I am currently debating with someone about the difference between cruelty and defense


I say defense is not a cruel act. it CAN turn cruel if you exceed the amount of force need to ward off attack because THEN you become the attacker and attacking IS cruel.

this other person is saying that all forms of attacking, all forms of defense are all always a cruel act. that defense is justified cruelty

-------------------

we are basically debating the usage of the english language.

defense CAN turn cruel however it is not ALWAYS CRUEL

cruelty
1: a cruel act; a deliberate infliction of pain and suffering [syn: inhuman treatment]
2: feelings of extreme heartlessness [syn: mercilessness, pitilessness, ruthlessness] 3: the quality of being cruel and causing tension or annoyance [syn: cruelness, harshness]

so defending yourself is not a DELIBERATE infliction of pain you are WARDING OFF against deliberate inlfiction.

defending at no time would you feel extreme heartlessness

and #3 is not relevant to this usage.

you have to BE the attacker to BE cruel.

are you being cruel to someone who is attempting to rape a girl and you defend her? NO. you COULD be but only if you went farther than means of defense and became the attacker.



-------------------------------------

now what do you guys think? help us figure this out.


does the word CRUELTY apply to any and all instances of inflicting pain, fighting, defending?


thanx everyone














:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

just for reference, i still feel that self defense, from what is taught in martial arts...

is justified cruelty. to defend yourself you will with intent to purposely put someone in pain or suffering to defend yourself or others.

cruelty being

Quote:

a deliberate infliction of pain and suffering

thats all fighting is, but at times its justified. especially for survival.

For me personally Self-Defense will be Cruel because I'm gonna be intentionally putting someone into an extreme amount of pain if they want to attack me. I believe if someone is that stupid then whatever I do to them is what they deserve, as long as I don't kill them, unless I'm getting shot at. then I don't really care what I do to them.




Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home

If someone is flicking rubber bands at you, and you flick one back to make them stop, I wouldn't consider that cruel.

If somone is flicking rubber bands at you, and you kick them in the balls until they pass out, I would consider that cruel, but a helluva lot more fun!!!




Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 3rd quickest Ecotec on the .org - 10.949 @ 131.50 MPH!!!

Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:just for reference, i still feel that self defense, from what is taught in martial arts...

is justified cruelty. to defend yourself you will with intent to purposely put someone in pain or suffering to defend yourself or others.

as i told you before even in the pages of our topic in AG. i understand what your "meaning" by sayign its justified cruelty.

but as i explained in the other thread, in keeping with the english language and how you use different words for different situations your "idea" that defense is and always is justified cruelty is incorrect.

as you can see here from what saint said

Quote:

For me personally Self-Defense will be Cruel because I'm gonna be intentionally putting someone into an extreme amount of pain if they want to attack me. I believe if someone is that stupid then whatever I do to them is what they deserve, as long as I don't kill them, unless I'm getting shot at. then I don't really care what I do to them.

this is not self defense. self defense is ONLY self defense UP UNTIL you reach the point where no more force is required to protect yourself. once you exceed that amount of force to protect yourself and go on to giving the person a (justified) ass whoopin you are now the attacker and no longer defending yourself. you are now the attacking party and attacking IS cruel even if your attack is justified.

my point being that the word DEFENSE can NOT be described as cruel. in DEFENSE of yourself or OTHERS you are WARDING OFF CRUELTY(cruelty definition: deliberate intention to cause harm). but only warding off cruelty to the extent to make it stop.(while warding off these attacks MAY cause harm, it is not deliberate infliction of pain or suffering, it is simply doing whatever may be needed to stop the attacks from continuing which may or may not even include any harm pain or suffering)

the moment you go farther than what was NEEDED to stop the incomming attacks, you are now the attacker and that is cruel. and now that OTHER person is defending themselves.

Quote:

cruelty being

Quote:

a deliberate infliction of pain and suffering

thats all fighting is, but at times its justified. especially for survival.

fighting is not the same as defense. while you MAY be fighting in order to save yourself or others it does not mean that one equals the other.

this is why words have multipel definitions and examples of when and how they would be used for certain situations.

---------

so DEFENSE CAN turn INTO cruelty in certain circumstances. HOWEVER, the word cruelty CAN NOT be used to describe any and all occurances of a person defending themselves or others.

defense can not be described as ALWAYS being a cruel act. the english language just does not operate this way.

final note

Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:just for reference, i still feel that self defense, from what is taught in martial arts...

martial arts does NOT teach to defend yourself PAST what is needed to save yourself from harm. you are ONLY to use force as a LAST resort and ONLY to the extent to stop attacks.

so martial arts teaches to STRICTLY adhere to the real definition of the word defense. as i have described within this post. martial arts would never TEACH you that it is ok to use MORE force than minimum was needed to defend yourself. and this is NOT a cruel act. defence is not a cruel act. if and when you exceed the force needed to stop attacks(defending yourself or others) is the ONLY time you would become cruel.







:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

WTF?

There can actually be a debate on this? People actually don't know the difference between defence and cruelty?

This is like asking the difference between coke and sprite. Yes they are both pop and they are made by the Coca-Cola company by come one, use your brains people....


______________________________________________________________

ToBoGgAn wrote:we are gonna take it in the ass and like it, cause thats what america does.

Slo2pt2 (Projekt Unknown?) wrote:One my SON is ADHD N.O.S and Autistic Spectrum Disorder. I will nto medicate him he will battle throught this himself and learn to control it.

Defence: Inlficting pain upon others to repel or deter a physical attack upon one's person, property or country

Cruelty: Wanton infliction of pain upon another person, animal, or country by another of equal or greater power for the aggressor's pleasure.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I thought i was pretty obvious too

and thanx gam for those definitions. perfect





:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

Glace wrote:WTF?

There can actually be a debate on this? People actually don't know the difference between defence and cruelty?

This is like asking the difference between coke and sprite. Yes they are both pop and they are made by the Coca-Cola company by come one, use your brains people....

There can definitely be a debate on this.... there are 6 pages of it in anything goes.

^ lmao

only like 2 pages of that debate was on the usage of the word cruelty.

the rest was me and event debating about fur/vegetarianism etc

i think both of us must have written the equivelant of a few essays lol





:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

Self-defence is not cruel:

if someone breaks into my apartment with a gun and i run them through, and they bleed to death--that's not cruel--that's self-defense and the bastard got what he deserved.

If someone breaks into my apartment with a gun, and i manage to disarm, chain them up, and force them to listen to Roseanne Arnold and Gilbert Gottfried sing "I got you babe", that's just cruel.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

omg thats past cruel


lol







:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

OMG..

Just picturing that... Great, you just gave the CIA and HLSA a new "Interrogation Technique."




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Keeper of the Light™:

Finding ways to circumvent the Geneva Convention...on tortuous way at a time


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

GAM: Proud Licensor of inhumane information extraction methods since 2:04am October 2, 1977!





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Quote:

this is not self defense. self defense is ONLY self defense UP UNTIL you reach the point where no more force is required to protect yourself. once you exceed that amount of force to protect yourself and go on to giving the person a (justified) ass whoopin you are now the attacker and no longer defending yourself. you are now the attacking party and attacking IS cruel even if your attack is justified.

Quote:

A good example of a thick ethical term might be "cruel." Actions can be described as cruel, and there is likely to be a good deal of intersubjective agreement on the question whether a particular action is cruel or not. Moreover, when asked why an action is cruel, the answer will certainly include a number of fact, e.g. the action caused pain, the pain was unnecessary to accomplishment of the actions purpose, and so forth. Cruel has a clear factual component. But cruel also involves moral values. So, for example, it would be quite odd to say, "His action was cruel, but it was nonetheless good." Such an assertion would naturally lead to the question: "So what was good about it that justified the cruelty." Of course, there are many possible answers to this challenge, but one of them is not: "Oh, there was nothing else that made it good; it was just a cruel action." Contrast this to, "His action was cruel, and therefore it was wrong." Imagine now the query: "Yes it was cruel, but what was wrong with that." And now the reply, "Huh? What was wrong with it was that it was cruel. Didn't you hear me?" Anyone who believes there is a sharp line that separates the realm of facts from the realm of values must produce an account of thick ethical terms, because such terms seem to straddle the line.

http://tm.wc.ask.com/r?t=c&s=a&id=30787&sv=za5cb0d70&uid=0A579F726C7777EF3&sid=18A3DC9645F8A0A24&p=%2ftop&o=0&u=http://j2k.naver.com/j2k_frame.php/height/legaltheorylexicon.blogspot.co m/2003_12_01_legaltheorylexicon_archive.html


in saints case where he is currently, his attackers are attempting to take his life.

so if someone comes at him with sword to remove his head they will keep going at all costs until someone dies.

he may have to kill someone to protect himself. and for me the same thing occurs in baltimore.

if someone attacks me at a club, with knife or gun. i may have to break and arm or do something to immobilize them so that they do not use it on me, or others. normally the avg drunk, you can simply restrain by a nelson hold or otherwise, but many times we have to go above, a softer approach of simple restraint.

i dont personally like hurting others, but at times i intentionally have to. i can turn my head and just let it happen to others. or i can try to restrain one weilding a weapon and get myself messed up.... or i can return cruelty to get the job done. he doesnt care at that instance so why should i. i wont kill him, but if attacked with intent to kill, his need to live goes to zero.

something for you to look at.... the way the courts see it as well

"Under the common law, the excuse for killing in self-defense is founded upon necessity, be it real or apparent

These common-law principles were codified in K.S.A. 21-3211, which provides:

"A person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such aggressor's imminent use of unlawful force."



[6] The traditional concept of self-defense has posited one-time conflicts between persons of somewhat equal size and strength. When the defendant claiming self-defense is a victim of long-term domestic violence, such as a battered spouse, such traditional concepts may not apply. Because of the prior history of abuse, and the difference in strength and size between the abused and the abuser, the accused in such cases may choose to defend during a momentary lull in the abuse, rather than during a conflict. See Comment, Criminal Law: The Kansas Approach to the Battered Woman's Use of Self-Defense [State v. Hundley, 236 Kan. 461, 693 P.2d 475 (1985) ], 25 Washburn L.J. 174 (1985). However, in order to warrant the giving of a self-defense instruction, the facts of the case must still show that the spouse was in imminent danger close to the time of the killing."

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/st%20v%20stewart.htm


few more links.... justifyiable homicide- you've stated killing is cruel, right?. else the fur post wouldnt exist.:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special21/articles/0522hikershot22.html


a case of animal cruelty, but the article states:

"Shadow was, we're morally certain, growling in warning and in defense of his human family and their home. We don't know if he bit Henderson as claimed, but we'd bet if he did, it was in self-defense or otherwise justified. In any case, there was no conceivable justification for the cold-blooded execution that followed"

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050212/OPINION/502120415/1015

^^^^ notice how since it ISNT justified, its just animal cruelty.

Quote:

Legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons with ease, to shield them from prosecution when they shoot another in 'self-defense'--another example of the permission, the incitement to cruelty.

http://tm.wc.ask.com/r?t=c&s=a&id=30787&sv=za5cb0ddb&uid=0A579F726C7777EF3&sid=18A3DC9645F8A0A24&p=%2ftop&o=0&u=http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2005/05/a_culture_of_cr.html



or

Quote:

Assassination of members of death squads or government security agencies might even be justified as self-defense. When a group resorts to killing minor government officials, selected because of their vulnerability, almost everyone agrees that it has gone too far. Certainly, the killing of health workers, farmers, store keepers, civilian managers, teachers, or social workers, to say nothing of pregnant women and school children, is beyond the bounds of any reasonable ethical code.

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/terrorandrevolution.htm

Read from Nov 7th

http://www.vaxxine.com/hyoomik/ethics/shortethicsnotes.html




that on top of teachings from martial arts, over a decades worth. i have never had an instructor that stated hurting someone isnt cruel towards their life... cause it is. we have the choice to retreat or ignore. but if we ever engage in battle, we are doing what we are taught not to do until the last resort. and yes when you engage, you go in with intent to harm.

but like said above in the first quote from the site of law terms.

i stick to my morals, ethics, and teachings. sometimes you just have to do what you gotta do, even if it is cruel.

Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:

Quote:

this is not self defense. self defense is ONLY self defense UP UNTIL you reach the point where no more force is required to protect yourself. once you exceed that amount of force to protect yourself and go on to giving the person a (justified) ass whoopin you are now the attacker and no longer defending yourself. you are now the attacking party and attacking IS cruel even if your attack is justified.

Quote:

A good example of a thick ethical term might be "cruel." Actions can be described as cruel, and there is likely to be a good deal of intersubjective agreement on the question whether a particular action is cruel or not. Moreover, when asked why an action is cruel, the answer will certainly include a number of fact, e.g. the action caused pain, the pain was unnecessary to accomplishment of the actions purpose, and so forth. Cruel has a clear factual component. But cruel also involves moral values. So, for example, it would be quite odd to say, "His action was cruel, but it was nonetheless good." Such an assertion would naturally lead to the question: "So what was good about it that justified the cruelty." Of course, there are many possible answers to this challenge, but one of them is not: "Oh, there was nothing else that made it good; it was just a cruel action." Contrast this to, "His action was cruel, and therefore it was wrong." Imagine now the query: "Yes it was cruel, but what was wrong with that." And now the reply, "Huh? What was wrong with it was that it was cruel. Didn't you hear me?" Anyone who believes there is a sharp line that separates the realm of facts from the realm of values must produce an account of thick ethical terms, because such terms seem to straddle the line.

http://tm.wc.ask.com/r?t=c&s=a&id=30787&sv=za5cb0d70&uid=0A579F726C7777EF3&sid=18A3DC9645F8A0A24&p=%2ftop&o=0&u=http://j2k.naver.com/j2k_frame.php/height/legaltheorylexicon.blogspot.co m/2003_12_01_legaltheorylexicon_archive.html

first things first that link is from japan or something.

now secondly it seems as though YOUR OWN quotes prove my case. so I thank you for this.

this very article describes the entanglement or factual and moral interpretation of laws and situations.

the example they use is of a cruel act that is already established as cruel. they are discussing the entalngment in which it can or cant be considered justified.

so has no bearing in the usage we are debating bro. they are only talking abotu an act that they have already established IS cruel

and YOU are saying ALL acts of defense ARE cruel.

Quote:




in saints case where he is currently, his attackers are attempting to take his life.

so if someone comes at him with sword to remove his head they will keep going at all costs until someone dies.

he may have to kill someone to protect himself. and for me the same thing occurs in baltimore.

if someone attacks me at a club, with knife or gun. i may have to break and arm or do something to immobilize them so that they do not use it on me, or others. normally the avg drunk, you can simply restrain by a nelson hold or otherwise, but many times we have to go above, a softer approach of simple restraint.

i dont personally like hurting others, but at times i intentionally have to. i can turn my head and just let it happen to others. or i can try to restrain one weilding a weapon and get myself messed up.... or i can return cruelty to get the job done. he doesnt care at that instance so why should i. i wont kill him, but if attacked with intent to kill, his need to live goes to zero.

you are describign EXACTLY what i stated constitutes when self defense changes to cruelty. so thanx for reitterating it.

you were NOT STRICTLY defending yourself. you made the moral judgement that in this case of someone with a knife that it would be easier and less risk to apply excess force to get the job done and purposely do so. as soon as you made this conscious decision you have strayed from the principles of self defense and done exactly as i stated which is move from the defending party warding off attack to the attacking party purposey inflicting pain/suffering.

ill use GAM's definition he got of cruelty and defense to further prove this:
Defence: Inlficting pain upon others to repel or deter a physical attack upon one's person, property or country

Cruelty: Wanton infliction of pain upon another person, animal, or country by another of equal or greater power for the aggressor's pleasure.

as you can obviously see when you decided to use EXTRA force to get the job done and purposely use more than what was absolutely needed you switched from inflicting pain to repel attack to wanton infliction of pain when it wasnt NEEDED.

now if that person with the knife lunged at you and you felt he would kill you under self defense you COULD kill him if killing him was the only option to stop his attacks. then and only then would your situation be self defense and being self defense it would not be cruel.

Quote:



something for you to look at.... the way the courts see it as well

"Under the common law, the excuse for killing in self-defense is founded upon necessity, be it real or apparent

These common-law principles were codified in K.S.A. 21-3211, which provides:

"A person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such aggressor's imminent use of unlawful force."

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! that is the EXACT DEFINITION OF SELF DEFENSE and IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF CRUELTY.

Defence: Inlficting pain upon others to repel or deter a physical attack upon one's person, property or country

Cruelty: Wanton infliction of pain upon another person, animal, or country by another of equal or greater power for the aggressor's pleasure.

Quote:


few more links.... justifyiable homicide- you've stated killing is cruel, right?. else the fur post wouldnt exist.:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special21/articles/0522hikershot22.html


a case of animal cruelty, but the article states:

"Shadow was, we're morally certain, growling in warning and in defense of his human family and their home. We don't know if he bit Henderson as claimed, but we'd bet if he did, it was in self-defense or otherwise justified. In any case, there was no conceivable justification for the cold-blooded execution that followed"

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050212/OPINION/502120415/1015

should post the entire context of that paragraph so here it is:

According to a sheriff's report, Henderson showed up drunk at the Lehigh home of Rosie Shepard, whose daughter he knows. The family dog, Shadow, growled at him, prompting Henderson to threaten to kill the animal. After going outside to relieve himself, Henderson claimed Shadow had bit him, left to get a shotgun, returned, grabbed the dog by the collar and blasted the poor creature.

He then left the shotgun shell engraved with the dog's name on a coffee table. Fortunately, he harmed no human, not this time.

Shadow was, we're morally certain, growling in warning and in defense of his human family and their home. We don't know if he bit Henderson as claimed, but we'd bet if he did, it was in self-defense or otherwise justified. In any case, there was no conceivable justification for the cold-blooded execution that followed.

Quote:


^^^^ notice how since it ISNT justified, its just animal cruelty.

ok you proved my point again. i think you may be confused event.

the dog bit the man in defense. and obviously only a warning bite or else he would nto have been able to return with a shotgun from his house.

so again obviously the man coming back and KILLING the dog when he had already escaped from the attack of the dog was obviously not defending himself. he purposely without need to protect him or anyoen else came back to the house and hoorendously blew the dog away.

absolutely no defense involved so it = cruelty

if he killed teh dog as the dog was trying to kill him, he would have acted in %100 self defense and therefore the act would have been traggic (sicne the dog wasnt attackign for no reason he was attackign to protect himself and others) it would not have been cruelty to animals. and PROVES THAT SELF DEFENSE IS NTO CONSIDERED CRUEL!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!11!!!!!one

so in essence EXACTLY PROVED MY POINT

Quote:

Quote:

Legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons with ease, to shield them from prosecution when they shoot another in 'self-defense'--another example of the permission, the incitement to cruelty.

http://tm.wc.ask.com/r?t=c&s=a&id=30787&sv=za5cb0ddb&uid=0A579F726C7777EF3&sid=18A3DC9645F8A0A24&p=%2ftop&o=0&u=http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2005/05/a_culture_of_cr.html



or

Quote:

Assassination of members of death squads or government security agencies might even be justified as self-defense. When a group resorts to killing minor government officials, selected because of their vulnerability, almost everyone agrees that it has gone too far. Certainly, the killing of health workers, farmers, store keepers, civilian managers, teachers, or social workers, to say nothing of pregnant women and school children, is beyond the bounds of any reasonable ethical code.

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/terrorandrevolution.htm

i see absolutely NOTHING in here that trys to prove that you say ALL infliction of pain in any way shape or form even in defense is cruel. so why did you post it?????

Quote:


Read from Nov 7th

http://www.vaxxine.com/hyoomik/ethics/shortethicsnotes.html

this is from that link ^^^^

Quote:

sufficient force may be used, but excessive force is wrong. Only so much force should be used as is necessary to safeguard citizens rights. The principle of double effect also applies. If the use of force would cause greater harm than the evil it is meant to prevent, it is wrong. However, if it is necessary and justified to protect people's rights, the use of force may even result in the death of another.

wow man i think EVERYthing you posted is proving that cruelty does NOT apply to defense of self and others. and that it does NOT apply to ALL cases of pain/suffering

the above basically outlines the exact differences that you are SUPPOSED TO extrapolate when looking at the differing definitions of cruelty and defense

Defence: Inlficting pain upon others to repel or deter a physical attack upon one's person, property or country

Cruelty: Wanton infliction of pain upon another person, animal, or country by another of equal or greater power for the aggressor's pleasure.

so again why did you post this??? it is saygin exactly what IM saying.

that defense is ONLY wrong and CRUEL ONLY WHEN it exceeds the minimum of the force needed to stop the agressors attacks.

everythign you posted event describes my case. that cruelty can not and does not apply to all cases of infliction of pain suffering. since obviously all your articles clearly state the difference between these two terms.

they even describe the proper way for each word to be used and considered given different situations.

Quote:


that on top of teachings from martial arts, over a decades worth. i have never had an instructor that stated hurting someone isnt cruel towards their life... cause it is.

(makes buzzer sound) wrong. mayeb you need to talk to yrou isntructors again or get new ones.

of COURSE hurtign someone IS cruel. HOWEVER there ARE exceptions that prove the word cruel can not be used to describe ALL acts of hurting someone. SELF DEFENSE you may or may not end up hurting someone. and if you do hurt them and the hurt you applied does nto exceed the force needed to stop the attacks then it is NOT cruel. only if you EXCEED this amoutn does it turn cruel. and when you EXCEED that amoutn its no longer self defense and its simply attacking and that IS cruel.

Quote:


we have the choice to retreat or ignore. but if we ever engage in battle, we are doing what we are taught not to do until the last resort. and yes when you engage, you go in with intent to harm.

incorrect. while it is POSSIBLE to engage in battle WITHOUT intent to hurt. for instance. if you start to get attacked and all other efforts have failed to get away from these attacks and you HAVE to take physical dirrect action to stop the attacks you are not PURPOSELY hurting this person. you are strictly tryign to stop these attacks and that MAY or MAY NOT cause harm to the person. and if it DOES if the hurt does nto exceed the amoutn needed to stop the attack it is still in self defense and is NOT cruel.

Quote:


but like said above in the first quote from the site of law terms.

i stick to my morals, ethics, and teachings. sometimes you just have to do what you gotta do, even if it is cruel.

of COURSE you should always stick to yoru morals ethics and teachings. and of COURSE you gotta do what you gotta do.

and of course sometimes the JUSTIFIABLE thing to do IS cruel.

HOWEVER, self defense IS not CRUEL AND CAN NOT BE.

only if you make a moral ethical and teaching conscious decision to use more force than neccesary to stop the attacks does your act become CRUEL.


its a VERY simple concept (and is clearly stated in all the laws you posted) and I honestly cant believe we are having this debate.

you event, are the only one that actually thinks that the word cruel can be applied to ALL situations that involve pain/suffering

its so obviously can not be applied to a situation regarding self defense.

cmon man





:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

Nathaniel wrote:

of COURSE you should always stick to yoru morals ethics and teachings. and of COURSE you gotta do what you gotta do.

and of course sometimes the JUSTIFIABLE thing to do IS cruel.

HOWEVER, self defense IS not CRUEL AND CAN NOT BE.

only if you make a moral ethical and teaching conscious decision to use more force than neccesary to stop the attacks does your act become CRUEL.

in bold you contradicted yourself.

if sometimes the justifiable thing to do is cruel,

and sometimes self defense is the justifiable thing to do...

then sometimes self defense is cruel. you can go beyond self defense into blatant cruelty, yes...


remember the saying, it it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then chances are it is is duck????


like said, ask most any dojo of any martial arts, that sees life as sacred.


and in almost any decision to defend life, ethics and morals are involved. conscious or automatic.


in this post you;ve had 3 opinions for yourself, one questionable for either side as you say, as roofy's was pretty commical, but not on defense of life or real use of violence.

4 opinions on something doesnt exactly mean much on an issue thats discussed world wide. while they add to things, i still see cruelty as it is defined. intent to inflict pain or suffering. doesnt matter to me why it happens, but i feel if you go to do that action, then its cruel, which is why i dont fight unless needed.

you keep saying i am the only one, maybe in this post, but not in real life outisde of the war forum on JBO.

like said, this is what almost any martial arts instructor will teach if life is of value in self defense.


and from what you quoted.....from my link i posted

Quote:

However, if it is necessary and justified to protect people's rights, the use of force may even result in the death of another.

as said before, killing is cruel, but if there comes a time when you have to kill, if its justified for the reason to kill, its within your rights of self defense to do so.


also on the story of the dog....

Quote:

the dog bit the man in defense. and obviously only a warning bite or else he would nto have been able to return with a shotgun from his house

no where in the post did it say for certain the dog bit the man. the man made that claim, but it doesnt say that the dog bit him. any criminal will lie to avoid jail.

this is why i dont believe you are actually reading the links in full, else you would have known that.




but in conclusion, you live by your definition, i will live by mine...

its already evident from the last post in AG you see those who eat meat as being cruel to animals...


where as most anyone who does eat meat sees it as

1) part of nature
2) a good solid natural source of food, namely protein and vitamins.

hell as it stands me and you will prob disagree on what the definition of a J-body is.

but like said, from my teachings i;ve learned from others, when things escalate, you have to do what you have to do if you want to survive and or protect others. at times those things will be cruel.

event this is fawking assanine.

its a SIMPLE CONCEPT

you are trying to apply YOUR OPPINION ON WHAT CONSTITUTES CRUELTY AND WHAT CRUELTY MEANS.

and i understand that that is how you feel. HOWEVER,
according to the english language the usages of these words and their definitions and their application to different situations it is simply not possible to describe self defense as cruel

now you can within YOURSELF feel that defense no matter what is cruel. go ahead i could care less. HOWEVER, by doing so you are blatantly mis-using the english language.

its in plain damn text in every dictionary in the law books everywhere that DEFENSE does NOT = CRUELTY!!!!!!

the only time defense can become cruelty is when you exceed the definition of the word defense which is exceeding the bare minimum to stop the attacks. at that point when you exceed that force you have now become cruel.

its plain and simple man plain and simple. you can argue ALL you want on hwo much YOU feel that defense is a cruel act but the fact of the matter is the english language does not work like that.

-----------------------------------------

Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:

Nathaniel wrote:

of COURSE you should always stick to yoru morals ethics and teachings. and of COURSE you gotta do what you gotta do.

and of course sometimes the JUSTIFIABLE thing to do IS cruel.

HOWEVER, self defense IS not CRUEL AND CAN NOT BE.

only if you make a moral ethical and teaching conscious decision to use more force than neccesary to stop the attacks does your act become CRUEL.

in bold you contradicted yourself.

if sometimes the justifiable thing to do is cruel,

and sometimes self defense is the justifiable thing to do...

then sometimes self defense is cruel. you can go beyond self defense into blatant cruelty, yes...

OMG event you are THE thickest head person EVAR! lol

your trying to link 2 completely seperate situations together. please stop murdering the contexts of my words. ive added some comments to make the statements MORE clear


and of course sometimes the JUSTIFIABLE thing to do IS cruel.
(a completely wrong action, but yet it can still be justifiable. huh hows that???
say a cow is severely hurt with no chance to live. since killing a cow or any life for that matter is always wrong, it is however justifiable to do so because you are indeed saving this cow from misery and pain. see how that worked???)

HOWEVER, self defense IS not CRUEL AND CAN NOT BE.
(if you are speaking about self defense in accordance with the CORRECT way to use the english language the definitions clearly state that it is not cruel. all you have to do is analyze cause and effect and the relation between an aggressor and a defender while looking at the definitions

Defence: Inlficting pain upon others to repel or deter a physical attack upon one's person, property or country

Cruelty: Wanton infliction of pain upon another person, animal, or country by another of equal or greater power for the aggressor's pleasure.

so obviously when defending yourself you are not applying wanton infliction of pain upon anything. you may inflict pain but it is not deliberate wanton infliction of pain. and with the correct definition of defense in the dictionary and in the law books state that in order for it to be defense you can not exceed the minimum required to stop your attacker. and not only that but if the last resort whiel defending yoruself leads to the attacker being killed, and has to have been not deliberately. the person in order for it to be death in defense would have had to have been strictly tryign to do the minimum required and if that happened to lead to death than it was defense. it would not eb defense if you logically thought otu that you could kill this person and it would make it stop.

not to mention the MAN REASON IN THE DEFINITION THAT SHOULD LET YOU SEE THE LIGHT

Cruelty: Wanton infliction of pain upon another person, animal, or country by another of equal or greater power for the aggressor's pleasure.

so obviously when defending yourself it is most definitely not for yoru own pleasure

Quote:


remember the saying, it it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then chances are it is is duck????

except for when its not. CHANCES are if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then chances are it is is duck does NOT mean it will ALWAYS BE A DUCK. THER IS ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS and anyoen would be a fool for thinking otherwise.

and the case of defense is the exact exception of pain not being cruel act When defending yourself. not to mention all the laws all the dictionaries clearly spell out the differences between the two and how and where to use them and what situations they apply to.

Quote:

Quote:

However, if it is necessary and justified to protect people's rights, the use of force may even result in the death of another.

as said before, killing is cruel, but if there comes a time when you have to kill, if its justified for the reason to kill, its within your rights of self defense to do so.

its like your not capable of understanding different situations. there are exceptions to laws/definitions/ everything you can not ALWAYS speak in absolutes.

KILLING IS CRUEL

however there is an exception.

KILLING DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL A CRUEL ACT

killing is not cruel when in self defense. read the damn laws event its simple. and read the definition. if you killed someone out of self defense because the death of that person was the absolute only way for you to save your own life than it is not cruel.

Cruelty: Wanton infliction of pain upon another person, animal, or country by another of equal or greater power for the aggressor's pleasure.

obviously killing someone in defense is not wanton infliction and its not for your pleasure nto to mention that it says right in the definition that its for the AGGRESSORS pleasure. and obviously when defending yourself your not the aggressor.

Quote:



but in conclusion, you live by your definition, i will live by mine...

you go ahead, just know that you are lacking in your knowledge of the use of the english language and that yoru definition is the incorrect one.

Quote:


its already evident from the last post in AG you see those who eat meat as being cruel to animals...


where as most anyone who does eat meat sees it as

1) part of nature
2) a good solid natural source of food, namely protein and vitamins.

i AS WELL believe it is part of nature and a good solid natural source of food namely protein and vitamins. so thanx

HOWEVER given the above statements that we apparently agree upon does not mean it is the correct thing to do. just because it is part of nature does not mean it is right/correct/best thing to do. and it IS a good source for those listed ingredients but there are sources of those exact same things that do not involve takign an animals life or keeping them in disgusting conditions durring their short life.

so yes given the current way of raising and slaughtering animals for food, and its needlessness given the human biology that we can live a perfectly healthy diet without killing these animals absolutely make eating animals cruelty.

check the definition again and see if it fits
Cruelty: Wanton infliction of pain upon another person, animal, or country by another of equal or greater power for the aggressor's pleasure.

eating meat is wanton infliction of pain upon an animal because we do nto need to kill them or hurt them to survive a healthy life. and the eating and killing of these animals for human consumption since it is not NEEDED is for the aggressors(humans) pleasure.

fits the bill dont it. wether you want to always continue eating meat i could care less. but ANY educated rational person that eats meat understand that eating meat is a cruel act.

Quote:



but like said, from my teachings i;ve learned from others, when things escalate, you have to do what you have to do if you want to survive and or protect others. at times those things will be cruel.

absolutely. proved my point yet again. thank you. you can make a conscious decision to protect others by usign greater than neccessary means. if you do this however, you are no longer fallign under the definition of definding yourself or others. because each time you go beyond the minimum to protect someone, you have become the agressor and squarly disparted from defending yourself and others into purposefull wanton agression/infliction of pain.


if you had learned correctly form the martial arts you may or may not have taken you would have understood that you never go beyond the bounds of defense. and this is exactly what you have described.

so you are NOT inkeeping with the entire theology of the martial artist way and should probably look into further studies and meditation on the subject










:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

on a further note:

as a good friend artic said to me just a little while ago after describing to him the amoutn of typign i have had to do within 2 topics on these forums for this debate, and that my hands and wrists are tired. his response


ARTIC
wats cruel is havin to read such a stupid argument
hes using a form of cruel punishment on u by arguin with u
and in self defense ur hurtin ur wirst






:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

to show how full of crap you are nathaniel

above you now switched your definition of cruelty you stood bnehind from

Main Entry: cru·el·ty
Pronunciation: 'krü(-&)l-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English cruelte, from Old French cruelté, from Latin crudelitat-, crudelitas, from crudelis
1 : the quality or state of being cruel
2 a : a cruel action b : inhuman treatment
3 : marital conduct held (as in a divorce action) to endanger life or health or to cause mental suffering or fear

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cruelty

and

Main Entry: cru·el
Pronunciation: 'krü(-&) l
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): cru·el·er or cru·el·ler; cru·el·est or cru·el·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin crudelis, from crudus
1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b : unrelieved by leniency
synonym see FIERCE
- cru·el·ly /'krü-(&-)lE/ adverb
- cru·el·ness noun

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cruel




to

Quote:

Cruelty: Wanton infliction of pain upon another person, animal, or country by another of equal or greater power for the aggressor's pleasure.

no where in the merriam webster dictionary is wanton mentioned. and originally you, yourself did not use the word.



in the dictionary, cruel is defined as

b]1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings


for example if i have to defend myself in self defense for my life from you, my feelings for you are out the window. they will not matter as long as i survive.



if you cant concept that, then you more than likely have never had to defend yourself from anything significant.


as it stands i'll stick with the definition. you can sit here and call me thick headed, or have your friends talk crap.... thats your choice.


if your wrist hurts, stop being a puss and go put it in a sling. if you get on a forum and get into debate, you are gonna type. deal with it. but it seems in todays world many are just used to instantly agreeing with each other and following the majority just to fit in.

you got my respect for standing up for yourself, however from the dictionary and environment i grew up in, i do not agree with you nathaniel

i dont agree that nature should be put aside for animals

and if something is defined by intentionally making someone suffer, then just because you do this to preserve yourself, the basis of your actions are expunged.


if you continueon and deny the dictionary links i;ve put up, well then have fun. as it stands those are the definitions for cruel and cruelty.

cruelty is also the reasons why many monks do not defend themselves. the potential to harm another being.

Quote:

its in plain damn text in every dictionary in the law books everywhere that DEFENSE does NOT = CRUELTY!!!!!!

that is to protect the initial victim of violence. they can respond to an attack, and not be charged for attacking themselves.

the actions most will use in self defense in itself will be cruel. more times than not it will be the same or similar actions that an agressor uses. punching, kicking, etc.


if you come up to me nathaniel, and kick me in the nuts........ that is cruel would you not agree?

now if i make it to my feet and kick you even harder to give me time to get away from any more attacks from you, its the same action, but considered self defense.


but it is the same exact action. my reasons for doing it, will have more warrant than your reasons. and in doing it, i really will not give a crap about your feelings or if i make your testicle explode. but in a court of law, you might be left half the man you used to be and 1 nut, and i'll wlk free cause of the laws definition

if you cant think about more than just one instance or situation, whats the point? start thinking in real life terms instead of just out of books. not all self defense actions will be cruel. you can block punches, and or wrap someone up. but most actions will involve returning the same violence that is laid upon you. the action in itself can be called cruel but as chris rock says, but i understand....

95CaviRider wrote:There can definitely be a debate on this.... there are 6 pages of it in anything goes.

I see it, but I can't believe it.

New thread: DIFFERENCE between apples and oranges. Let's discuss. First off,

Main Entry: ap·ple
Pronunciation: 'a-p&l
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English appel, from Old English æppel; akin to Old High German apful apple, Old Irish ubull, Old Church Slavonic abluko
1 : the fleshy usually rounded and red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a tree (genus Malus) of the rose family; also : an apple tree
2 : a fruit or other vegetable production suggestive of an apple -- compare OAK APPLE
- apple of one's eye : one that is highly cherished <his daughter is the apple of his eye>

Main Entry: 1or·ange
Pronunciation: 'är-inj, 'är(-&)nj; chiefly Northern and Midland 'or-inj, 'or(-&)nj
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Old Provençal auranja, from Arabic nAranj, from Persian nArang, from Sanskrit nAranga orange tree
1 a : a globose berry with a yellowish to reddish orange rind and a sweet edible pulp b : any of various rather small evergreen trees (genus Citrus) with ovate unifoliolate leaves, hard yellow wood, fragrant white flowers, and fruits that are oranges
2 : any of several trees or fruits resembling the orange
3 : any of a group of colors that lie midway between red and yellow in hue

Now, both these items in question are considered to be in the "fruit" family, as evidence that both contain "seeds". They are both also sweet in taste, but sweetness doesn't always indicate fruit. For example, peppers, tomatos, lemons etc are considered fruit since all contain seeds, but they are not fruit with peppers being fairly bitter, tomatos only slightly sweet, and lemons are sour.

Both apples and oranges contain an outer skin, commonly known as a peel. Difference between the two, however, is that the skin of an apple is more commonly consumed while orange peels are not. Although they are edible, they rarely are so.

As far as taste is concerned....blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda pseudo intellectual net speak etc etc etc.

You get my point. @!#$.


______________________________________________________________

ToBoGgAn wrote:we are gonna take it in the ass and like it, cause thats what america does.

Slo2pt2 (Projekt Unknown?) wrote:One my SON is ADHD N.O.S and Autistic Spectrum Disorder. I will nto medicate him he will battle throught this himself and learn to control it.

in the PAGES and PAGES we have ALREADY discussed this i used your above restated definition.

however, when i saw GAM's posted definition i though it would help to make you understand.

Quote:

i dont agree that nature should be put aside for animals

but isnt it NATURE that created us with the capacity to put ourselves aside for the better of all life?

--------------

i just want to say this AGAIN, because im not arguing with you on your view of what cruel is.

i %100 understand what you are saying. yoru saying that the action of inflicting pain in any and all circumstances is cruel.

and id liek to say i see where you are coming from with that. and i have from the beggining of this discussion.

however no matter how much your life or what someone told you, your usage of the world cruelty is incorrect according to the english language.

so i understand what your tryign to say, it just isnt the way the english language works.

Cruelty can only be shown by the aggressor of the situation at the time. so if you are defending yourself you can not at the same time be the aggressor and be applying a cruel act TO the aggressor. it just doesnt work like that. if you took your actiosn out of context you could consider them cruel of course. but as i said before there are exceptions. and when these acts are in %100 self defense they are not cruel. thats just the way it is man.

Quote:

and if something is defined by intentionally making someone suffer, then just because you do this to preserve yourself, the basis of your actions are expunged.

it is not only intentionally inflicting pain. this is where you are confused. look at ANY cruelty law case ever. in each and every case the pain inflicted was not warranted/ not needed/ out of no where and there fore cruel. again cruelty is not the basic infliction of pain. cruelty is the uneeded malicious infliction of pain whichis most certainly not what self defense is.

if you need further understandign of how to accurately interpret the full meaing and usages of the word cruelty re read all those law links you sent me since they all clearly spelled out what actions are and arent cruelty and self defense. wouldnt u think the lawmakers of the united states of america maybe have a better understanding of these words?

--------------definition from cruel cruelty according to webster----------------------
Main Entry: cru·el
Pronunciation: 'krü(-&) l
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): cru·el·er or cru·el·ler; cru·el·est or cru·el·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin crudelis, from crudus
1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b : unrelieved by leniency

Main Entry: cru·el·ty
Pronunciation: 'krü(-&)l-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English cruelte, from Old French cruelté, from Latin crudelitat-, crudelitas, from crudelis
1 : the quality or state of being cruel
2 a : a cruel action b : inhuman treatment
3 : marital conduct held (as in a divorce action) to endanger life or health or to cause mental suffering or fear

----------------definition from defend defense self according to webster-------
Main Entry: de·fend
Pronunciation: di-'fend
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French defendre, from Latin defendere, from de- + -fendere to strike; akin to Old English guth battle, war, Greek theinein to strike
transitive senses
1 a : to drive danger or attack away from b (1) : to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism (2) : to prove (as a doctoral thesis) valid by answering questions in an oral exam c : to attempt to prevent an opponent from scoring at <elects to defend the south goal>
2 archaic : PREVENT, FORBID
3 : to act as attorney for
4 : to deny or oppose the right of a plaintiff in regard to (a suit or a wrong charged) : CONTEST
5 : to seek to retain (as a title or position) against a challenge in a contest
intransitive senses
1 : to take action against attack or challenge <couldn't fight back, could only defend>
2 : to play or be on defense <playing deep to defend against a pass>
3 : to play against the high bidder in a card game
- de·fend·able /'fen-d&-b&l/ adjective

Main Entry: 1de·fense
Pronunciation: di-'fen(t)s; as antonym of "offense," often 'dE-"
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin defensa vengeance, from Latin, feminine of defensus, past participle of defendere
1 a : the act or action of defending <the defense of our country> <speak out in defense of justice> b : a defendant's denial, answer, or plea
2 a : capability of resisting attack b : defensive play or ability <a player known for good defense>
3 a : means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or another; also : a defensive structure b : an argument in support or justification c : the collected facts and method adopted by a defendant to protect himself against a plaintiff's action d : a sequence of moves available in chess to the second player in the opening
4 a : a defending party or group (as in a court of law) <the defense rests> b : a defensive team
5 : the military and industrial aggregate that authorizes and supervises arms production <appropriations for defense> <defense contract>

------------------------

so in order to understand how to use each word in the case of self defense you must closely look at boths definition. this is because not ALL of the definitions can apply to the same situation.

so first we will establish that your attacker IS being cruel because he is "disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings" and or "2 a : a cruel action b : inhuman treatment"

disposed means someoen who naturally able and wants to inflict pain on others even without cause. in order to do this u must be devoid of human feelings which is the same thign as inhuman treatment. both mean there is no consideration taken into account for life. it is strictly for the act of inflictign pain and nothing else. the definitions show this when applied to a self defense situation.

no we will show the defending side

defending against the above attacker who is "disposed to inflict pain,devoid of human feelings, inhuman treatment."

as a defender you would "to drive danger or attack away from" and "to take action against attack or challenge <couldn't fight back, could only defend>"

so in order for your situation to be true event which is defending yourself =cruelty the person defendign themselves would have to be seriously mentally messed up since in order to be cruel or inflict cruelty ud have to be "disposed to inflict pain,devoid of human feelings, inhuman treatment."

the normal person such as I am none of the above listed things. when defending myself i am not devoid of inhuman feelings not disposed to inflict pain in my nature.

so naturally you are SUPPOSED to be able to gather that a normal person defendign themselves falls nowhere into the definition of "disposed to inflict pain,devoid of human feelings, inhuman treatment." and therefore is not inflicting cruelty or being cruel. just simply defending themselves

------------------

again i understand what you TRYING to say and i understand your meaning. its just thats not how the words work. the words CRUELTY can not be applied to all situations of pain as you have been trying to prove. there are MANY instances which are not cruel but involve pain

medical operations
self defense
putting an animal to sleep(tragic not cruel)

and more

i understand what your trying to say, i have from the get go, im just telling you and showing you that what you are tryign to say just doesnt apply to self defense.

plain and simple the word cruelty can NOT be used to describe self defense or the defense of others.

-------------

as far as monks go, your incorrect. please post ANY info you have that says a monk will not defend himself or others in all situations.

its just not true. while they will allow themselves to be beat and attacked. they will when their life or religion is in jeoperdy DEFEND themselves. and in defense of themselves make every effort to be non lethal and inflict as little damage as possible to get the attackers to stop and save his own life.











:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::