"Abuse: The intentional and malicious causing of physical and/or emotional harm or pain to another when such treatment is not justified or warranted
( Read more... )
a·buse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-byz) tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es 1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege. 2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use. 3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest. 4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile. 5. Obsolete. To deceive or trick.
n. (-bys) 1. Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse. 2. Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse. 3. Sexual abuse. 4. An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens. 5. Insulting or coarse language: verbal abuse.
There is a difference between abuse and advantage. The first is often unwarranted and unforseeable, but the second is something we often allow others to do to us.
Some times we can avoid both. But the thing to remember is that only we can allow people to take advantage of us. Sometimes it's okay to let someone take advantage of you, as long as you know that they are and are not hurting from it. That might be called doing a favor. Other times it's our passive/agressive way of allowing someone else to take control so we don't have to be responsible.
I see the definitions as the same. The first is the basic definition and the second is the CYA (cover your ass) definition that is likely to be found in a counselors office or in a staff hand book.
Can you explain and elaborate on why you think the second definition is a CYA?
Your explanation about advantage and abuse was very interesting. I wonder... if someone was letting someone else take advantage of them for a period of time, but then decided they didn't want that anymore, does it become abuse? Will you expound on this?
I guess because in my experience, the need to elaborate on specific instances of said occurances, only arises when idiots try to find loop holes. I say idiots because anyone smart enough to argue it, is smart enough to really know right from wrong
( ... )
"You can't just decide enough is enough and it becomes abuse."
This statement has been very thought provoking for me and elicits exploration of what an "enabler" is. Can someone "enable" someone else in their abuse? Even if it's the enabler that's getting "abused?" Or is this counterintuitive or even an oxymoron?
And if there is such a thing, how does an enabler stop the cycle? And at which point have they stopped being part of it themselves? If someone was enabling someone else do they have a right to be mad when they say "enough is enough" and the abuser doesn't agree?
Your post has been very interesting and I thank you for feedback. Keep it coming as long as possible.
Thank you, too, Taki for your answer here. Of course, as I expected it was well thought out and articulated and I'll let you and anyone else here know, this isn't for legal usage, it's for me to consider, to expand my exploration on a subject and to come to a better understanding, checking my own assumptions.
I have one question for you to start: I am very intrigued by your two factors, because I think they make a very good starting point for a definition, but I wonder, what do you mean by intent? Intent on harming another person? Intent on controlling? Intent on dominating? Intent on disciplining? Intent on "winning?" Can you flesh this out a bit for me in terms of what you mean in this definition and how you would define it? Thanks...
I would define intent or "intentionally" by contrasting it with "accidentially" and isolating the ideas of willfulness and deliberateness.In trying to define "intent", we come to a very difficult part in this little exploration, and that is the question: "How do we deal with paternalism
( ... )
Looking at both definitions it is clear that there is only one difference. In the first example a person can be harmed intentionally if they deserved it. For example, would it be abuse to cause harm to a person who is trying to harm your family? I decided to make two simple examples
( ... )
I shudder to think that these so called examples could be real. Taken to two extreme opposites, what I really see is a failure to allow oneself to grown and others to grow as well
( ... )
The point of the post was to use each of your definitions against your own actions and to point out each of you are wrong, nothing more.
Brian does not adhere to his own definition of abuse and neither do you since you also cause harm.
If you have not made up your mind about shifted lands then why allow it to become a point of contention in your marriage? Why put Brian through suffering about it?
On the other hand I completely discount that this was some how some sincere attempt by either of you to figure out the higher meta physics of the word "abuse".
Lets say that EVERYONE who read this post agreed with Brian's definition would that give you comfort? On the other hand if everyone agreed with you would that some how justify you?
As for it being just an emotionally charged post? I spent a day writing it and showed it to a couple people with 3 edits in the attempt to not come off emotional. I will say it is a very hard post direct to the issue at hand.
Abuse is never "justified or warranted" period. To warrant something is to justify an action or belief. To justify is to declare oneself free of blame. The fact that either of these two words, much less both of them, is actually part of someones definition saddens and disturbs me.
In regards to the second definition, I agree with Azurethunder in that it's possible the "author has had more personal experience with abuse". I would go one step further to say the first definition could easily be from an abuser, that even in their definition, attempts to "justify" their actions.
My own personal definition of abuse?
There are so many different forms of abuse it's difficult to wrap them up into one,(kudos to everyone who has attempted to) being a minimalist I'll do my best.
Abuse: The willful attempt to harm someone you should be protecting.
Comments 30
a·buse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete. To deceive or trick.
n. (-bys)
1. Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse.
2. Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.
3. Sexual abuse.
4. An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
5. Insulting or coarse language: verbal abuse.
Reply
Some times we can avoid both. But the thing to remember is that only we can allow people to take advantage of us. Sometimes it's okay to let someone take advantage of you, as long as you know that they are and are not hurting from it. That might be called doing a favor. Other times it's our passive/agressive way of allowing someone else to take control so we don't have to be responsible.
I see the definitions as the same. The first is the basic definition and the second is the CYA (cover your ass) definition that is likely to be found in a counselors office or in a staff hand book.
Reply
Your explanation about advantage and abuse was very interesting. I wonder... if someone was letting someone else take advantage of them for a period of time, but then decided they didn't want that anymore, does it become abuse? Will you expound on this?
Reply
Reply
This statement has been very thought provoking for me and elicits exploration of what an "enabler" is. Can someone "enable" someone else in their abuse? Even if it's the enabler that's getting "abused?" Or is this counterintuitive or even an oxymoron?
And if there is such a thing, how does an enabler stop the cycle? And at which point have they stopped being part of it themselves? If someone was enabling someone else do they have a right to be mad when they say "enough is enough" and the abuser doesn't agree?
Your post has been very interesting and I thank you for feedback. Keep it coming as long as possible.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I have one question for you to start: I am very intrigued by your two factors, because I think they make a very good starting point for a definition, but I wonder, what do you mean by intent? Intent on harming another person? Intent on controlling? Intent on dominating? Intent on disciplining? Intent on "winning?" Can you flesh this out a bit for me in terms of what you mean in this definition and how you would define it? Thanks...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Brian does not adhere to his own definition of abuse and neither do you since you also cause harm.
If you have not made up your mind about shifted lands then why allow it to become a point of contention in your marriage? Why put Brian through suffering about it?
On the other hand I completely discount that this was some how some sincere attempt by either of you to figure out the higher meta physics of the word "abuse".
Lets say that EVERYONE who read this post agreed with Brian's definition would that give you comfort? On the other hand if everyone agreed with you would that some how justify you?
As for it being just an emotionally charged post? I spent a day writing it and showed it to a couple people with 3 edits in the attempt to not come off emotional. I will say it is a very hard post direct to the issue at hand.
Chris
Reply
In regards to the second definition, I agree with Azurethunder in that it's possible the "author has had more personal experience with abuse". I would go one step further to say the first definition could easily be from an abuser, that even in their definition, attempts to "justify" their actions.
My own personal definition of abuse?
There are so many different forms of abuse it's difficult to wrap them up into one,(kudos to everyone who has attempted to) being a minimalist I'll do my best.
Abuse: The willful attempt to harm someone you should be protecting.
Thanks,
Coley
Reply
Leave a comment