How do you plan to get others to go along with your interesting definition of violence? It sounds very much like something coming from fanatical "meat is murder" folks - at which point, it becomes hard to place trust in what the person is saying because one begins to doubt his/her motives.
I like how this works. Just make claims and they become true.
There are other words to describe different concepts. If you want to conflate disparate things, I still don't see how you intend to have others go along with you. I'll wait till I hear news of a violent offender where the accusation was of consuming too much of a resource.
I still stand by the analogy I used. This is no different than taking a word that people associate with something negative and expanding its use to refer to something else. I did not intend to "tease" your royal highness.
I'm afraid we are in disagreement again. I'm merely challenging your definition which naturally preceded my challenge as I do not yet possess unusual foresight.
Nothing more than you substantiating your claim. If it is indeed as you say, then the honourable thing for me to do would be to concede that my confidence was misplaced.
As a result of violence being such a complex phenomenon, there is no clear definition for it. Therefore, it is often understood differently by different people in different contexts - such as those from different countries, cultures, or belief systems.
While no standard definition of violence has been established, it is important, when developing effective prevention strategies, to have a clear understanding of violence and the context in which it occurs. In its 2002 World Report on Violence and Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) proposes a definition of violence that has since become a working term for many international and South African organisations working in the field:
WHO definition of violence
“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.”
---
Psychological violence (also referred to as emotional or mental abuse) includes verbal and non-verbal communication used with the intent to harm another person mentally or emotionally, or to exert control over another person.
The impact of psychological violence can be just as significant as that of other, more physical forms of violence, as the perpetrator subjects the victim to behaviour which may result in some form of psychological trauma, such as anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. This includes, but is not limited to:
* expressive aggression (e.g., humiliating and degrading),
* coercive control (e.g., limiting access to things or people, and excessive monitoring of a person’s whereabouts or communications),
* threats of physical or sexual violence,
* control of reproductive or sexual health,
* and exploitation of a person’s vulnerability (e.g., immigration status or disability).
This not only leads to mental health problems, but also to severe physical problems, such as psychosomatic disorders.
---
There, I have done your research into a pre-established, publicly accepted fact which I have no obligation to do (or else I would be doing it all day!). Your welcome.
Now it's your turn to come up with reasons why this evidence of historic colloquial use will not be enough for you.
I'm afraid I am still unable to see where you have been able to make the connection in a satisfactory manner. I do concede that you have found something which says the definition is not the same for everyone. Otherwise the definition you listed in quotes is about intentional use of force. The other definition is specifically called "psychological violence" in the part you quoted. There too, I have on complaint and no disagreement. That, however, is not the same as "violence". To be able to communicate the concept you had in mind, without conflating the two, that part you quoted specifically adds the qualifier "psychological". With that qualifier, I think it's just easier to communicate and we probably wouldn't even be having this long exchange.
I used a qualifier: emotional violence. I felt like I didn't need to be redundant and use the word "psychological" as well. You are shifting goal posts and clinging to quite a small island at this point, and it's kind of sad, so I am done with this conversation.
