok.


Guess not.


No it doesnt. Thats the whole point. Its about why you think some things are wrong but others are inappropriate. But i can see you are more interested in some kind of game playing so ill move along.

Btw there was no trap coming. You just make no sense.

You can't? Was it a joke? Who knows why you're loling there... not me.

And here endeth a conversation that only you understood the purpose of, if there even was one.

No mate, on this occasion it's you who's making no sense. You watch a video of some kid nearly being killed in a playground incident (can't even call it a fight) and then spend the rest of the thread trying to get me to say the word 'wrong'. What the actual f*ck.

No exaggeration happening or necessary here. And, it's not a 'position' Aaron, this isn't debate for fun, I'm stunned at the lack of empathy and blood lust 'the bully deserved it' reaction to this video.

No, this such a willful twist of what I said that I'm actually wondering if it's a level. On the off chance that it's not, the logic is simple:

1) People die after being punched, usually in the head, consequently falling onto concrete (usually a pavement), whacking their head on said concrete pavement. It's not the punch that kills them, it's the consequences of the resulting fall.

2) Therefore, you can die from injuries sustained whacking your head on concrete. I could have used other examples to make the same point.

3) The bigger kid in the video picks up the little kid (bodily picks him up, he has such a size and strength advantage....) and slams him head first into concrete.

4) The little kid could have whacked his head with considerable force on the concrete

5) The little kid could have died from injuries sustained having his head whacked into concrete.

You know, even if this is a level, keep going. I'll just out-serious it until it gets boring for you. However, if it's not a level and you're serious that you don't think the big kid did anything unjustifiably dangerous to the little kid, then stop here because I doubt that anything I can say will convince you otherwise.

Try considering the point of the post before concerning yourself with whether it's a level. I don't see anything in Aarons post that would suggest it is and there is as simple a logic in the point he is making that you may want to consider again.

I used the fact that people die after street fights because they sustained head injuries from impacts with the ground to highlight the danger of your head hitting concrete, which is what could have so easily happened in the video to the little kid, and Aaron turns it into 'would the little kid have died if the big kid punched him'. Who knows? Not me, and I was never saying that.

Seriously, how can people not see how that's a non sequitur?

So, I did consider the post (Did you read my numbered points?) and I might ask you to reconsider it in light of what I've just explained. Perhaps you'll see why I wondered if it was a level.

That's not what Aaron was asking as he knew you would not be able to answer. I've got to leave but if Aaron hasn't clarified it I'll try to oblige.

LOL @ blood lust -- I've accused you of taking an exaggerated position. I think what you've done here is demonstrated that you do, in fact, have a propensity to exaggerate.

I challenged you on the claim that "people die all the time of head injuries sustained by falling on concrete (usually after being punched)." I don't challenge the claim that there exist people who have died under such circumstances, I'm challenging the frequency with which you're portraying the incident.

Sure, this is not in debate. People can die from head injuries on concerete. This has little bearing on the challenge to your claim.

Possibility is still not the issue.

LOL @ you being serious here. And you think that you're being serious, you've got more problems than you realize.

This particular element of the conversation has nothing to do with justification. It has to do with whether your presentation is exaggerated. So far, the evidence strongly suggests that you are exaggerating your position, and that your position is grounded in that exaggeration.

OK, my explanation of why I introduced the street fight example stands but I re-read Aaron's post and the answer to the question is 'no, punching him would not be as stupidly dangerous as picking the little kid up body slamming him head first into concrete' (but would still entail the risk). The former might not result in the kid hitting his head, the latter was a case if it being more likely that he would than not

Aaron was focussing on the 'all the time' comment I made. According to this site (www.caregiver.org/), on average 56,000 people die each year in the USA from traumatic head injuries. 9% of those are due to assaults. That means that over 5,000 people a year, just in tthe USA die from head injuries sustained during assaults.

I don't have a stat for how many of those are the result of trauma as the result of heads meeting concrete but if you consider the numbers just int eh USa, and then think about global numbers, I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss the possibility that it doesn't happen enough for me to say 'it happens all the time' and not be exaggerating significantly.

ou made a claim about people being punched, and I pointed out the logical consequence of your claim relative to situation. Your claim is grounded in the FREQUENCY with which you CLAIM people die from head injuries after impacts with the ground.

Maybe because what I'm doing isn't. But it would seem that what you're doing is.

Since you don't know what reactions I've been exposed to, you're basically calling me a liar here. Nice.

See my post to dereds above.


And if you think you're not nit picking and being ever the pedant and showing a startling lack of empathy to the actual topic, then back atcha.

That would be my 'position' of surprise at the lack of empathy and the support of violence with risk of servere injury as as method of conflict resolution shown by adults to two children fighting?

I'm stunned that on such an issue you'll still pick fault with my presentation, find some semantic issue to debate, and completely miss the point.

I'm done for the weekend, I expected people here, being more intelligent and presumably more sensitive than the types from whom I've seen reactions up till now, to agree that the big kid went too far, not argue with me at every twist and turn, it's kinda messed up actually.

Okay. I don't doubt that there are many assualts that result in fatal head injuries.

This paragraph is a terrible failure of both logic and rhetoric.