Teen Ink
teenink
TeenInk How would you rearrange this old cliche? "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" http://t.co/xTNZxcKYxK
Fri May 24, 2013 10:17am Reply Retweet Favorite
TeenInk "Thinking is the best way to travel." - The Moody Blues http://t.co/5jzE5kVJyB
Thu May 23, 2013 10:55am Reply Retweet Favorite
TeenInk If this is the ending of the story, what is the beginning? http://t.co/gRzPosYXRi
As St. Paddy's day is coming up, and that means the parade here in Boston, it's a known fact most everyone will be too drunk to stand. I don't really have a problem with that, as the streets are closed and no one will be driving, but the police presence is really starting to annoy me. Now I want to ask your opinions on police interference. Violence is a matter of life, not extreme violence, like murder and ra.pe, but fist fights. Where I come from, it's common for friends or strangers to hash out their problems with their fists. It's easy, and it gets tension and anger out of the way. I don't see anything wrong with a couple of people getting into a physical altercation, as long as neither of them have intent to kill. We have a rule where you don't interfere in a fight unless a weapon is drawn, then you are obligated to break them apart. The police however find that the best thing to do is end fist fights before the problem can be solved, and arrest the people that were involved. Should they really have that right? Who do they think they are, getting involved in other people's business uninvited?
This is a really interesting topic, I'm not sure where the line should be drawn either.
I think there's two things to keep in mind here:
1. Fights can harm other people surrounding them too, it happens.
2. Something can start off as a simple fistfight and then develop into something where people are getting overly violent.
I think it should be monitored, if nothing else.
I think the fact that it's barbaric should also be mentioned. I'm not going to get into the topic of whether the government has a right to stop it, but I will say that just about everyone in kindergarten learns to 'use your words, not your fists.' Beating each other up in an argument doesn't show who's right. It shows who can hit harder. It doesn't settle differences. It gets the weaker person pounded into silence.
Civilized people find solutions instead of fistfighting and talk about problems instead of resorting to violence.
The point of fighting to settle differences doesn't determine who is right, it gets extra energy and anger out so a solution can be found. Not everyone human has been graced with the temper of a robot. "Civilized" people aren't anymore civilized then us, they just make laws to establish their dominance instead of using their own hands. I think that is barbaric. I would never hurt a friend beyond a few blows, the point of fighting isn't to hurt the other person, it's to calm yourself down.
I understand the need to physically release anger- so go for a run or pump some iron or take it out on a punching bag. I don't exactly think giving someone a black eye makes them more willing to talk things out afterwards.
Well other people feel differently. Fact of the matter is that if it's a consensual fight, the police really have no right to get involved.
If it's consensual, I agree.
The moment it becomes unconsensual is when it should be illegal.
The problem is determing where that line is, after all in court the other person could just be like, "He agreed to it", even if the other person didn't.
