Why do people attack other people?

looksee

I was just reading the thread about the McDonalds worker who was attacked and beaten up by her colleagues.

It led me to wonder why people attack other people like this. The local police were concerned to establish whether it was a race hate crime (the attackers were black, the victim was white), but on the face of it it was much more likely to have been provoked by the fact that the victim was trans-gender. Either way, what causes people to be so vicious to someone who has not physically threatened them?

Pack animals (wolves for example) will chase away a wolf who is, say, a different colour; is it as simple as that? Some sort of need to remove anyone who is different? In which case why do we not all do it? Is it some sort of personal insecurity or is it a societal thing? Are there any societies where this kind of behaviour does not happen?

Maybe this should be in Anthropology or Psychology, mods, please move if necessary.

Denerick

The fact is that humankind isn't that far evolved from our animal ancestors. We still possess many of the primitive instincts - the fight and flight response, fear of the unknown etc. - which is often the source of our prejudices and bigotries. The real marvel in our condition is that we have created systems with a rule of law and which tackle discrimination and xenophobia and the basest instincts of man.

Hobbes had it right when he said that 'life is nasty, brutish and short'. We need governments to keep our animal instincts in check.

meryem

People attack each other because their weaknesses overtakes their mental balance or say mind.

irishh_bob

meryem wrote: »

People attack each other because their weaknesses overtakes their mental balance or say mind.

does that not assume that attacking someone is a form of weakness

liah

irishh_bob wrote: »

does that not assume that attacking someone is a form of weakness

It IS a form of weakness, the only situations in which it is not a weakness are a) a regulated, scheduled fight (e.g. MMA, WWE, boxing, etc.), or b) a survival situation in which if you're not violent you or someone else will be a casualty.

Give me an example of a single situation outside of those listed above where attacking someone is ever justified or cannot be resolved by other, more sensible and rational, means.

LighterGuy

liah wrote: »

Give me an example of a single situation outside of those listed above where attacking someone is ever justified or cannot be resolved by other, more sensible and rational, means.

While you are right that alot of situations in life do not have to come to violence.... there are some that do.

first of all, in self-defence is a no brainer. doesnt even have to be mentioned. But there are some situations where you have to.

liah

LighterGuy wrote: »

While you are right that alot of situations in life do not have to come to violence.... there are some that do.

first of all, in self-defence is a no brainer. doesnt even have to be mentioned. But there are some situations where you have to.

I can't think of any that don't come under fighting for your life/safety or the life/safety of another/nation and regulated fighting. I'm not trying to be obtuse or anything - it's just I genuinely cannot think of any other situation that cannot be resolved without attacking a person.

irishh_bob

liah wrote: »

It IS a form of weakness, the only situations in which it is not a weakness are a) a regulated, scheduled fight (e.g. MMA, WWE, boxing, etc.), or b) a survival situation in which if you're not violent you or someone else will be a casualty.

Give me an example of a single situation outside of those listed above where attacking someone is ever justified or cannot be resolved by other, more sensible and rational, means.

i was thinking in terms of the plural , i.e , one country attacking another but even in your context , im not sure attacking someone makes you weak , it makes you agressive and violent but not nescesserily weak imo

diddlybit

meryem wrote: »

People attack each other because their weaknesses overtakes their mental balance or say mind.

Completely agree with this. The first thing that I thought of after I saw the thread on it was that it reminded me of the cases that used teh defnece of "homosexual panic" to get attackers off hate crimes. Unfortunately, often the counterargument was often that the attacker had repressed homosexual desires which emerged when confronted with a gay person as a form of extreme self-loathing homophobia that is projecetd onto the person that triggered these feelings. I wouldn't be surprised if they used a trans-panic defense in the court case.

diddlybit

...or they could have just been hate filled bigots.

meryem

irishh_bob wrote: »

I was thinking in terms of the plural, i.e. one country attacking another but even in your context, I 'm not sure attacking someone makes you weak, it makes you aggressive and violent but not necessarily weak IMO

I agree with your point, I forgot to mention one more major reason for doing so i.e. sheer endless greed! Which is big for human race if tamed can make this world another heaven to feel jealous about of course for aliens.

nozzferrahhtoo

I have long thought that violence is simply what results when communication breaks down. There is a saying in economics that where goods do not cross borders, armies will. I like to say that where words do not cross divides, violence will.

Much of my trouble with religion, for example, is that it in many ways closes down conversation and makes it near impossible. Where conversation is curtailed, violence and mistrust are the likely results.

Mawbish

I would imagine the 'cause' for the beating was the fact that the individual is transgender.

IMO a lot of these crimes happen where the attackers are ignorant of the background of the person they attack. When I saw ignorant I mean they don't understand or don't want to understand what it means to be transgender. They are incapable of putting themselves in another persons shoes. They see something they don't understand, its different from themselves they fear it and fear turns to hate and hate turns to violence.

irishh_bob

meryem wrote: »

I agree with your point, I forgot to mention one more major reason for doing so i.e. sheer endless greed! Which is big for human race if tamed can make this world another heaven to feel jealous about of course for aliens.

i dont see greed as a weakness , all successfull ( strong ) people are greedy in some way or other , in order to get ahead and suceed in this world , you have to be ruthless and this inevitabley leads to you attacking someone in some shape or form

kerryman12

irishh_bob wrote: »

i dont see greed as a weakness , all successfull ( strong ) people are greedy in some way or other , in order to get ahead and suceed in this world , you have to be ruthless and this inevitabley leads to you attacking someone in some shape or form

Therefore weak people should be cast to one side and left behind?

Have to agree with Liah on this one

It IS a form of weakness

Surely a normal well adjusted person and stand up and hear something they wont like/dont agree with and agree to disagree?

They see something they don't understand, its different from themselves they fear it and fear turns to hate and hate turns to violence.

exactly, we dont have to look too far in this country to find a 30 yr long example of this!

HivemindXX

irishh_bob wrote: »

iin order to get ahead and suceed in this world , you have to be ruthless and this inevitabley leads to you attacking someone in some shape or form

This is not true.

Certainly ruthlessness is an advantage in a lot of cases. It is by no means a requirement to have a good life (my definition of "succeed") or to improve your situation from where you started off (my definition of "get ahead").

I guess it depends on what you mean by "get ahead" and "succeed".

looksee

Funny, I thought I had replied to this thread? Anyway I was saying that I think the argument of weakness (in the sense of weakness of intellect and/or self-control) is probably pretty accurate. It is easier for some people to physically attack someone than rationalise why they are disturbed by them.

People might initially think about someone who is in some way different - that's weird, not sure I like it, but then most people would look at their feelings and realise that difference is not threatening, and that empathy and acceptance was a more appropriate response. All of that usually being instantaneous.

If you do not think and rationalise though, and are accustomed to the idea that you solve problems with your fists, then it is emotionally easier to just go with primative instinct and attack. I suppose a lot of it has to do with upbringing.

LighterGuy

liah wrote: »

I can't think of any that don't come under fighting for your life/safety or the life/safety of another/nation and regulated fighting. I'm not trying to be obtuse or anything - it's just I genuinely cannot think of any other situation that cannot be resolved without attacking a person.

There are sadly alot of situations that cant be resolved by other means.
I can only give examples I guess...

The old saying "your mouth can get you into trouble" is so true. I mean in a situation I can push and push you, Humiliate you, insult you and cross the line so bad. Why should you walk away? ... once a line has been crossed. And thats the thing. Everyone has a line.

Everyone should be sensible. Alot of things are not worth it. But ... there are situations you cant just shrugg it off and walk away. It really depends on whats said and done.

My two cents is that you really should be sensible with alot of things. you would just cause alot of hassle. But ... at the same time. there are situations where you have to stand up for yourself.

liah

LighterGuy wrote: »

There are sadly alot of situations that cant be resolved by other means.
I can only give examples I guess...

The old saying "your mouth can get you into trouble" is so true. I mean in a situation I can push and push you, Humiliate you, insult you and cross the line so bad. Why should you walk away? ... once a line has been crossed. And thats the thing. Everyone has a line.

Everyone should be sensible. Alot of things are not worth it. But ... there are situations you cant just shrugg it off and walk away. It really depends on whats said and done.

My two cents is that you really should be sensible with alot of things. you would just cause alot of hassle. But ... at the same time. there are situations where you have to stand up for yourself.

That example doesn't do much for your point. The most sensible thing to do in that situation is to simply walk away and not let the person affect you. Using violence against someone who is only being verbally abusive is a sign of hugely weak character, imho; sinking well below the other person's level, anyway. Why would you care enough what some other idiot thinks enough to deck him when he's not harmed you? Screams insecurity.

irishh_bob

liah wrote: »

That example doesn't do much for your point. The most sensible thing to do in that situation is to simply walk away and not let the person affect you. Using violence against someone who is only being verbally abusive is a sign of hugely weak character, imho; sinking well below the other person's level, anyway. Why would you care enough what some other idiot thinks enough to deck him when he's not harmed you? Screams insecurity.

pretensious liberal crap , verbal abuse is a form of violence and one which bullys often use instead of actual violence , if i have a kid some day i wil teach them to knock that kind of attack on the head straight away , litterally

walking away from a ( repeatedly ) verbally abusive individual achieves nothing apart from showing the abuser that they can **** all over you with impugnity

liah

irishh_bob wrote: »

pretensious liberal crap , verbal abuse is a form of violence and one which bullys often use instead of actual violence , if i have a kid some day i wil teach them to knock that kind of attack on the head straight away , litterally

walking away from a ( repeatedly ) verbally abusive individual achieves nothing apart from showing the abuser that they can **** all over you with impugnity

You claim 'verbal abuse is a form of violence which bullies often use instead of actual violence' while simultaneously throwing out absolutely meaninglessly aggressive terms like "pretentious liberal crap" and talk about knocking someone literally on the head without a degree of irony? Really?

Come on, man. Drop the stupid Republican catchphrases and try to make your point with sentences for once. Violence is the basic primal reaction. We're in 2011. If you really allow some who is enough of an idiot to verbally abuse you to get inside your head enough to fall to a base reaction, you don't have mental strength. Violence, in that scenario, is weakness of will. Why give them the satisfaction of a reaction? They're not going to harm you and they're just making cocks of themselves. You'd be making a cock of yourself also if you went up and decked him, to anyone with a modicum of sense.

A truly confident person will not let what some idiot says to them because they know what's being said isn't true, and therefore won't be ruffled by silly verbal comments. An insecure person will equate a word with a punch and retaliate with violence to something that is non-violent; that is a weakness. It is that simple.

kerryman12

liah wrote: »

A truly confident person will not let what some idiot says to them because they know what's being said isn't true, and therefore won't be ruffled by silly verbal comments.

That is very true but how many of can honestly say that this doesn't affect us in some way?

Not that this justifies a violent response.

if i have a kid some day i wil teach them to knock that kind of attack on the head straight away , litterally

Think long and hard about the lesson your kid will learn from this.

LighterGuy

liah wrote: »

That example doesn't do much for your point. The most sensible thing to do in that situation is to simply walk away and not let the person affect you. Using violence against someone who is only being verbally abusive is a sign of hugely weak character, imho; sinking well below the other person's level, anyway. Why would you care enough what some other idiot thinks enough to deck him when he's not harmed you? Screams insecurity.

Liah, with no offense intended. Are you living in the real world?

you say that in every situation a person should just walk away? no matter what it is ... that sounds like a coward. A person who isnt willing to fight in any case. That self-respect, pride, being walked on etc do not matter. thats a coward.

irishh_bob

liah wrote: »

You claim 'verbal abuse is a form of violence which bullies often use instead of actual violence' while simultaneously throwing out absolutely meaninglessly aggressive terms like "pretentious liberal crap" and talk about knocking someone literally on the head without a degree of irony? Really?

Come on, man. Drop the stupid Republican catchphrases and try to make your point with sentences for once. Violence is the basic primal reaction. We're in 2011. If you really allow some who is enough of an idiot to verbally abuse you to get inside your head enough to fall to a base reaction, you don't have mental strength. Violence, in that scenario, is weakness of will. Why give them the satisfaction of a reaction? They're not going to harm you and they're just making cocks of themselves. You'd be making a cock of yourself also if you went up and decked him, to anyone with a modicum of sense.

A truly confident person will not let what some idiot says to them because they know what's being said isn't true, and therefore won't be ruffled by silly verbal comments. An insecure person will equate a word with a punch and retaliate with violence to something that is non-violent; that is a weakness. It is that simple.

you need to start living in the real world with real people for a while

seenitall

Oh boy... am I glad I don't live in the "real world". :rolleyes:

But wait! Perhaps that makes me not a "real person"?? :pac:

Violence doesn't get anyone anywhere in the "real world", otherwise violent people would have it all their way, instead of being criminalised and ostracised as they are in any civilised society.

looksee

I agree with liah's points, but this argument is really what the original question was about. Why do people attack other people? I did mean physical attack, but the kind of verbal attack you are talking about would come under the same heading, so you would be responding rather than attacking.

I can see that, sadly, in those circumstances you are probably going to be in a fight anyway, either you attack or walk away, and if you walk away the other party might attack anyway.

The original argument was really about when a group or an individual attacks another group/individual for no apparent reason.

LighterGuy

SeenItAll,
So you agree that someone should never get into a fight? ... no matter what the circumstances (beyond the usual sef-defense)

irishh_bob

seenitall wrote: »

Oh boy... am I glad I don't live in the "real world". :rolleyes:

But wait! Perhaps that makes me not a "real person"?? :pac:

Violence doesn't get anyone anywhere in the "real world", otherwise violent people would have it all their way, instead of being criminalised and ostracised as they are in any civilised society.

oh you really are naieve , the threat of violence is what makes the most powerfull countries in the world what they are , no one messes with russial , china or the usa for the simple reason that they have such huge capacity to commit effective violence , all strong countries are built on the back off effective agression in some shape or form , the leaders of the usa , russia , china , the uk , theese are all violent people , just cause they dont pull the trigger doesnt mame them the dalai lama

Chuck Stone

Denerick wrote: »

Hobbes had it right when he said that 'life is nasty, brutish and short'. We need governments to keep our animal instincts in check.

Goodness gracious me, no.

Isn't it the failure of goverments which leads to large scale wars?

Some people believe that the only reason we have wars at all are because of governments.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LighterGuy

irishh_bob wrote: »

oh you really are naieve , the threat of violence is what makes the most powerfull countries in the world what they are , no one messes with russial , china or the usa for the simple reason that they have such huge capacity to commit effective violence , all strong countries are built on the back off effective agression in some shape or form , the leaders of the usa , russia , china , the uk , theese are all violent people , just cause they dont pull the trigger doesnt mame them the dalai lama

I can see your point. And I have to agree.
Irish bob talks about countries.... the same can relate to a person. If you appear to be a soft touch people will take advantage of you. Some people will even try to step on you. But if you appear to be willing to hold your own, people will think twice about the aforementioned. That applies to both physical and non-physical situations.

I really dont know if people are just living in their own little world or just giving a foolish answer.... that fighting never has to happen. In all situations its easy to say not to fight when its the sensible thing in that situation (ie, bringing more crap on yourself) .... it can be argued when and not when to step up. thats a true topic of discussion. But a statement of "never fight in any situation" is cowardly, unrealistic and foolish.

seenitall

LighterGuy wrote: »

If you appear to be a soft touch people will take advantage of you. Some people will even try to step on you. But if you appear to be willing to hold your own, people will think twice about the aforementioned. That applies to both physical and non-physical situations.

I really dont know if people are just living in their own little world or just giving a foolish answer.... that fighting never has to happen. In all situations its easy to say not to fight when its the sensible thing in that situation (ie, bringing more crap on yourself) .... it can be argued when and not when to step up. thats a true topic of discussion. But a statement of "never fight in any situation" is cowardly, unrealistic and foolish.

You addressed me earlier, responding now.

I agree that if you appear as a soft touch, people will generally take advantage. However, not appearing as a soft touch is a world away from getting into a physical fight with some idiot that insults or goads you. What's the alternative, LG? You physically attack the idiot because he insulted your late mother's memory or called you a pirck or threatened you verbally or taunted you in some other vile way. What happens next? Very probably, you end up in a holding cell as a physical altercation instigator, or brought up on charges of bodily harm etc. Who wins here? The idiot wins, obviously. His mission is accomplished: he succeeded in goading you into acting against your better judgment, against your own interest, against any reason or common sense; and thus yes, showing up your essential weakness of mind. But if you still think that you have been a "real man", or that you have in any meaningful way stood up for yourself by exerting physical violence against the idiot, well then - I give up. All I can say is good luck with all the siht and violence that will come your way in life with an attitude like that. I wouldn't like to be near you. (Note that the "you" is a hypothetical one, LG - actually , more like a general "you" addressing anyone who would/does act in this - to my mind - mindless manner.)

In answer to your earlier question, yes, I agree with liah that violence never has to happen. "Holding your own" and "not being a soft touch" have naught to do with violence in a civilised society; that's why thugs end up behind bars, and people who don't go around thumping people but call the police or take legal action instead, don't.

Cowardly, unrealistic and foolish is what I would call bullies and thugs. But I am, apparently, "naieve". :pac:

LighterGuy

SeenItAll,
Life is hard. The world is rough. Your only argument is context. Citing situations when not too ....

Sorry to say but people with your attitudes are cowards. You can quote me, you can argue with me all you want. doesnt matter. you've said your stance. People with your attitudes are the first to ring the police, sue someone etc BUT DOING ANYTHING than standing up for yourself in the moment .. of course beyond talking a tough game prior to.

But you mention law, right? Heres some good advice: (But I know it'll fall on deaf ears)
- a smart man stays 'within' the law.
- a coward hides behind it.

(If you didnt read between the lines, there is a difference between fighting someone in front of everyone and catching someone on their own. The law is a funny thing.)

See, heres the thing. A person who walks away will always say he/she walked away from something out of it "not being worth it" .... but seenitall, is that always true? ... is that a sensible person coming to the realisation to walk away? ... or because they are a coward? Its context. Whats being said and done. How serious is it. To label every situation that it should be walked away from with your tail between your legs is cowards talk.

looksee

LighterGuy wrote: »

SeenItAll,
Life is hard. The world is rough. Your only argument is context. Citing situations when not too ....

Sorry to say but people with your attitudes are cowards. You can quote me, you can argue with me all you want. doesnt matter. you've said your stance. People with your attitudes are the first to ring the police, sue someone etc BUT DOING ANYTHING than standing up for yourself in the moment .. of course beyond talking a tough game prior to.

But you mention law, right? Heres some good advice: (But I know it'll fall on deaf ears)
- a smart man stays 'within' the law.
- a coward hides behind it.

(If you didnt read between the lines, there is a difference between fighting someone in front of everyone and catching someone on their own. The law is a funny thing.)

See, heres the thing. A person who walks away will always say he/she walked away from something out of it "not being worth it" .... but seenitall, is that always true? ... is that a sensible person coming to the realisation to walk away? ... or because they are a coward? Its context. Whats being said and done. How serious is it. To label every situation that it should be walked away from with your tail between your legs is cowards talk.

Much depend on your definition of a coward. A person could walk away from provocation towards himself and yet jump in to physically defend someone who was being attacked.

The elderly lady on the video of the attck in McDonalds that inspired this thread would hardly have gone to beat up someone who was taunting her, but she waded in to defend the person who was being beaten up.

It requires more strength to ignore taunts than it does to respond with fists.

These are people who are responding to aggression though, what causes people to be aggressive in the first place?

(I suspect that this discussion is actually male/female based, with liah, seenitall and myself being female and/or older contributors)

seenitall

LighterGuy wrote: »

SeenItAll,
Life is hard. The world is rough. Your only argument is context. Citing situations when not too ....

Sorry to say but people with your attitudes are cowards. You can quote me, you can argue with me all you want. doesnt matter. you've said your stance. People with your attitudes are the first to ring the police, sue someone etc BUT DOING ANYTHING than standing up for yourself in the moment .. of course beyond talking a tough game prior to.

But you mention law, right? Heres some good advice: (But I know it'll fall on deaf ears)
- a smart man stays 'within' the law.
- a coward hides behind it.

(If you didnt read between the lines, there is a difference between fighting someone in front of everyone and catching someone on their own. The law is a funny thing.)

See, heres the thing. A person who walks away will always say he/she walked away from something out of it "not being worth it" .... but seenitall, is that always true? ... is that a sensible person coming to the realisation to walk away? ... or because they are a coward? Its context. Whats being said and done. How serious is it. To label every situation that it should be walked away from with your tail between your legs is cowards talk.

Yes, LG, I have certainly "said my stance" and, frankly, there is nothing in your post to direct me toward a different one.

You think a man who calls the police instead of getting into a scuffle or "catching someone on their own" (and presumably thumping them then) is a coward, I think he is a wise and decent man. In my eyes, a coward is exactly the type of man who waits to ensure that they are alone with someone who is off their guard and therefore in a weaker position, in order to exert their - temporary - physical dominance over them by way of violence. Then of course, violence will beget violence... what an ill-advised course of action, IMO.

If my atitude makes me a coward in your eyes, I have to say, considering yours, I'm perfectly fine with that! :cool:

seenitall

looksee wrote: »

It requires more strength to ignore taunts than it does to respond with fists.

Exactly. This is the point liah was making earlier, and which I am also trying to get across (but I know it's falling on deaf ears ).

sorry about double-posting!

LighterGuy

hahahah oh seenitall you're so funny :P (:rolleyes:) :pac:
see, this is what i hate. when people say "i'll walk away from most things" - fair enough i agree. Alot isnt worth it.

But alot of people are just cowards that hide behind that. (something you havent talked upon) That when the time comes to defend themselves (self defense situation) they do nothing.

looksee

You know, lighterguy, your attitude is very reminiscent of the kind of taunting and thoughtless aggression that leads to people who subscribe to your outlook using their fists. Your argument does not really hold up unless you believe that someone calling someone else a coward makes it so.

Now could we get away from the 'nah nah come and hit me I dare you' level of discussion and try and figure out why some people choose to engage in both verbal taunts and physical attack - is there some basic inadequacy or hostility in them that causes them to interfere in other people's lives?

It occurs to me that bullying is usually understood to mean a negative, onesided interaction with a person that the bully knows - works with or is at school with. Is the issue here a kind of 'stranger' bullying, finding someone to pick on for no more than self-gratification or gang 'bravery'.

LighterGuy

ok looksee (and the mass of 'thanks' button people like liah, etc)

what would you do in this situation that happens so commonly:

You are out on a night out. In a busy bar. Minding your own business. Some guy bumps into you. An accident. Hardly anything. In fact nothing. But he starts getting in your face and acting all agressive. What do you say and do?

honestly now. What do you say and do. Now, lets throw a spanner in the works as I know alot of yous will just say "walk away" - (fair enough, i agree) but what if after walking a few steps away he walks after you... and pulls you back. What do you say and do?

liah

LighterGuy wrote: »

ok looksee (and the mass of 'thanks' button people like liah, etc)

what would you do in this situation that happens so commonly:

You are out on a night out. In a busy bar. Minding your own business. Some guy bumps into you. An accident. Hardly anything. In fact nothing. But he starts getting in your face and acting all agressive. What do you say and do?

honestly now. What do you say and do. Now, lets throw a spanner in the works as I know alot of yous will just say "walk away" - (fair enough, i agree) but what if after walking a few steps away he walks after you... and pulls you back. What do you say and do?

I'd go to the bouncer and get him taken care of and enjoy the rest of the night. What would you have me do, get into a fist fight and potentially be wounded and/or barred from the pub and/or possibly even arrested and the entire evening ruined for myself and those I'm with?

It's stupid. Who cares what some idiot you don't know and who knows absolutely nothing about you is doing? There's security around, let them deal with it, it's their job. How is it worth ruining your day and getting your back up? What purpose does it serve?

Chuck Stone

LighterGuy wrote: »

You are out on a night out. In a busy bar. Minding your own business. Some guy bumps into you. An accident. Hardly anything. In fact nothing. But he starts getting in your face and acting all agressive. What do you say and do?

You think about whether you choice of bars is good.

I would say - 'I'm not loking for a fight mate but if you touch me I will defend myself'

Then it puts the ball firmly in his court and you don't appear a wuss.

looksee

lighterguy, you keep confusing the issue by talking about responding to aggression. The original question was - what makes the guy like the one you refer to, act like he does? Alcohol to some (probably considerable) extent. How you respond is a different argument.

It is quite interesting though that on a thread of mostly calm discussion, you are the one who shows signs of aggression. Why is that? What is it about the thread that threatens you?

LighterGuy

looksee wrote: »

lighterguy, you keep confusing the issue by talking about responding to aggression. The original question was - what makes the guy like the one you refer to, act like he does? Alcohol to some (probably considerable) extent. How you respond is a different argument.

It is quite interesting though that on a thread of mostly calm discussion, you are the one who shows signs of aggression. Why is that? What is it about the thread that threatens you?

I would be willing to put money down that you are the type of person who would walk away
but also a person who will repersent they are tough/handle themself before anything physical happens. then when it does... your tone/stance changes. see... thats all crap mate. its a bluff. and it will get called.

the world is a big bad place. my stance in this thread has always been that in majority of situations you should walk away. like 90% of things. But being realistic that there are situations that you cant walk away from. to you, its 100% walk away.

You are a coward
its easy to cite the situations where to walk away. But I guess you are a big enough man that if someone slagged, or spat at your partner (extreme cases as my point has been all along) i'm sure you'd "walk away" :rolleyes:

looksee

I am a woman in my 60s. You feel free to call me a coward (with a ); I am able to put this down to immature goading, and I know it doesn't matter in the least what some mouthy stranger says to me or thinks of me, I don't have to accept that his opinion is important.

Now going back to the subject, could you stop soapboxing on your bravery, and let us get on with the original discussion?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LighterGuy

looksee wrote: »

Now going back to the subject, could you stop soapboxing on your bravery, and let us get on with the original discussion?

Fair enough. To quote the op

looksee wrote: »

what causes people to be so vicious to someone who has not physically threatened them?

because there is alot of as*holes out there. I mean you, me or any normal person can be walking down to road for someone to attack us. No cause. Thats people.

You can try and understand why people do so... doesnt change anything. Certain people are just terrible people.