Is violence ever the answer?

[Nihilego]

Simple question, but one which could probably make a good discussion. There's a lot of violence in the world today; you can see this in wars, crime, media, etc. Why? I imagine one of the reasons is because a lot of people consider violence the answer to problems. This sounds a weak answer right now, but consider, where would talking about it (or anything else!) get us? Anywhere? Everywhere? Idk. What do you think, OC? Is violence ever the answer, and if so, where?

 

[Jellicent♀]

I'm not sure where talking would get us. With some people it wouldn't get us anywhere at all. However, I will never say that violence is the answer. Ever. I just won't. I don't know what it is in me that prevents me from thinking that, but I just truly do not believe in relying on violence to solve anything. I don't support any war that has ever happened and I never will. I'm not exactly the most popular due to that, but I just don't understand why killing someone who killed someone else magically makes everything all right in the world. It just causes more retaliation, in my opinion.
I just want everyone to get along. :'c

 

[Livewire]

Try talking down Adolph Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, or Saddam Huissein. Violence solved those problems pretty well.

 

[Oryx]

I don't support any war that has ever happened and I never will. I'm not exactly the most popular due to that, but I just don't understand why killing someone who killed someone else magically makes everything all right in the world. It just causes more retaliation, in my opinion.

This is a rather extreme stance to take and I'd like to hear more about it if you don't mind. Do you believe that World War II was unwarranted and that Hitler should have been talked into submission until he confessed? What's your alternative solutions for the dictators of the world, the people that commit genocide, the people that will continue to kill and pillage as long as they remain alive and able to?

Death and violence certainly happen more in our world than is necessary, but there are some times when it is the only solution. If someone is attacking you and there's no one around to help you, I don't see the problem with fighting back, although that's violence. If someone is killing thousands or millions of people and won't stop unless a war is begun, I don't see the problem with starting a war to end the genocide.

 

[U.Flame]

If someone is trying to kill or at least injure someone you know, i'm pretty sure the automatic response is to beat the crap out of the offender.

 

[Jellicent♀]

This is a rather extreme stance to take and I'd like to hear more about it if you don't mind. Do you believe that World War II was unwarranted and that Hitler should have been talked into submission until he confessed? What's your alternative solutions for the dictators of the world, the people that commit genocide, the people that will continue to kill and pillage as long as they remain alive and able to?

Death and violence certainly happen more in our world than is necessary, but there are some times when it is the only solution. If someone is attacking you and there's no one around to help you, I don't see the problem with fighting back, although that's violence. If someone is killing thousands or millions of people and won't stop unless a war is begun, I don't see the problem with starting a war to end the genocide.

Honestly I wish I knew. I truly do. Hitler needed to be taken down, I just don't believe in any justification for killing another human. I just don't. This anger swells inside of me when i hear people carrying on a conversation, "Oh, yaddah-yaddah deserved to die be cause of blankity blank." I wish I knew what to do with them, but for me, killing just isn't the answer. That doesn't mean I don't support the troops. I mean these people are putting their lives on the line for something they feel very passionate for, I just don't support killing of any kind.
I know people disagree, which is fine, of course, I just won't be supporting their opinion. Are they wrong? That's up to them to decide, I have no clue which is right or wrong, I just won't agree to killing someone.

I don't know how else to explain it, really. :/

 

[U.Flame]

I don't think so. Violence just leads to more violence, and it just makes more problems.

I don't mean "revenge" fight, I mean "get the hell off my friend" fight.

 

[Oryx]

I don't think so. Violence just leads to more violence, and it just makes more problems.

I'm going to requote what I asked Jellicent to you.

This is a rather extreme stance to take and I'd like to hear more about it if you don't mind. Do you believe that World War II was unwarranted and that Hitler should have been talked into submission until he confessed? What's your alternative solutions for the dictators of the world, the people that commit genocide, the people that will continue to kill and pillage as long as they remain alive and able to?

I feel like everyone who believes that violence is never the answer should account for World War II tbh.

 

[Esper]

War against the Nazi's wouldn't have had to happen if we hadn't bankrupted Germany after WWI and left it vulnerable to the kind of craziness that Hilter and his bunch pushed. Yes, they did come to power and violence did stop them, but it didn't have to be that way. What I mean to say is that we had a lot of opportunities to keep something crazy from happening and we missed them all and left ourselves with only the option of war. Fighting them was our worst, last option because the world was too stupid and selfish to look to the future.

We can make violence unnecessary if we plan properly and do whatever we can to educate and help people. If we do that and just make the world a better place for everyone you'll only see the kind of person-to-person violence from mentally disturbed people that can be solved with non-lethal means most of the time. I don't believe that there is ever not a non-violent option to solve a problem, just that we often aren't careful enough, smart enough, or willing enough to choose the non-violent option.

 

[BeliVuk]

War against the Nazi's wouldn't have had to happen if we hadn't bankrupted Germany after WWI and left it vulnerable to the kind of craziness that Hilter and his bunch pushed. Yes, they did come to power and violence did stop them, but it didn't have to be that way. What I mean to say is that we had a lot of opportunities to keep something crazy from happening and we missed them all and left ourselves with only the option of war. Fighting them was our worst, last option because the world was too stupid and selfish to look to the future.

We can make violence unnecessary if we plan properly and do whatever we can to educate and help people. If we do that and just make the world a better place for everyone you'll only see the kind of person-to-person violence from mentally disturbed people that can be solved with non-lethal means most of the time. I don't believe that there is ever not a non-violent option to solve a problem, just that we often aren't careful enough, smart enough, or willing enough to choose the non-violent option.

It's partial though, how war against the nazis was good but the cold war was bad.

Communists statistically killed more people than the nazis, so wasn't it kinda partial to fight the nazis but not the communists?

And because I will be accused, no I am not a nazi or a sympathiser, I'm someone who prefers the ugly truth to the pretty lie.

 

[pokecole]

I think what the people who believe that there should be no violence are trying to say is dont start it. Everyone who believes violence is needed sometimes are correct, but as long as violence isnt started first, then there is no need. Thats what the anti-violence people are saying.
But honestly, i think that is not true. Because then people could do whatever they'd want. "Hey, i think you're stupid and blablabla" people could say anything, and what would the person that was aimed at do? Go "Hey that wasn't very nice. Stop please." In today's society, that wouldn't go very far until somebody ends up punching someone in the face. I believe violence is a part of human nature, not just humans, but all animals. When two wolves want a mate, they don't bark and communicate and talk it out. They tear each other apart. Even if the could talk, just like people, it wouldn't stop much.

 

[Oryx]

We can make violence unnecessary if we plan properly and do whatever we can to educate and help people. If we do that and just make the world a better place for everyone you'll only see the kind of person-to-person violence from mentally disturbed people that can be solved with non-lethal means most of the time. I don't believe that there is ever not a non-violent option to solve a problem, just that we often aren't careful enough, smart enough, or willing enough to choose the non-violent option.

I agree that in an ideal world violence would never be the answer, because there would be other ways to deal with things and the worst things would be artfully avoided. However, I am speaking from the viewpoint of this world we live in now, where mistakes are made then violence becomes the only real solution. Before WWII there may have well been other solutions, but once it got to that point, what other solution was there? At that specific point in time, I don't see what could have been done that was non-violent and solved the issue of millions of people being killed.

I would like to point out that non-lethal and non-violent are two different things. You can be violent without being lethal. So as far as solving person-to-person crime in non-lethal means, I agree that that should happen in all situations but the most dire kill or be killed ones. But non-violent in that kind of crime I can't agree with, because as I mentioned before I'm fully behind the right of the victim of a crime to fight back against their attacker.

 

[Esper]

I agree that in an ideal world violence would never be the answer, because there would be other ways to deal with things and the worst things would be artfully avoided. However, I am speaking from the viewpoint of this world we live in now, where mistakes are made then violence becomes the only real solution. Before WWII there may have well been other solutions, but once it got to that point, what other solution was there? At that specific point in time, I don't see what could have been done that was non-violent and solved the issue of millions of people being killed.

One thing that springs to mind is that the Allies could have agreed to a cease-fire and offered to take all the "undesirable" people from the Nazi's and let them live in the UK, America, etc. They could have said "Ya know, all that stuff we did to you after WWI? Yeah, sorry, our bad. Let us make it up to you." Not really ideal, but like I said, they had a lots of chances and blew them.

 

[BeliVuk]

One thing that springs to mind is that the Allies could have agreed to a cease-fire and offered to take all the "undesirable" people from the Nazi's and let them live in the UK, America, etc. They could have said "Ya know, all that stuff we did to you after WWI? Yeah, sorry, our bad. Let us make it up to you." Not really ideal, but like I said, they had a lots of chances and blew them.

Great Britain was actually considering joining with Germany during WW2.

 

[zephyr6257]

sorry for being pokemon-related, but I can't help link this to the fact that pokemon battles are the only way to send team XXX running away. :) eh. (now think of something to add to it so it doesn't stay pokemon related....)
...
...
...
weell, I agree with team fail. there is absolutely no way that violence does not lead to some more violence. it may to be the only way to respond when threatened, but you'll be obviously returned with the same answer.
...
but then again, my signature says otherwise. XD

 

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

In extreme cases, I have to settle down issues with violence, but I try to minimize it.

 

[Blade_of_darkness]

There are times in which talking & negotiating will end up falling short, & that one would have to raise their fist instead. In these cases, violence is the only answer, as the antagonists end up forcing the good guys to fight them.

Though there are some cases in which they can be talked down, & in these, I don't condone unnecessary use of it.

 

[The Void]

Violence is only the answer if and only if you are faced with violence yourself, and negotiating/talking doesn't work. For example, a bully in school. If the bully corners you, mocks whatever you say, turns a deaf ear at you, and you two are the only ones in class, would you just sit around and try making peace? No! You'll fight back of course! But in the least violent way possible. Violence should only be used as a last resort. Before resorting to violence, one must think first about the situation and what can be done to solve this problem without resorting to violence unless you are required to fight back immediately. You could try running away, calling the authorities, or negotiating.

 

[Gamzee]

Depends on the situation for me.

WW2? Yeah, sure, it was probably necessary if we wanted to protect innocent people from the axis powers.

Say, the civil rights movement? MLK's use of nonviolence as opposed to inciting riots and brutally attacking opposition was smart.

In your average day to day life? Never.

 

[twocows]

I'm a pacifist, for the most part. Or at the very least, I think killing is never justified. Killing someone is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Most problems we can work out through dialogue. The real bad ones, where people are going around massacring others... well, I don't see why we can't use non-lethal weaponry. It'd be a bigger drain on our resources keeping them as prisoners of war, but I value human life more highly than money.

Maybe it's completely unrealistic, but I still hold it up as an ideal. Human life and happiness are pretty much the only things I hold sacred. I may compromise a lot, but I'm not going to compromise on that.

EDIT: It's worth noting that I don't have a problem with violence. Sometimes the best way to work out a problem is with fists. Heck, I'm still friends with this one guy, we beat the crap out of each other back in junior high after I had a problem with something he did.

There's really nothing inherently wrong with a fistfight. The problem is when people take it too far and permanently injure or kill someone.