|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:51 am
If someone is using violence against you, does it mitigate the use of violence back? In some cases, such as rape or attempted murder, then yes it does. However, surely in lots of cases retaliation makes you just as bad and frequently worse then the original person. Can destruction of private or personal property be allowed if that person has done wrong in the eyes of the retaliator.
I don't think so. In my opinion, violence of any kind is pointless, retaliating does nothing but worsen the situation. Think how much harder it is to solve a problem with someone when you both have reasons for hating them. If you threw a brick through someones window, and they retaliated by throwing one back, it's much harder to forgive each other. And for me, forgivness is the epitome of peace, you can't have peace if there is no forgivness, only unspoken hatred and tension that will get worse.
Is violence good when used in a moral cause? Hm, I think not for isn't being violent immoral in itself? How then can you say your cause is moral if your means of fighting it is immoral? Does the cause justify the means? I think not because something that is truly moral in cause cannot be truly gained through an immoral, violent, means. Take the slave trade. It's liberation was gained through violence, and that was for a good cause. Yes, it's very good that the slaves were liberated indeed. However, it was until about 1960 until slavery was completely abolished and still there is so much segregation and racism.
Then look at the liberation of India by Ghandi. He was totally peacful, and India is now a prospering country.
Also genocide under religious pretenses. If violence is immoral, does that make this "God" immoral for inciting the violence? If we say violence is wrong on all counts, then that would make violence under religious pretenses wrong. But does that make the religions themselves wrong or the God they're fighting for immoral? Yes, I think so.
Anyway, just a few thoughts...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:34 pm
Violence is incredibly cool - people confronting their problems, physically enforcing their views and opinions on others.
What's not cool is people dying or getting hurt.
If War just had lots of pretty explosions and everybody got to go home intact afterwards, I'd be in The Army ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:47 pm
Needless violence is stupid, but there are times when talking just ain't gonna work, and a short, sharp shock is necessary (applies from a personal scale all the way up to an international level).
But, yes, blood feuds are silly, often bred of an airy word (Shakespeare ftw! xd )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:29 am
greatdevourer Needless violence is stupid, but there are times when talking just ain't gonna work, and a short, sharp shock is necessary (applies from a personal scale all the way up to an international level). But, yes, blood feuds are silly, often bred of an airy word (Shakespeare ftw! xd )What would you class as a 'short, sharp, shock' on an international level? confused An atomic bomb, perhaps? surprised I wouldn't describe wars as ever being short; the aftermath of violence on an international level lasts for a long, long time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:41 am
Emmanuela Then look at the liberation of India by Ghandi. He was totally peacful, and India is now a prospering country. I really admire Ghandi tactics of non-violent direct action. It did work very well in India. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" However, Ghandi's advice to Britian when Nazi Germany was threatening to invade us was: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." I don't really agree with this! If you're being invaded self defence is justifable. Sticking to a totally pacisfist agenda, as Ghandi suggests, and allowing yourself and your family to be slaughtered is going a bit too far in my opinion! xd What would have been the outcome of World War II had Ghandi been in charge of Britian...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:36 am
Badgerkin Emmanuela Then look at the liberation of India by Ghandi. He was totally peacful, and India is now a prospering country. I really admire Ghandi tactics of non-violent direct action. It did work very well in India. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" However, Ghandi's advice to Britian when Nazi Germany was threatening to invade us was: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." I don't really agree with this! If you're being invaded self defence is justifable. Sticking to a totally pacisfist agenda, as Ghandi suggests, and allowing yourself and your family to be slaughtered is going a bit too far in my opinion! xd What would have been the outcome of World War II had Ghandi been in charge of Britian... Indeed, I think that if someone is oppressing you then you have the choice to retaliate but under different circumstances it can be either right or wrong to retaliate. I agree with you there, I'm glad they didn't follow his advice in the 2nd world war! However, non-violence is usually the best way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:38 pm
Emmanuela However, non-violence is usually the best way. So your saying violence is bad while the others are saying its good except when theres someone hurt? rugged Violence is incredibly cool - people confronting their problems, physically enforcing their views and opinions on others. What's not cool is people dying or getting hurt But this is what wikipedia says Wikipedia Violence is any act of aggression and abuse that causes or intends to cause injury to persons (and by some definitions animals or property). So I'm completly confused xp .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:08 am
Septomor Emmanuela However, non-violence is usually the best way. So your saying violence is bad while the others are saying its good except when theres someone hurt? rugged Violence is incredibly cool - people confronting their problems, physically enforcing their views and opinions on others. What's not cool is people dying or getting hurt But this is what wikipedia says Wikipedia Violence is any act of aggression and abuse that causes or intends to cause injury to persons (and by some definitions animals or property). So I'm completly confused xp . I find the topic a little confusing because I think not only do people have different ideas about whether violence is acceptable, if it is ever acceptable and if so under what circumstances it is acceptable, but people also have different defintions of what 'violence' actually entails. I would class violence as an act of abuse to both people or animals i.e. any creature that can be hurt/suffer/feel pain, but I think causing damage to property is vandalisim rather than violence. (this doesn't mean I think vandalism is always right - it's just a different thing) Does an act of violence need to include aggression and anger to be violent? I'm not sure, I think it does...but then does that make the act of coldly and logically torturing a person (eg. a supposed terrorism suspect) for money or information not an act of violence? confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:13 am
Badgerkin I find the topic a little confusing because I think not only do people have different ideas about whether violence is acceptable, if it is ever acceptable and if so under what circumstances it is acceptable, but people also have different defintions of what 'violence' actually entails. I would class violence as an act of abuse to both people or animals i.e. any creature that can be hurt/suffer/feel pain, but I think causing damage to property is vandalisim rather than violence. (this doesn't mean I think vandalism is always right - it's just a different thing) Does an act of violence need to include aggression and anger to be violent? I'm not sure, I think it does...but then does that make the act of coldly and logically torturing a person (eg. a supposed terrorism suspect) for money or information not an act of violence? confused Hm, I think that torture and vandalism come under a catagory of violence. It's an interesting issue because there are lots of different sides, mitigating circumstances and other things that affect the use of violence in different cases. Septomor Emmanuela However, non-violence is usually the best way. So your saying violence is bad while the others are saying its good except when theres someone hurt? Noooon, violence is bad apart from when someone is being violent against you, such as rape or murder, when self defence is needed. Ok, violence is only acceptable when used as selfdefence. I think that works for most things...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:25 am
Emmanuela Ok, violence is only acceptable when used as selfdefence. I think that works for most things... Okay so violence is acceptable as self-defence - but what about using violence to defend someone else who is being hurt? Especially someone who is not as capaple of defending themselves as you might be eg. a child being abused, an elderly person being mugged, or a puppy being beaten. I think it is acceptable to use the minimum amount of force neccessary to defend someone else who is having violence used against them. Also, I class vandalism of an inanimate object as being less bad than physically assulting and using violence against a person or animal. Would you agree that (although both actions are wrong) you would be more upset if someone violently attacked a friend of yours and broke their nose than if the same friend had their car scratched and the wing mirror snapped off by a vandal? Therefore, in some situations I think it is acceptable to damage an inanimate object in order to prevent an act of violence, 'the greater evil' being carried out against a person or animal. eg. damaging a badger trap to prevent it being used to catch and kill a badger. I also believe it is acceptable to damage property to prevent the suffering of a human or animal, which also applies to the badger trap situation, or cutting an animal out of a snare. Another example is when I was out on a Ten Tors expedition on the moors - I had a compass hanging on string and a map in a waterproof pocket round my neck and I was wearing a rain mac which had dangaling straps under my chin. It was windy and all the strings got tangled and twisted tight around my throat until I was gasping and nearly chocking >.> The team leader cut through all the cords, damaging the rain mac and map equipment but relieving me from my discomfort. biggrin Another example of damaging property to prevent suffering is the situation of a dog being left in a car on a hot day. This happens quite often, sadly and a dog can die from overheating in a relativly short amount of time. If you saw a car parked in a supermarket car park on a hot summer day with a panicking, panting, distressed dog (or a child?) inside would you break the car window to save the dog? This actually happened to a friend of mine - she broke a car window and got the dog a drink and it was a good job she did because it was another half an hour before the owners returned. These are just my opinions and I guess that most of you will probably disagree with me, >.< but it makes sense to me anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:37 am
Badgerkin Okay so violence is acceptable as self-defence - but what about using violence to defend someone else who is being hurt? Especially someone who is not as capaple of defending themselves as you might be eg. a child being abused, an elderly person being mugged, or a puppy being beaten. I think it is acceptable to use the minimum amount of force neccessary to defend someone else who is having violence used against them. Oh, yes, I didn't think of that one. But wouldn't that still be defence and not attack? Quote: Also, I class vandalism of an inanimate object as being less bad than physically assulting and using violence against a person or animal. Would you agree that (although both actions are wrong) you would be more upset if someone violently attacked a friend of yours and broke their nose than if the same friend had their car scratched and the wing mirror snapped off by a vandal? True, violence against an inanimate object is less then an animate object, however under certain situations I think it can be the other way round. Such as if someone (or something) set your house on fire that destroyed everything you had, even though you were hardly hurt, isn't that worse then if you had a broken arm? An arm can be healed, but there are probably irriplacable objects in your house. Quote: Another example of damaging property to prevent suffering is the situation of a dog being left in a car on a hot day. This happens quite often, sadly and a dog can die from overheating in a relativly short amount of time. If you saw a car parked in a supermarket car park on a hot summer day with a panicking, panting, distressed dog (or a child?) inside would you break the car window to save the dog? This actually happened to a friend of mine - she broke a car window and got the dog a drink and it was a good job she did because it was another half an hour before the owners returned. Yes, this would be where the means are far more important then the way. You can replace cars, but you can't replace an animal's (that includes humans) life. Where violence is needed to prevent something worse then happening, self preservation or preservation of other living beings then it is acceptable. Hm, there are probably things wrong with that statement tooXD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:46 am
Septomor rugged Violence is incredibly cool - people confronting their problems, physically enforcing their views and opinions on others. What's not cool is people dying or getting hurt But this is what wikipedia says Wikipedia Violence is any act of aggression and abuse that causes or intends to cause injury to persons (and by some definitions animals or property). So I'm completly confused xp . Yeah..... which is why Violence isn't cool in Real Life. You can be Violent on a Video Game, but nobody gets hurt - hence I highlighted that Violence without the infliction of actual harm is cool. Septomor Emmanuela However, non-violence is usually the best way. So your saying violence is bad while the others are saying its good except when theres someone hurt? If "the others" is me, then yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:39 pm
Emmanuela Septomor Emmanuela However, non-violence is usually the best way. So your saying violence is bad while the others are saying its good except when theres someone hurt? Noooon, violence is bad apart from when someone is being violent against you, such as rape or murder, when self defence is needed. I was saying that the others in this thread such as rugged are saying that violence is good, while your saying its bad Anyways violence is the start and Self-defense is the replied message. Self-defense isn't violence if you get even but if you go overboard then you started another chain of violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:16 pm
I am a firm believer in self defense of all sorts. If he is violently forcing himself on me, I sure as hell can kill him.
I also ask, what do you do in an opressive situation (on a national level)? Take the US Revolution, The French Revolution (but to be fair that did turn out to be as brutal (if not more) and opressive as the previous state of things), etc.... Should the people in Sudan not fight back against their attackers? I believe that there are some situations where talking just doesnt work anymore. As with most things, I dont think that you can say that it is all bad, but it is rarely good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:22 pm
Septomor Emmanuela Septomor Emmanuela However, non-violence is usually the best way. So your saying violence is bad while the others are saying its good except when theres someone hurt? Noooon, violence is bad apart from when someone is being violent against you, such as rape or murder, when self defence is needed. I was saying that the others in this thread such as rugged are saying that violence is good, while your saying its bad Oi!!! Don't be misquoting me!! XD I didn't say real Violence was good - as she describes it, I have to agree with her entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
