stanwshura profile image 67

Does an act or event have to be angry, hateful or hostile to be violent?


I'm more offering this question than struggling with it (now!). For example, although causing no physical harm, can't words be violent. On the other end of the (attempted/debated) definition, where my question really goes, can a *hard* hit in football (no animosity or hate, just extreme competitiveness) be "violent"? I always pause when I hear a reference to a "violent" tornado or other weather event, thinking there's a bit of anthropomorphism going on. Can a truly, dissociatively psychotic or intoxicated (any substance, even bodily produced - like adrenaline) person commit a violent act?

 

sort by best latest

junkseller profile image89

junkseller says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

4 years ago
 |  Comment
  • stanwshura profile image

    stanwshura 4 years ago

    LOVE your precision! Maybe meaning does change w/ context. Lexicographers take note! I hadn't even THOUGHT of psychotic violence as additive, but almost as negating. Your empathy toward the "assailant" as victim of disease is admirable and apt.

Attikos profile image78

Attikos says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

4 years ago
 |  Comment
  • stanwshura profile image

    stanwshura 4 years ago

    I admit it. As THE ultimate hair-splitter, I too, have asked if a tangible consequence is essential. Then I recall, since it is on record as *causing* horrific violence, if bullying (inc. parental) is not JUST as violent. Stop making me think! :)