The necessity of violence in a society.

[danyboy27]

is violence necessary to maintain a society together?

I am not trying to argues for the necessity of a state, but it seem to me that having armed peoples in a society to protect it is somehow necessary.

People can disagree about the cops, the army, and their vested interest into protecting the system, but the thing is, those violent profession would still exist in a form or another without capitalism or the state.

but hey, maybe i am wrong, that why i started this topic, to discuss about that issue quietly.

so, what do you think? is violence necessary to protect a society against itself?

[Noinu]

Maybe I've got this all terribly wrong, but just because someone has a weapon doesn't make them in themselves, violent. I mean, most people own something that can easily be used to protect themselves (violently), but that doesn't mean they'd use them just like that for the sake of it.
Personally, just seeing one of those crazy-ass guards that run around here, make me scared enough not to start fighting with them....

[Ele'ill]

so, what do you think? is violence necessary to protect a society against itself?

Communities need to be controlling every facet of their own protection. I don't inherently object to civil defense forces.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

It depends on what kind of violence you're talking about. State violence exists to preserve the social order, i.e. the police hitting protesters with truncheons, or shooting them or whatever.

If people were to be armed I would only agree in the sense that they were holding arms with the intent of preserving their relationship to the means of production. Of course, this is in reference to a society in which the means of production are shared collectively.

With that in mind, I wouldn't say that violence is necessary, but 'power', and one way to empower the masses is to arm them. Violence is usually just a by-product of dominance, class repression or any form of 'power', from state violence to individual violence, all of these things represent dominance or attempted dominance. It is undesirable to say that violence is needed in society, as we hope to live in a society that protects people from violence and empowers each person.

[danyboy27]

Communities need to be controlling every facet of their own protection. I don't inherently object to civil defense forces.

couldnt agree more, but i wonder, if there is no state to ''control'' the differents group of armed people, what would avoid sectarian violence between them?

I mean, that a big advantage a state have, the power to concentrate the forces that maintain society together, so that, the federal and local authorities obey to the same code of laws and have to expect retaliation from the state and the other armed group operating within it if they decide to go rogue.

[Ele'ill]

couldnt agree more, but i wonder, if there is no state to ''control'' the differents group of armed people, what would avoid sectarian violence between them?

If this is 'post-revolution' what would they be fighting over? It would seem that their fight would be lacking leverage. The deaths of those they oppose would be meaningless because there would be no reward that they wouldn't already be able to obtain on their own.

It's important that labor is collectivized to the point where there's a sense of 'one' or solidarity from one area to the next. This alone would take incentive away and would stop a lot of the geographical 'pride' issues- nobody likes engaging in a fight when they have no real support- not even current day cops.


I mean, that a big advantage a state have, the power to concentrate the forces that maintain society together, so that, the federal and local authorities obey to the same code of laws and have to expect retaliation from the state and the other armed group operating within it if they decide to go rogue.They have incentive to go rogue. They can easily obtain massive rewards for engaging in such activities (robbing a bank, selling drugs, etc)- regardless of the consequences.

[ComradeMan]

Excluding psychopaths- if you need to enforce something with violence then perhaps it's not worth enforcing? Self-defense is a different matter.

[Revolution starts with U]

There's nothing inherently wrong about violence. It's all context. It's never good to be violent, but it's not necessarily bad. If I beat up a person raping or beating up someone else, that's good. Even NAP tools admit they need violence to enforce the law.
If violence wasn't necessary, we'd all be reformists.

[ComradeMan]

There's nothing inherently wrong about violence. It's all context. It's never good to be violent, but it's not necessarily bad. If I beat up a person raping or beating up someone else, that's good. Even NAP tools admit they need violence to enforce the law. If violence wasn't necessary, we'd all be reformists.


enforce the law- that's the problem. It's not much of a law that needs to be enforced with violence is it?

as we are now laws create criminals and then use violence to subdue them whilst criminalising violence- unless it's state sanctioned.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're saying we shouldn't enforce rape laws?

[Ele'ill]

The current discussion of laws and what not is completely irrelevant as a comparison because we're looking at two entirely different economic and political scenarios that are highly contrasted.

[#FF0000]

enforce the law- that's the problem. It's not much of a law that needs to be enforced with violence is it?

But there's no other way to enforce a law other than with violence.

I mean, violence doesn't have to be a baton to the skull.

[Noinu]

You're saying we shouldn't enforce rape laws?

Ahem, rape _laws_ aren't enforced by violence, nor should they.
If you happen to see someone getting raped and then you go and beat that person up, you're not enforcing any laws.

[ComradeMan]

You're saying we shouldn't enforce rape laws?

Enforcement with violence is not the same as upholding the law.

If we lived in a society that was egalitarian and not so mal-adjusted and dsyfunctional I bet most of these social ills would go away anyway.

Let's take your example- you intervene when someone is attacking another person, you subdue them with force to perform a citizen's arrest- there is no need to beat them up- it's hard but really you then put yourself in the wrong too as you re-enforce violence with violence.

[Revolution starts with U]

Tazing you bro, is still violence. Handcuffing someone (against their will) is still violence. Poeple will break laws, and sometimes "ostracism" will not hamper them in any way.
I once seen a guy smack his girl at the bar and I beat the shit out of him... was I in the wrong?

[Noinu]

Tazing you bro, is still violence. Handcuffing someone (against their will) is still violence. Poeple will break laws, and sometimes "ostracism" will not hamper them in any way.
I once seen a guy smack his girl at the bar and I beat the shit out of him... was I in the wrong?

Firstly, if someone handcuffed me, I wouldn't see it as an assault on my person.

Secondly, no, if you defend yourself when someone attacks you, it's not wrong. But it's not enforcing a law. There is a difference.

[ComradeMan]

Tazing you bro, is still violence. Handcuffing someone (against their will) is still violence. Poeple will break laws, and sometimes "ostracism" will not hamper them in any way.
I once seen a guy smack his girl at the bar and I beat the shit out of him... was I in the wrong?

Yes. I know our gut reaction would be the same, but fundamentally you put yourself in the wrong too. You're saying it's not okay to be violent and then enforcing this with violence?

[Revolution starts with U]

Enforcement with violence is not the same as upholding the law.


Not per se, you are correct. There is also fines and ostracism.


If we lived in a society that was egalitarian and not so mal-adjusted and dsyfunctional I bet most of these social ills would go away anyway.


Appeal to a hypothetical utopia. What if the problems don't go away?


Let's take your example- you intervene when someone is attacking another person, you subdue them with force to perform a citizen's arrest- there is no need to beat them up- its hard but really you then put yourself in the wrong too as you re-enforce violence with violence.


that's still violence buddy

[Revolution starts with U]

Firstly, if someone handcuffed me, I wouldn't see it as an assault on my person.

Secondly, no, if you defend yourself when someone attacks you, it's not wrong. But it's not enforcing a law. There is a difference.

You may not see it that way, but it is. If I come handcuff you for being a communist sympathizer, I'm sure your thoughts will change.

It is enforcing a law. There are laws that you're not allowed to bring violence upon me. If you do, I can act as police myself and subdue you.

You may not think subduing is violence, but it is.

[danyboy27]

If this is 'post-revolution' what would they be fighting over? It would seem that their fight would be lacking leverage. The deaths of those they oppose would be meaningless because there would be no reward that they wouldn't already be able to obtain on their own.
.
Well, control over the environnement and how certain ressources are used, but lets say a lumber mill is controlled by 1 faction collectively, but for some reason, there are a dispute about the distribution of wood with another community, what would stop the community in dire need of wood to just say: fuck it, we are taking over.

I know that there is no shortage of wood, but still, just like any ressources, you need the manpower and the equipement to extract it, and setting up an additional lumber mill might take a lot of time, people are sick of waiting ect ect.



It's important that labor is collectivized to the point where there's a sense of 'one' or solidarity from one area to the next. This alone would take incentive away and would stop a lot of the geographical 'pride' issues- nobody likes engaging in a fight when they have no real support- not even current day cops.

Well, collectivization will always have its limit of unity, dont fool yourselve about it. Even if you would be able to unite the whole world under the banner of communism, clashes are still bound to happen over the distribution and repartition of ressources. Just beccause we sit on a shitload of unused ressources dosnt mean we have the sufficent tool and manpower to make the distribution properly, the wolrd is gigantic, over 7 billion people who need electicity, water, food, shelter, education, clusterfuck over the distrubution and repartition are bound to happen, not beccause of the shortage, but beccause of the biblical logistical challenge it would represent.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes. I know our gut reaction would be the same, but fundamentally you put yourself in the wrong too. You're saying it's not okay to be violent and then enforcing this with violence?

I said there's nothing inherently wrong with violence. Revolutions are violence. Physical law enforcement is violence. If someone breaks in my house to steal my stuff, I'll go craptastic on them, or the cops will.
Rich people steal from workers, the workers should revolt... completely non-violently? That'll change anything:rolleyes:

(I'm saying MLK wouldn't have had as much sway w/o X and the Black Panthers as a threat)

[ComradeMan]

You may not see it that way, but it is. If I come handcuff you for being a communist sympathizer, I'm sure your thoughts will change.

It is enforcing a law. There are laws that you're not allowed to bring violence upon me. If you do, I can act as police myself and subdue you.

You may not think subduing is violence, but it is.

There is a difference between an overt and active act of aggression and a re-action to stop the escalation of aggression. I think you can see that. Subduing a violent situation, as in your original example, is not the same as attacking someone is it?

You're mixing the examples up.

[Noinu]

You may not see it that way, but it is. If I come handcuff you for being a communist sympathizer, I'm sure your thoughts will change.

It is enforcing a law. There are laws that you're not allowed to bring violence upon me. If you do, I can act as police myself and subdue you.

You may not think subduing is violence, but it is.

Ahem, it really doesn't make a difference why someone handcuffs me, I don't see it as an assault. I'm sorry, I'm sure there are people who find it extremely hurtful (kinda like dentists just pushing into your mouth), but I don't.

I cannot say about where you live, but around here, self-defense is the about the only thing that you're allowed to do, and even then only the amount of violence really necessary (as in if someone ***** slaps you, you don't beat the crap out of them, that's just way over the top).

There are various ways of subduing people, including speaking. And again, self defense is (or at least it's good to be) an automatic response to a situation where your life is threatened. But enforcing a law? No it just isn't. There are laws against violence, even in self defense.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's not the same as attacking somoene. It's still violence.
Must I say it a 3rd time? There's nothing inherently wrong with violence. Eating steak or a potato is violence.

[Noinu]

I said there's nothing inherently wrong with violence. Revolutions are violence. Physical law enforcement is violence. If someone breaks in my house to steal my stuff, I'll go craptastic on them, or the cops will.
Rich people steal from workers, the workers should revolt... completely non-violently? That'll change anything:rolleyes:

(I'm saying MLK wouldn't have had as much sway w/o X and the Black Panthers as a threat)


Have you seriously ever seen a cop go 'craptastic' on a mere burglar?

[Noinu]

It's not the same as attacking somoene. It's still violence.
Must I say it a 3rd time? There's nothing inherently wrong with violence. Eating steak or a potato is violence.

I really wonder how you are being violent against a root?

[Ele'ill]

Well, control over the environnement and how certain ressources are used, but lets say a lumber mill is controlled by 1 faction collectively, but for some reason, there are a dispute about the distribution of wood with another community, what would stop the community in dire need of wood to just say: fuck it, we are taking over.

I know that there is no shortage of wood, but still, just like any ressources, you need the manpower and the equipement to extract it, and setting up an additional lumber mill might take a lot of time, people are sick of waiting ect ect.

It wouldn't be an issue of one community having 'control' of the lumber mill- I don't believe such factions would exist as it would directly imply that there is a shortage of wood for all communities. People from multiple communities would be working at the mill as well.

I'm starting from the stance that there wouldn't be a shortage of resources needed to live a decent life- some communities would have greater access to certain resources and those that do not have access to say- wood- will have access to other materials neccessary to construct the things they need and desire.



Well, collectivization will always have its limit of unity, dont fool yourselve about it. Even if you would be able to unite the whole world under the banner of communism, clashes are still bound to happen over the distribution and repartition of ressources. Just beccause we sit on a shitload of unused ressources dosnt mean we have the sufficent tool and manpower to make the distribution properly, the wolrd is gigantic, over 7 billion people who need electicity, water, food, shelter, education, clusterfuck over the distrubution and repartition are bound to happen, not beccause of the shortage, but beccause of the biblical logistical challenge it would represent.It wouldn't be this vast. A mill in the Pacific Northwest will not likely need to worry about shipping product to an area in say India.

[ComradeMan]

I said there's nothing inherently wrong with violence. Revolutions are violence. Physical law enforcement is violence. If someone breaks in my house to steal my stuff, I'll go craptastic on them, or the cops will.
Rich people steal from workers, the workers should revolt... completely non-violently? That'll change anything:rolleyes:

(I'm saying MLK wouldn't have had as much sway w/o X and the Black Panthers as a threat)

There's a lot inherently wrong with violence.

Revolutions are violence - the op was talking about holding society together not overthrowing a violent regime. Think about the difference.;)

You seem to confuse the act of violence in aggression and enforcement with self-defense that may necessitate violence.

If you study martial arts you might learn that the best defense/attack uses the minimum force, you use your opponents own momentum to put him or her on the floor so to speak. Get me?

[#FF0000]

The problem here is semantic. Comrademan just doesn't count violence in self-defense as violence at all, while everyone else says "yeah it's violence but it is inherently different from violence one uses to oppress".

[ComradeMan]

The problem here is semantic. Comrademan just doesn't count violence in self-defense as violence at all, while everyone else says "yeah it's violence but it is inherently different from violence one uses to oppress".

I learned this from judo and karate.

But I think there is a difference too- the OP was talking about using coercion/violence to maintain society. My idea is that a society that has to be held together with coercion and violence probably has a lot wrong with it and perhaps it's not worth holding it together in the first place- if you get me.

[Noinu]

Not to mention the difference between using violence when it is absolutely necessary and using violence just because one can (even when there are various other possibilities).
When it comes to self-defense, violence is often the only possible course of action (for example with someone trying to stab you or rape you, and so forth). It is unlikely you can talk yourself out of a situation like that, but there are many situations were violence is used, even when completely unnecessary.

[Ele'ill]

I learned this from judo and karate.

But I think there is a difference too- the OP was talking about using coercion/violence to maintain society. My idea is that a society that has to be held together with coercion and violence probably has a lot wrong with it and perhaps it's not worth holding it together in the first place- if you get me.

I think the majority of the 'power' would come from worker solidarity and industrial/community decision making.

[RGacky3]

in my opinoin the best society possible is one that minimizes violence and the threat of it, and eliminates systemic violence (such as property laws, or national borders).

[Revolution starts with U]

There's a lot inherently wrong with violence.


Like what?


Revolutions are violence - the op was talking about holding society together not overthrowing a violent regime. Think about the difference.;)


And there will still be a need for violence. Law enforcement is violence, whether you want to think so or not.

You seem to confuse the act of violence in aggression and enforcement with self-defense that may necessitate violence.

Still violence



If you study martial arts you might learn that the best defense/attack uses the minimum force, you use your opponents own momentum to put him or her on the floor so to speak. Get me


YOu should probably get to know me better if you think I don't study martial arts. Self-defense is still violent.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not to mention the difference between using violence when it is absolutely necessary and using violence just because one can (even when there are various other possibilities).
When it comes to self-defense, violence is often the only possible course of action (for example with someone trying to stab you or rape you, and so forth). It is unlikely you can talk yourself out of a situation like that, but there are many situations were violence is used, even when completely unnecessary.

It's still violence, don't you guys get that? Spare me your pacifist utopian fantasies where violence is not needed to enforce the law. :thumbdown:

[Noinu]

It's still violence, don't you guys get that? Spare me your pacifist utopian fantasies where violence is not needed to enforce the law. :thumbdown:

Did I happen to ever say that it's completely unneeded? No. You just make examples that are not of situations were it would be needed.
Not to mention the fact that you still don't seem to understand the difference between upholding to laws and just doing what you damn well please 'cause you think it's 'justice'.

[Revolution starts with U]

Did I happen to ever say that it's completely unneeded? No. You just make examples that are not of situations were it would be needed.
Not to mention the fact that you still don't seem to understand the difference between upholding to laws and just doing what you damn well please 'cause you think it's 'justice'.

The question was whether violence was neccessary, at all. If it is neccessary in any situation than the answer to the question is yes; which is the answer I gave. I understand the difference. I'm merely saying it is still violence.
If I protect myself w violence and it gets out of hand, I fully expect to be prosecuted for that (like you can get 6mos for "self-defense" if it was over the top in Ohio. I'm fine w that.)
Let's say I choked the guy out (not particularly excessive, since I'm well trained in the difference between putting someone down w a choke and taking someone out), instead of fighting him.. I was young at the time :laugh:... still wrong? Or should I just have let him beat her up and said "hey man, you should stop?"

[ComradeMan]

The question was whether violence was neccessary, at all. If it is neccessary in any situation than the answer to the question is yes; which is the answer I gave. I understand the difference. I'm merely saying it is still violence.
If I protect myself w violence and it gets out of hand, I fully expect to be prosecuted for that (like you can get 6mos for "self-defense" if it was over the top in Ohio. I'm fine w that.)
Let's say I choked the guy out (not particularly excessive, since I'm well trained in the difference between putting someone down w a choke and taking someone out), instead of fighting him.. I was young at the time :laugh:... still wrong? Or should I just have let him beat her up and said "hey man, you should stop?"

You admit yourself the problem- you went over the top.

There is a difference between upholding the law and neutralising force- which may call for force and beating some up.

You could have intervened, stopped the aggression and difused the situation- but you stated you beat the person up- see the difference?

Who do you think you are?

http://www.longuelo.it/wp-content/gallery/chiesa/chuck-norris-002.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

It's still violence, don't you guys get that? Spare me your pacifist utopian fantasies where violence is not needed to enforce the law. :thumbdown:

After the Revolution you are going to need to use violence to prevent the counter-Revolution. :)

[ComradeMan]

After the Revolution you are going to need to use violence to prevent the counter-Revolution. :)

Not really- not if the people are behind you. It depends what level of violence you mean, but again- there is a difference between self-defense and attack. The self-defense of a revolution is justified from the revolutionary point of view.

Let's not forget the root of the word "violence"- from "violate"- trespass upon the person aggressively and illegally.

[Ele'ill]

Sometimes going on the offensive saves your life.

[ComradeMan]

Sometimes going on the offensive saves your life.

Then it is still an act of self-defense, if it's justified. But be careful with those arguments, we've heard those before too.

[Ele'ill]

Then it is still an act of self-defense, if it's justified. But be careful with those arguments, we've heard those before too.

What if there's a bully that won't leave people alone- you've exchanged words a couple times but the worst of the beatings are issued to other people that are relatively helpless. One day you witness one of these beatings in person. You don't do anything then as it was relatively short (but severe) and you got there towards the end of it or perhaps at the aftermath. Nothing that's been attempted to stop this from occuring has worked at all. You see the bully later on in the day going into an unoccupied room and you decided to follow them in and issue a brutal beating and explain very clearly that their shit is to cease and desist.

[Revolution starts with U]

Whether or not self-defense is acceptable is not the issue. The question was, philosophically, does a society need violence to hold it together. The answer is, imo (and yours if you think self-defense or forced detainment is ok), yes. In a perfect world, violence is not necessary. And evidence suggests prosperity is key to crime reduction. But we cannot write the laws expecting a utopic prosperous world.

[ComradeMan]

Whether or not self-defense is acceptable is not the issue. The question was, philosophically, does a society need violence to hold it together. The answer is, imo (and yours if you think self-defense or forced detainment is ok), yes. In a perfect world, violence is not necessary. And evidence suggests prosperity is key to crime reduction. But we cannot write the laws expecting a utopic prosperous world.

But we don't write the laws anyway, many of them are not exactly just and create violence in themselves.

[Revolution starts with U]

But we will have to post-revolution.. during the revolution as well, we don't want to go just cutting people's heads off willy-nilly.

[ComradeMan]

What if there's a bully that won't leave people alone- you've exchanged words a couple times but the worst of the beatings are issued to other people that are relatively helpless. One day you witness one of these beatings in person. You don't do anything then as it was relatively short (but severe) and you got there towards the end of it or perhaps at the aftermath. Nothing that's been attempted to stop this from occuring has worked at all. You see the bully later on in the day going into an unoccupied room and you decided to follow them in and issue a brutal beating and explain very clearly that their shit is to cease and desist.

Wrong course of action. You should intervene straight away. But you can't tell people it's wrong to be violent through violence.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're right comrade. Because, imo, it's not wrong to use violence, inherently. Sometimes violence is necessary, like protecting a rape victim, or killing a plant in order to eat it (apples no, potatoes yes [assuming you kill a potato, i dont farm lol).
The community will decide when such actions are justified, partially, totally, or not at all.

[ComradeMan]

You need to ask why people become violent too. What are the root causes? Remember in one of the earlier posts I did exclude psychopaths and stuff.

I'm talking about the OP- state using violence to maintain order.

[Ele'ill]

I believe violence as a tactic can work.

[Revolution starts with U]

is violence necessary to maintain a society together?

I am not trying to argues for the necessity of a state, but it seem to me that having armed peoples in a society to protect it is somehow necessary.

People can disagree about the cops, the army, and their vested interest into protecting the system, but the thing is, those violent profession would still exist in a form or another without capitalism or the state.

Say what? :tt2:

[ComradeMan]

Say what? :tt2:

See my line here.... it's a bit fascistic and/or authoritarian in the OP isn't it?

[Revolution starts with U]

There is a certain authoritarian nature to law in general, yes. The community expresses its authority over rapists, aggressors, and profiteers, etc.

[Revolution starts with U]

Btw, let me say, or reiterate I'm not sure, that I hold firmly that the best fight is the one not fought. I'm merely saying that sometimes you have to fight. If it gets out of hand, you will also be considered an agressor (as will the 1st agressor).

[ComradeMan]

There is a certain authoritarian nature to law in general, yes. The community expresses its authority over rapists, aggressors, and profiteers, etc.

Violent societies produce violent people.

[Revolution starts with U]

People produce societies, which produce people. But the producing always starts with the people first. We all wish for non (overtly) violent societies. But, in the real world, people will do things that are wrong, and violently oppose being brought to justice for it.

[Amphictyonis]

is violence necessary to maintain a society together?



so, what do you think? is violence necessary to protect a society against itself?

ShTVpGuzk1M

^ I'd say a society under scarcity yes^ The more freely available life's necessities are the less need for coercion. Cops and prisons don't necessarily stop crime anyhow. Crimes based in material conditions are alleviated by adressing material conditions. Crimes of passion are a different story.

[ComradeMan]

People produce societies, which produce people. But the producing always starts with the people first. We all wish for non (overtly) violent societies. But, in the real world, people will do things that are wrong, and violently oppose being brought to justice for it.

An abused child grows up to be an abuser they say. The point is, that although I am not trying to do the "get out" clause of blaming society and not the perpetrator all the time, society must also takes its share in the responsibility. We live in a society that perpetuates violence at many levels from the cradle to the grave and then we complain when people are violent :confused:

[Revolution starts with U]

I think the post before your last one explains well my position, and relates far better to yours.
I'm just saying, if self-defense is violence (and it is), then violence is necessary.

[Amphictyonis]

An abused child grows up to be an abuser they say.

There's no such thing as free will?

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, an abused child tends to grow up an abuser. But it is not set in stone.

[ComradeMan]

Yes, an abused child tends to grow up an abuser. But it is not set in stone.

No it's not- but when it does happen- who is to blame? See what I mean?

Society must also take responsibility.

[Revolution starts with U]

:Dtrial and error comrade

[ComradeMan]

:Dtrial and error comrade

Come on-- I know you can see what I'm getting at.... ;)

[danyboy27]

See my line here.... it's a bit fascistic and/or authoritarian in the OP isn't it?

just trying to not be misunderstood by the member of the communist party of revleft.

i am really not a statist.

[Revolution starts with U]

I know what you're getting at. And on what you're getting at I agree with. But we should not make a distinction between aggressive violence, excessive violence, and self-defense, they're all violence to varying degrees.

[danyboy27]

I know what you're getting at. And on what you're getting at I agree with. But we should not make a distinction between aggressive violence, excessive violence, and self-defense, they're all violence to varying degrees.

of course. by violence i meant a form of deterrent to defend the people against various threat, not a force meant to be used has an offensive tool against a population or an entiere people.

[Noinu]

Let's say I choked the guy out (not particularly excessive, since I'm well trained in the difference between putting someone down w a choke and taking someone out), instead of fighting him.. I was young at the time :laugh:... still wrong? Or should I just have let him beat her up and said "hey man, you should stop?"

YES. You should have started with telling him to stop.

[Noinu]

There's no such thing as free will?

Of course there is, but if don't know of any other course of action, you've never learned any other way of dealing with a situation than violence, it is unlikely that you would suddenly use other methods just like that. Without someone else coming and telling you're doing wrong.

[ComradeMan]

Of course there is, but if don't know of any other course of action, you've never learned any other way of dealing with a situation than violence, it is unlikely that you would suddenly use other methods just like that. Without someone else coming and telling you're doing wrong.

I agree- society is very pavlovian. Think about the amount of violence or solving things by violence that we see promoted all the time. It's no wonder we all become violent to a greater or lesser extent.

[Noinu]

I agree- society is very pavlovian. Think about the amount of violence or solving things by violence that we see promoted all the time. It's no wonder we all become violent to a greater or lesser extent.

Not to mention the studies made to show have news of wars are similar to basic war videogames.
I don't really think that just seeing violence around makes violent, if one has enough non-violent 'role-models', but one does become numb toward violence.

[ComradeMan]

Not to mention the studies made to show have news of wars are similar to basic war videogames.
I don't really think that just seeing violence around makes violent, if one has enough non-violent 'role-models', but one does become numb toward violence.

However look at videogames for one example. We aren't talking about space invaders or pac man here. We are talking about very modern, realistic and graphic images that seem to teach that violence is an acceptable way to solve something. When did you last see a popular videogame in which someone is an ambulance driver, rescue worker, coastguard etc and saves lives?

Now, I'm not saying we should ban videogames outright, but I am saying that we should take a long hard look at the "violence" within.

[Noinu]

However look at videogames for one example. We aren't talking about space invaders or pac man here. We are talking about very modern, realistic and graphic images that seem to teach that violence is an acceptable way to solve something. When did you last see a popular videogame in which someone is an ambulance driver, rescue worker, coastguard etc and saves lives?

Now, I'm not saying we should ban videogames outright, but I am saying that we should take a long hard look at the "violence" within.

You're right, I'm definitely not trying to argue against this. I personally don't understand how parents can allow their children to play games where you kill people just for fun.
Even if killing people with dinosaur toys is basically the same concept, but there at least the action comes from the child and the child is not fed blood and gore...

Never seen any videogame like that, never mind popular ones. I wonder if they even exist?
Although I have to say, I'm not all that well versed in the land of videogames, more a Spyro and horse games person....

There was a study made after the Gulf War on how news of war where very similar to any videogame portraing war.

[danyboy27]

However look at videogames for one example. We aren't talking about space invaders or pac man here. We are talking about very modern, realistic and graphic images that seem to teach that violence is an acceptable way to solve something. When did you last see a popular videogame in which someone is an ambulance driver, rescue worker, coastguard etc and saves lives?

Now, I'm not saying we should ban videogames outright, but I am saying that we should take a long hard look at the "violence" within.

but...violence CAN be an acceptable way to solve something, most of the time its isnt, but sometimes that better than doing nothing.


fighting and killing have been a child play since mankind exist, its something that is perfectly sane and normal has a species to learn and de-dramatize it, beccause we might have one day or another be confronted to violent situations.

[Noinu]

but...violence CAN be an acceptable way to solve something, most of the time its isnt, but sometimes that better than doing nothing.


fighting and killing have been a child play since mankind exist, its something that is perfectly sane and normal has a species to learn and de-dramatize it, beccause we might have one day or another be confronted to violent situations.

I think I just made a dinosaur example on this;
Situation A.
Child is playing with puppets and dinosaurs; child makes dinosaur eat puppet, yay, how much fun.
Situation B.
Child plays videogame where person holding a huge gun goes around blowing the heads of whatever enemy happens to be (zombies, humans, whatever) and sees guts flying, blood spilling, necks breaking.
What's the difference? Maybe the fact that a child playing with a dinosaur doesn't think about all the gorey details of an actual killing, rather than the event itself, someone getting eaten. Details can make all the difference, you know.

[ComradeMan]

but...violence CAN be an acceptable way to solve something, most of the time its isnt, but sometimes that better than doing nothing.


fighting and killing have been a child play since mankind exist, its something that is perfectly sane and normal has a species to learn and de-dramatize it, beccause we might have one day or another be confronted to violent situations.

An argument to the past or how things have always been is not what we are supposed to be about. Okay, we take it into account- but at the same time a lot of things have existed since time immemorial but that does not justify their perpetuation, does it?

[Revolution starts with U]

You old shrivs. Your pacifist fantasies are utopic. People will get violent, that's just nature. And we will need some form of violence, no matter how restrained, to quell it. Your saying "violence is bad" is just another bourgie form of staving off the revolution. Maybe if somoene would have came up and kicked Madoff in the nuts we would have some real change in this country. Throw the execs of Goldman Sachs in handcuffs and parade them through the streets.

Also, GTA San Andreas was one of the best games of all time. Go take your Metamucil. :thumbup1:

[Noinu]

You old shrivs. Your pacifist fantasies are utopic. People will get violent, that's just nature. And we will need some form of violence, no matter how restrained, to quell it. Your saying "violence is bad" is just another bourgie form of staving off the revolution. Maybe if somoene would have came up and kicked Madoff in the nuts we would have some real change in this country. Throw the execs of Goldman Sachs in handcuffs and parade them through the streets.

Also, GTA San Andreas was one of the best games of all time. Go take your Metamucil. :thumbup1:


Oh how good your reasoning can be. :rolleyes:

First of all, humans are still biological being and thus capable of evolution. What's the point of trying to make a better world if people are still the same old crap and going to make it all back again? Hmm?
I personally thought that the whole idea of a revolution was to make the world better than it is now, oh no, wait, that can't happen 'cause you think people won't be able to change.

And do you seriously think that if someone kicked Madoff, he wouldn't have been a bastard? Lol.
Change and retribution are two completely different things.

And btw, I'm not trying to ahem 'stave off a revolution because of my pacifist utopian beliefs'. I just really don't want to change the world into a place where anyone can beat others up just because it's 'in our nature' or whatever bs one can think of.

[Revolution starts with U]

Oh how good your reasoning can be. :rolleyes:

Yes yes. But mine takes into account human nature as it is right now. Reasoning based off evidence > reasoning based off theory.


First of all, humans are still biological being and thus capable of evolution. What's the point of trying to make a better world if people are still the same old crap and going to make it all back again? Hmm?

I agree that we all want less or no violence in the world. I'm just saying that's a fantasy. When we write the laws, or theorize on our society we want to create, we have to take violence into account. Both that it will happen, and that it may (probably will) be needed to enforce the laws.
I personally thought that the whole idea of a revolution was to make the world better than it is now, oh no, wait, that can't happen 'cause you think people won't be able to change.



And do you seriously think that if someone kicked Madoff, he wouldn't have been a bastard? Lol.
Change and retribution are two completely different things.



No, but the next guy may have thought twice about it :thumbup1:
And btw, I'm not trying to ahem 'stave off a revolution because of my pacifist utopian beliefs'. I just really don't want to change the world into a place where anyone can beat others up just because it's 'in our nature' or whatever bs one can think of.

I never said we could, nor should. If you are being criminal, and I use violence to stop you, and it is overtly violent (more than what was neccessary) I have become an aggressor as well and should face criminal charges. I'm a much bigger fan of community self-defense, than police stations.

Mario should have just asked Bowser for the princess back, instead of stomping all his minions?

[Revolution starts with U]

btw. I was just joking w the "old shrivs" post :D

[Noinu]

I agree that we all want less or no violence in the world. I'm just saying that's a fantasy. When we write the laws, or theorize on our society we want to create, we have to take violence into account. Both that it will happen, and that it may (probably will) be needed to enforce the laws.

Yes, one has to take violence into account. Yes, violence will occur. And yes, one needs to enforce the laws against violence.
The thing we still disagree on, and probably will disagree on, is that I don't think violence is necessary in combating violence. Of course one would hop back to the discussion of handcuffs and jails. If someone (=police) handcuffed me, sure I'd be annoyed, but I wouldn't feel violated and thus wouldn't not see it as violence.



I never said we could, nor should. If you are being criminal, and I use violence to stop you, and it is overtly violent (more than what was neccessary) I have become an aggressor as well and should face criminal charges. I'm a much bigger fan of community self-defense, than police stations.

Yes, I think you should be charged for criminal behaviour as well. If you are being overtly violent in the way you described. If someone beats you up and you bite them, I seriously doubt I'd see that as being overtly violent. If the roles were reversed, yes, I'd see both as aggressors.


Mario should have just asked Bowser for the princess back, instead of stomping all his minions?

Do we actually know what happens to the minions? They might just disappear into an alternate universe....



I was a bit confused by the quotations you used, but I guess you noticed them too :) (not complaining, just stating).

[Noinu]

btw. I was just joking w the "old shrivs" post :D

*cough*
You do understand it's nearly impossible to detect any sort of sarcasm/humour/etc in a written text, if it doesn't use any specific wordings, idioms, grammatical features that would make it a joke?

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, one has to take violence into account. Yes, violence will occur. And yes, one needs to enforce the laws against violence.
The thing we still disagree on, and probably will disagree on, is that I don't think violence is necessary in combating violence. Of course one would hop back to the discussion of handcuffs and jails. If someone (=police) handcuffed me, sure I'd be annoyed, but I wouldn't feel violated and thus wouldn't not see it as violence.

You can say that, but I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. When they start locking people up for being communist sympathizers, are you just going to willingly let them handcuff you? If you get thrown in jail for something you were innocent of, will you take the time, or will you appeal?
We can talk about how self-defense and/or law enforcement isn't violence, but it is.
Fortunately we can all rejoice that crimes of want will have severely died down if not disappeared. But crimes of passion will always be around, and the criminal may not go quietly. We can either let him kill everyone, get away, or violently bring him to justice.




Yes, I think you should be charged for criminal behaviour as well. If you are being overtly violent in the way you described. If someone beats you up and you bite them, I seriously doubt I'd see that as being overtly violent. If the roles were reversed, yes, I'd see both as aggressors.

Biting is still violence tho. If one needs violence to defend themselves, the same holds true for societies. It's a cold fact to face, but it's a fact.

I know it's hard to tell when interneters are joking, you just have to look for the winks ;) and nods :thumbup1::D:cool::laugh:

[Noinu]

You can say that, but I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. When they start locking people up for being communist sympathizers, are you just going to willingly let them handcuff you? If you get thrown in jail for something you were innocent of, will you take the time, or will you appeal?
We can talk about how self-defense and/or law enforcement isn't violence, but it is.
Fortunately we can all rejoice that crimes of want will have severely died down if not disappeared. But crimes of passion will always be around, and the criminal may not go quietly. We can either let him kill everyone, get away, or violently bring him to justice.


Again; I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't be violence.
And second; being a communist sympathiser is also not violence and thus irrelevant to a discussion on violence against violence. It would however be relevant when discussing violence against other things.

I will appeal, I will make all that is legaly possible for me to do. Violence however is not one of those things and violence is not an answer to something like that. And throwing me in jail, I wouldn't call it violent. Unless it's actualy throwing and I get injured, that'd be violence. Again, wouldn't start hitting people because of it and an appeal is definitely not violence.



Biting is still violence tho. If one needs violence to defend themselves, the same holds true for societies. It's a cold fact to face, but it's a fact.

I know it's hard to tell when interneters are joking, you just have to look for the winks ;) and nods :thumbup1::D:cool::laugh:


Yes it is and we're once again in self-defense. I think I've said it before during this discussion that I am not against self-defense if it is not with unnecessary amounts of violence. And again, there are situations were self-defense doesn't need violence.

And to the joke thing: I am somewhat dyslexic and hop over words at points (sometimes I think faster than I write and my sentences stop making sense). Anyway, did not see a wink or a nod (not saying it isn't there, just saying didn't see it), and hope that you understand.

[Revolution starts with U]

Again; I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't be violence.
And second; being a communist sympathiser is also not violence and thus irrelevant to a discussion on violence against violence. It would however be relevant when discussing violence against other things.

"Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt. Worldwide, violence is used as a tool of manipulation and also is an area of concern for law and culture which take attempts to suppress and stop it. ..."
If they are coming to arrest you for being a commy sympathizer, and you don't go willingly with them, they will have to use violence to subdue you. The nature of the crime does not matter (as you point out), it's the act of arrest that is violent. It has to be, it is using force compelling action against one's will. It is violence.
Just because some violence is good violence (self defense and law enforcement) doesn't make it "not violence."


I will appeal, I will make all that is legaly possible for me to do. Violence however is not one of those things and violence is not an answer to something like that.
No, you appealing is not violence. Them continuing to hold you in jail against your will is. This is true whether you are guilty or innocent.
And throwing me in jail, I wouldn't call it violent. Unless it's actualy throwing and I get injured, that'd be violence.
If you resist, they will hurt you.



Yes it is and we're once again in self-defense. I think I've said it before during this discussion that I am not against self-defense if it is not with unnecessary amounts of violence. And again, there are situations were self-defense doesn't need violence.

And there are situations where it does. Violence is not bad in and of itself. I have to kill a potatoe to eat it, same for a chicken. Are all animals around the world evil now? Of course not.


And to the joke thing: I am somewhat dyslexic and hop over words at points (sometimes I think faster than I write and my sentences stop making sense). Anyway, did not see a wink or a nod (not saying it isn't there, just saying didn't see it), and hope that you understand

I probably didn't add one. I'm just used to jabbin w comrademan, I'm sure he understood I was joking :blushing:

[Noinu]

"Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt. Worldwide, violence is used as a tool of manipulation and also is an area of concern for law and culture which take attempts to suppress and stop it. ..."
If they are coming to arrest you for being a commy sympathizer, and you don't go willingly with them, they will have to use violence to subdue you. The nature of the crime does not matter (as you point out), it's the act of arrest that is violent. It has to be, it is using force compelling action against one's will. It is violence.
Just because some violence is good violence (self defense and law enforcement) doesn't make it "not violence."

Again, if someone handcuffs me and/or puts me in jail, I am not hurt. I am annoyed, not hurt. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be hurt, but I'm not one of them.
Unwilling on my part wouldn't necessarily constitute as having to subdue me.
I guess we just differ on our definition of violence. For me violence is something that hurts, something that makes you feel violated. Otherwise one could just as easily say that because I hate my structure of English homework, have to do them nonetheless, it's violence.

Okay, I can't remember word for word, what I've said so far, but I don't disagree on self-defense being violence. If I've said that, quote it, and I'll disagree on it. But, there is a difference between necessary and unnecessary violence and even in situations of self-defense, violence is not always needed.



No, you appealing is not violence. Them continuing to hold you in jail against your will is. This is true whether you are guilty or innocent.
If you resist, they will hurt you.

If it doesn't hurt my person, it is not violence.
And who said I was resisting physically? Hmm? And, that would depend on what I was doing when I got arrested and thus if I was being violent, I should be charged and the person subduing me, should also be charged.



And there are situations where it does. Violence is not bad in and of itself. I have to kill a potatoe to eat it, same for a chicken. Are all animals around the world evil now? Of course not.


And again, I really can't understand how you kill a root? Most animals kill because they need to for survival, humans kill for pleasure. (Not saying that humans don't also kill for survival, but mostly is for pleasure or at least completely unnecessary). Killing 300 cows so that 5 kg of meat could be eaten is unnecessary and yes, I do agree that killing is a violent action. Although, not a lot of people who eat meat, actually commit these violences themselves, including me. I've never killed a cow, yet I do eat steaks.
As for potatoes, the first line and this; uprooting a single potato does not kill the whole plant. Ever grown potatoes?


I probably didn't add one. I'm just used to jabbin w comrademan, I'm sure he understood I was joking :blushing:

I guess that's alright..

[Revolution starts with U]

Again, if someone handcuffs me and/or puts me in jail, I am not hurt. I am annoyed, not hurt. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be hurt, but I'm not one of them.
Unwilling on my part wouldn't necessarily constitute as having to subdue me

But they are using force to make you act against your will. That's the definition I am using; force or the threat thereof to compel one to act against his will.


I guess we just differ on our definition of violence. For me violence is something that hurts, something that makes you feel violated. Otherwise one could just as easily say that because I hate my structure of English homework, have to do them nonetheless, it's violence.

Well that wouldn't fit in with my definition of violence at all. Your english teacher is not threatening you w force if you don't do your homework. Also, I just got rid of kidney stones, those made me hurt and feel violated... are kidney stones violence?


Okay, I can't remember word for word, what I've said so far, but I don't disagree on self-defense being violence. If I've said that, quote it, and I'll disagree on it. But, there is a difference between necessary and unnecessary violence and even in situations of self-defense, violence is not always needed.

Even if it is not always needed, it is sometimes needed. Violence is disgusting, we can all agree on that. BUt it is not neccessarily bad (in a practical sense).





If it doesn't hurt my person, it is not violence.

So, if I come to beat you up, but I'm a huge wuss, it isn't violence? ;)

And who said I was resisting physically? Hmm? And, that would depend on what I was doing when I got arrested and thus if I was being violent, I should be charged and the person subduing me, should also be charged.
You were posting on revleft when the gestappo came in to arrest you for commy sympathizing. IF you resist, they will hurt you to bring you in to the jail. They are using force, or the threat thereof to compell you to act against your will.




Most animals kill because they need to for survival, humans kill for pleasure. (Not saying that humans don't also kill for survival, but mostly is for pleasure or at least completely unnecessary). Killing 300 cows so that 5 kg of meat could be eaten is unnecessary and yes, I do agree that killing is a violent action. Although, not a lot of people who eat meat, actually commit these violences themselves, including me. I've never killed a cow, yet I do eat steaks
THe farmer who kills the cow for you committed violence tho.


As for potatoes, the first line and this; uprooting a single potato does not kill the whole plant. Ever grown potatoes?

No :lol: and I said as much. But there are plants one has to kill in order to eat. Either way, if I cut off your finger and eat it, I'm sure you're not going to be happy about it :D

[Noinu]

But they are using force to make you act against your will. That's the definition I am using; force or the threat thereof to compel one to act against his will.

If I'm not hurt, I don't see it as violence. We just define violence differently. I don't think there's much one can do about that, is there?



Well that wouldn't fit in with my definition of violence at all. Your english teacher is not threatening you w force if you don't do your homework. Also, I just got rid of kidney stones, those made me hurt and feel violated... are kidney stones violence?

Well if I'm being arrested, I'm not really being threatened with force now am I? Only when I start aggressively resisting. And this is actually one of those things that one could argue with local, I've never met an unpleasant cop before. I have however met awful guards, but that's a whole other issue to go into.

I'm very sorry you had kidney stones, I hear they can be excruciating. But kidney stones are inanimate, I seriously doubt they can act.

And the homework, I have a teacher who I wouldn't be all that surprised if she went completely berserk if one said one hadn't done the homework.... She's scary. Seriously scary.


Even if it is not always needed, it is sometimes needed. Violence is disgusting, we can all agree on that. BUt it is not neccessarily bad (in a practical sense).

Well finally you say it's bad, now there's a win!



So, if I come to beat you up, but I'm a huge wuss, it isn't violence? ;)

If you come to beat me up but don't because you're scared, no it isn't violence.



You were posting on revleft when the gestappo came in to arrest you for commy sympathizing. IF you resist, they will hurt you to bring you in to the jail. They are using force, or the threat thereof to compell you to act against your will.

If they hurt me, they're doing something violent against me and should be charged as such. I think I've said this too a few times.



THe farmer who kills the cow for you committed violence tho.

Yes he did.



No :lol: and I said as much. But there are plants one has to kill in order to eat. Either way, if I cut off your finger and eat it, I'm sure you're not going to be happy about it :D

No I really wouldn't be happy about it, but then again, you really don't need my finger to survive and thus using unnecessary violence.

[Revolution starts with U]

If I'm not hurt, I don't see it as violence. We just define violence differently. I don't think there's much one can do about that, is there?

I can show that I'm using an established definition, while you (seem to be) making one up :D




Well if I'm being arrested, I'm not really being threatened with force now am I?
YES! Yes you are! "Mr Noinu, you are under arrest. Come peacefully, or we will detain you with force."

Only when I start aggressively resisting. And this is actually one of those things that one could argue with local, I've never met an unpleasant cop before.
I'd love to live in your liberal bourgie town :laugh: The cops out here are corrup assholes.



I'm very sorry you had kidney stones, I hear they can be excruciating. But kidney stones are inanimate, I seriously doubt they can act.

So now there's a qualifier of an "actor" for your definition, not just "things that make me hurt?"


And the homework, I have a teacher who I wouldn't be all that surprised if she went completely berserk if one said one hadn't done the homework.... She's scary. Seriously scary.


:laugh::laugh: We've all been there



Well finally you say it's bad, now there's a win!

I said it's disgusting that it is necessary at times. But nice try ;)





If you come to beat me up but don't because you're scared, no it isn't violence.

By wuss I meant like powder puff. Can't throw a punch. Couldn't hurt a fly :lol:







Yes he did.

And it was necessary, no matter how disgusting, for your survival (or at least some violence, somewhere probably will be. Cats must eat some kind of meat, or they will die. Are cats evil?)





No I really wouldn't be happy about it, but then again, you really don't need my finger to survive and thus using unnecessary violence.

NO! I must eay yo fingas!! :mad:

[Noinu]

I can show that I'm using an established definition, while you (seem to be) making one up :D

Well basically 'cause when it comes to something as personal as the feeling of being hurt, I don't really care about established definitions. Kind of like I don't agree with the established definition of depression; most cases of depression are resulted on a bad event which would only constitute incredible sadness.
Just because there is someone elses definition on something, doesn't mean I have to believe in it.



YES! Yes you are! "Mr Noinu, you are under arrest. Come peacefully, or we will detain you with force."Well just for calling me a Mr. I could just punch someone. And I shouldn't get away with it.


I'd love to live in your liberal bourgie town :laugh: The cops out here are corrup assholes.Sounds awful.

My town doesn't even have cops....we share them with three other towns (*cough* the ten police officers...)



So now there's a qualifier of an "actor" for your definition, not just "things that make me hurt?" Oh how funny.



By wuss I meant like powder puff. Can't throw a punch. Couldn't hurt a fly :lol: Well, no I probably wouldn't see that as violence either. Would make me laugh though.




And it was necessary, no matter how disgusting, for your survival (or at least some violence, somewhere probably will be. Cats must eat some kind of meat, or they will die. Are cats evil?) Are we now discussing the nature of cats and other animals or just humans? I seem to be getting slightly confused.



NO! I must eay yo fingas!! :mad:Poor you

[Revolution starts with U]

Well basically 'cause when it comes to something as personal as the feeling of being hurt, I don't really care about established definitions. Kind of like I don't agree with the established definition of depression; most cases of depression are resulted on a bad event which would only constitute incredible sadness.
Just because there is someone elses definition on something, doesn't mean I have to believe in it.

Geez, all you had to say was "appeal to authority fallacy."



Well just for calling me a Mr. I could just punch someone. And I shouldn't get away with it.

My bad, mademoiselle. I had no way of knowing :blushing:
Sounds awful.



My town doesn't even have cops....we share them with three other towns (*cough* the ten police officers...)

There's about 10 cops per town, way more in the city.




Well, no I probably wouldn't see that as violence either. Would make me laugh though.

I guess you just have a very conservative (and by that I don't mean politcally conservative) view on the definition of violence.




Are we now discussing the nature of cats and other animals or just humans? I seem to be getting slightly confused.

In my view, humans are just animals with a different lifestyle.



Poor you

I don't need your pity for my incessant need to eat fingers! :mad:

[Noinu]

Geez, all you had to say was "appeal to authority fallacy."

Meh, too easy.



My bad, mademoiselle. I had no way of knowing :blushing:


Well... it kinda says it in my info ;) Besides, not that big of a deal.


Sounds awful.

I'm not sure to which sentence this should belong too so I'll just leave it here...



There's about 10 cops per town, way more in the city.

I would actually like that a bit more, the people driving near my home are crazy idiots and deserve to get fined... there just aren't enough police to do that...




I guess you just have a very conservative (and by that I don't mean politcally conservative) view on the definition of violence.

Well then, I guess one just has to leave it at that, eh? :)



In my view, humans are just animals with a different lifestyle.

You're quite right there.



I don't need your pity for my incessant need to eat fingers! :mad:

Oh but on the contrary, finger eating is a very sad business. All the looks you must get and all the hatred from the finger losers and their families. Poor you...

[Revolution starts with U]

Your pity makes me feel violated. Stop bringing violence against me, it hurts... spiritually :crying:

[Noinu]

Your pity makes me feel violated. Stop bringing violence against me, it hurts... spiritually :crying:

Well then, I'm sorry for violating you.

[danyboy27]

anything with the goal to restrict other peoples will is a form of violence, and in that sense even trought self discipline, we use violence against ourself to control our will and impulse to have a particular result.

by locking down a pathological rapist, you make him suffer, beccause he can no longer satisfy his instinct and pleasure of raping, that violence, but its necessary to protect society against more violence.

I suspect that this whole hatred for violence is the dirrect legacy of christianity and other organised religion. Beccause its easier to control people when the only ''right'' violence is divine.

[Ele'ill]

Pacifism as pathology.

[Ele'ill]

Excellent post

[danyboy27]

pacifism is a method some people found to stop suffering, kinda like morphine.

The problem is, just like morphine, if you become addicted, you cant feel or support suffering, even when its necessary.

Suffering is necessary for a human to develop, this is how we learn, by doing mistake, getting burned and learning from it.

Book, arts, crafts of all sort couldnt have been possible without some sort of violence and suffering, Efforts are nothing but violence, pain and suffering combined together to create something wonderful.

by trying too much to avoid violence and suffering, we stop learning, humanity stop learning.

[Bud Struggle]

anything with the goal to restrict other peoples will is a form of violence,

OI? :D

And what if people want to live under Buddists monks in Tibet or Catholic authority in Poland? Should you use guns to "enlighten" them?

If people are happy being who and what they are--shouldn't we leave them alone?

If the truth doens't make you happy and make for a better life--what use is it?

[ComradeMan]

When I grabbed a boy's arm and pulled him quickly back onto the pavement to stop him from running in front of a car (his ball rolled out in the road) it was also "violent" but I think we know the difference. Of course it was violent, and of course I was stopping him from following his own will and imposing mine but I think we have to look at the qualitative differences too.

[Ele'ill]

OI? :D

You are free to come and go as you see fit- our kitchen and bedrooms are off-limits.


And what if people want to live under Buddists monks in Tibet or Catholic authority in Poland? Should you use guns to "enlighten" them?

What? They're free to do as they wish so long as they are not adversely affecting others in the process.


If people are happy being who and what they are--shouldn't we leave them alone?

Not if they're adversely affecting others in the process.

[Ele'ill]

When I grabbed a boy's arm and pulled him quickly back onto the pavement to stop him from running in front of a car (his ball rolled out in the road) it was also "violent" but I think we know the difference. Of course it was violent, and of course I was stopping him from following his own will and imposing mine but I think we have to look at the qualitative differences too.

Yeah, 'violence' still has a core definition-

Definition of VIOLENCE

1
a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence#) house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outrage)

3
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fervor); also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence#) : discordance (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discordance)

4
: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

[Ele'ill]

It's quite a bit of word play though between 'violent' and 'violence' and then considering various actions which neither definition fits or only one or two points from each definition fit.

I think 'what purpose does it serve' is a better way to look at it- as I think scarletghoul mentioned.

[danyboy27]

OI? :D

And what if people want to live under Buddists monks in Tibet or Catholic authority in Poland? Should you use guns to "enlighten" them?

If people are happy being who and what they are--shouldn't we leave them alone?

If the truth doens't make you happy and make for a better life--what use is it?
nothing, nothing in what i said suggest that religious minorities or religious groups should be violently supressed, you misunderstood me again bud.

[Revolution starts with U]

If people want to live under Tibetan monks, that's fine. I would support them.
Can you show me popular support for the return of the theocratic system? Even the Dalai Llama said were he put back in power he would make his country democratic.
Nobody wants to live under feudalism except large land owners.