PDA

View Full Version : Violence


Esper
November 7th, 2011, 11:12 AM
[css-div="background-color:#F7FBFE; height:18px;width:600px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:4px;-moz-border-radius-bottomright:4px;-moz-border-radius-topleft:4px;-moz-border-radius-topright:4px;"]"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."[/css-div][css-div="background-color:#3B83AD; height:18px;width:600px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:4px;-moz-border-radius-bottomright:4px;-moz-border-radius-topleft:4px;-moz-border-radius-topright:4px;"]"[N]o gentleness can efface the marks of violence; only violence itself can destroy them."[/css-div]


Violence is a very dangerous and harmful thing, and in many cases undeniably wrong, but is it always bad?

The two quotes I put at the beginning of this post represent, I think, the two extreme ends of the argument. One says that violence is always wrong and the other says that only violence can stop violence.

So, are there instances where violence is justifiable and, if so, how much? Is violence limited to physical acts or can words be violent, too? Can good come out of violence or is it a self-perpetuating cycle? (These aren't bullet points so don't copy & paste them into your response, please.)

Impo
November 7th, 2011, 01:00 PM
I believe violence is okay in self defense, but I am very hesitant to ever physically or verbally abuse someone. I guess it's because I haven't actually been in a situation where I've needed to, but I hope when I have to I can defend myself

psyanic
November 7th, 2011, 02:26 PM
My philosophy in violence is that you shouldn't start it. It doesn't matter, never be the initiator. Once violence is brought into the equation, only more will amount up and pile and pile until it becomes an all-out brawl.

But when it is justifiable, I believe the situation would be something like being noble or a hero (sounds cheesy, I know). Or even self-defense, as mentioned above. As long as it's in something to bring the peace, in a way, then I can understand it. However, it should stop as soon as a danger is destroyed, never persist and keep being violent. Violence also relates to words, as I would call them nasty insults or another.

Shiny Celebi
November 7th, 2011, 02:48 PM
In my opinion there is usually no reason to cause harm to any other person for any reason and violence isnt acceptable. Self defence is different because you are being attacked, and must defend yourself. Violence like others have said is more than just physical, its also mental. Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Oryx
November 7th, 2011, 03:09 PM
I wouldn't say violence is always bad. I mean of course there's bad violence; no one will deny that. But it depends so much on other factors that I don't feel like it can be pegged as "only bad always". What if a psycho attacked your friend with you right there, able to stop it with violence? Would it be wrong to stop them?

There are gray areas too, such as spanking a child. I personally feel that that's an acceptable level of violence because of my personal experience of getting spanked and growing up a fine, well-adjusted human being, and often when my mom explained the situations that warranted it, I understood why that was the most logical option. But other people put that under unnecessary violence and believe that it scars children for life. I'm curious as to how posters here would feel about violence in that regard.

Violence in words can happen, but it's not as common as physical violence. That's because every human has the same weak spots, which people can physically attack and hurt the person. But every human has different weak spots emotionally, and the person that knows those spots best are the people close to them. That's why violence in words is mostly perpetrated by the people closest to you and barely anyone else; telling every random person "your boyfriend left you because you can't handle commitment!" is obviously not going to hurt anyone because they don't know you.

Esper
November 8th, 2011, 12:30 PM
There are gray areas too, such as spanking a child. I personally feel that that's an acceptable level of violence because of my personal experience of getting spanked and growing up a fine, well-adjusted human being, and often when my mom explained the situations that warranted it, I understood why that was the most logical option. But other people put that under unnecessary violence and believe that it scars children for life. I'm curious as to how posters here would feel about violence in that regard.
I'm one of those people who think that on the whole spanking shouldn't be done. I think it sets a bad precedence in the minds of the parents. I know that most kids who get spanked end up "perfectly normal" (which seems to be the way everyone always words it for some reason) and most parents don't take it too far, but I think it's just like playing Russian Roulette. Families who do this are going to have kids who do it to their own kids and eventually there will come a kid who will be adversely affected or a parent who won't know how to moderate themselves.

I'm personally curious how people look at the violence that happens around the world, like for instance in Libya with all the fighting it's seen in recent months up to Qaddafi's death. Was violence the right response here? Would something similar be right in, say, North Korea if the people there wanted to take up arms against their government?

Azzurra
November 10th, 2011, 08:06 AM
Being violent is our own animalistic instincts kicking in, giving us the Neanderthal like adrenaline rush we would have experienced from killing our first wild deer.

Esper
November 10th, 2011, 09:31 AM
Being violent is our own animalistic instincts kicking in, giving us the Neanderthal like adrenaline rush we would have experienced from killing our first wild deer.
Are you saying that it's natural for us to be violent (and therefore it's more acceptable) or that it's primitive (and therefore something we advanced humans should avoid lest we slip back into barbarism)?

shenanigans
November 10th, 2011, 01:12 PM
Are you saying that it's natural for us to be violent (and therefore it's more acceptable) or that it's primitive (and therefore something we advanced humans should avoid lest we slip back into barbarism)?

In some cases I'd say it could be both.

Some people are unreasonable and words can't stop them, no matter how violent those words may be. And in those situations all that people really can do is resort to violence. It's unfortunate since as you said, Scarf, it's primitive and barbaric, but it's also instinctive. An instinct which I believe to be vital. If it didn't need to be used in certain situations, it'd probably have been forgotten by now.

As for violence solving things, I think it can sometimes, if no other means are able to. But caution is needed, of course, since it can be used too much too easily. Usually physical violence; you have to know someone pretty well to be able to attack them verbally but just a quick look at them will sum up if it's possible to physically attack them.

Hoenn
November 10th, 2011, 03:01 PM
It's wrong when somebody gets jailed for self defence, what else are you expected to do?

shenanigans
November 10th, 2011, 03:04 PM
It's wrong when somebody gets jailed for self defence, what else are you expected to do?

Wait, you can get jailed for that? That's terrible. Self-defence is absolutely a case where violence is fine, assuming it's used reasonably anyway.

Esper
November 11th, 2011, 09:33 AM
Wait, you can get jailed for that? That's terrible. Self-defence is absolutely a case where violence is fine, assuming it's used reasonably anyway.
That's where I think there's a stronger argument against violence - that it's really hard to say how much is reasonable and how much is too much. Better not to even go there, right? That's one argument at least.