President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Almost good for Ted Cruz. What he should be saying is "I don't like this at all, even though I don't agree with what Kimmel said. So I'm not happy he's off the air." What he actually said was "this is a preferred (for me) result from a bad act, and if we were to continually get results that I like from this, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. But eventually someone will be in power that can use this for results that I don't like, so this is bad."

It's subtle, but it's notable. And it's a shame Ted Cruz can't just be against what is wrong for the sake of it being wrong. But Ted Cruz is going to Ted Cruz.

Good point. But still. At least he said something.

[tooblue]

Okay, I will make a serious inquiry: if words are violence, then what level of legal enforcement should be allowed to protect people form that word violence, and how do you square the First Amendment with people who will undoubtedly claim victim status every time a topic and opinion come up that they find "violent" toward them?

My opinion is that asserting that words are violence is reckless and dangerous, because actual (physical) violence can then be justified as a response. This thinking will lead to more people justifying killing or physically harming other people they perceive as threatening them with words. Is that something you think is okay?

Words can be violent is the assertion, and not simply made by me on a whim—the assertion is backed by solid science.

The word "can" indicates the possibility, not the degree. I don't know to what degree legal enforcement could be allowed, but we are seeing how far Trump is willing to go to shield himself from words. That's telling.

The last argument you make is worth consideration up to a point—where we begin to consider if there ever is any justification for killing another human being? Laws, declarations of war and scripture tell us there is, but even that's tricky because scripture also declares: "thou shalt not kill."

[frank ryan]

If words can be more dangerous that physical harm, should we outlaw hurtful speech?

Of course not. I didn't say anything like that.

I'm not sure you understand me or are open to trying to.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course not. I didn't say anything like that.

I'm not sure you understand me or are open to trying to.

If words can be more harmful than physical violence, why not regulate speech? Walk me through the logic here.

[wally]

Words can be violent is the assertion, and not simply made by me on a whim—the assertion is backed by solid science.

The word "can" indicates the possibility, not the degree. I don't know to what degree legal enforcement could be allowed, but we are seeing how far Trump is willing to go to shield himself from words. That's telling.

The last argument you make is worth consideration up to a point—where we begin to consider if there ever is any justification for killing another human being? Declarations of war and scripture tell us there is, but even that's tricky because scripture also declares: "thou shalt not kill."

I think what you are trying to say is: "words can produce similar psychological effects as some instances of violence, per an as-yet unpublished study by one researcher"

To extend that into "hurtful words and violence are the same thing" is an enormous stretch.

Again, like JL said, by the same logic I can say: Sex releases dopamine. Cold showers release dopamine. therefore, when you ask for sex with your wife, and she tells you to take a cold shower, she actually had sex with you.

[frank ryan]

If words can be more harmful than physical violence, why not regulate speech? Walk me through the logic here.

Words can be more psychologically more impactful than physical actions. That doesn't mean you outlaw language. You can't compel someone to be kind to their kids and not call them whores or faggots.

But we can identify it is an unhealthy

[tooblue]

I think what you are trying to say is: "words can produce similar psychological effects as some instances of violence, per an as-yet unpublished study by one researcher"

To extend that into "hurtful words and violence are the same thing" is an enormous stretch.

Again, like JL said, by the same logic I can say: Sex releases dopamine. Cold showers release dopamine. therefore, when you ask for sex with your wife, and she tells you to take a cold shower, she actually had sex with you.

The research is published. It is not isolated except in its particular area of focus. There is a large body of evidence that informs further investigation—evidence from thousands of hours of therapy by an array of professionals ranging from psychiatrists to psychotherapists, to social workers and counsellors.

What JL "said" is a logical fallacy. The next time your wife tells you to take a cold shower, tell her that's a potentially fallacious response to your query

[frank ryan]

I think what you are trying to say is: "words can produce similar psychological effects as some instances of violence, per an as-yet unpublished study by one researcher"

To extend that into "hurtful words and violence are the same thing" is an enormous stretch.

Again, like JL said, by the same logic I can say: Sex releases dopamine. Cold showers release dopamine. therefore, when you ask for sex with your wife, and she tells you to take a cold shower, she actually had sex with you.

No, my opinions aren't informed by one study. God forbid I''m given credit for my education and work experience.
I'm stumped why this idea is controversial

[USUC]

Unfortunately, the research is demonstrating that words can cause considerable harm equivalent to physical harm. So, yes it is a dangerous idea that needs much more careful consideration.

So who gets to decide which words are violence and which words aren't violence?

[Jeff Lebowski]

No, my opinions aren't informed by one study. God forbid I''m given credit for my education and work experience.
I'm stumped why this idea is controversial

Because language is not a form of violence. I hope this helps.

[Bo Diddley]

So what are verbal threats of physical violence?

[Jeff Lebowski]

So what are verbal threats of physical violence?

They are verbal threats.

[tooblue]

Because language is not a form of violence. I hope this helps.

And the earth is 10,000 years old, and humans walked with dinosaurs.

[tooblue]

So who gets to decide which words are violence and which words aren't violence?

Right now, the current party in power.

[Bo Diddley]

They are verbal threats.

Is there anything physically communicated? Because I've heard that in communication, 85% is non verbal.