Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

door · 05-26-2004, 07:23 AM

also, techoya, most of your "TRUTHS" are not truths, but rather Likelyhoods- You must admit.

You yourself admit that there are exceptions to your rules.

Love and Violence aren't opposits logically- perhaps in your perception it would seem impossible to be violent to those you love. But this is not so in reality-

First violence defined: simply put, it is the taking away or interupting of anothers autonomy (with scale of course). So to do something against an agenst wishes (give them a shot of ant-venom) might be a tiny violent act, since the WISHES of the agent aren't increadibly strong. Killing someone, on the otherhand is INTENSLY violent since to live is the primary wish of most everyone.

If you want to define it as something else, you will have problems- since the physical acts involved can be removed and it still be violent it seems. Don't equate violence with gore, please.

so if my interpretation and definition is correct (and most modern scholars would agree) then sometimes love CAUSES violence and can both exist harmoniously in an agent.

If I love my child, and I spank them to teach them not to do something dangerous again, I am loving and violent. But if your against spanking, then what if I make him take his medication against his will so that he wont die of pnemonia. Or how about if I step in the way of a gunshot for my wife, even if she would will that SHE die instead of me? Thats my LOVE breaking her autonomy. So I am violent and full of love.

SO love and violence cannot be opposits.

Also, while peace is a good and nobel goal, it cannot be, itself, the ultimate goal. Why peace? because violence is bad (thats the normal answer). or because it allows the betterment of mankind through progression. Either way it isn't the love of peace but rather the hate of violence or love of some other thing.

Once this is realized, the TRUE desire of your hearts can be sought. Why peace? if it is because violence is bad, we should do everything possible to stop violence in a lasting way for the most people. This, sometimes, requires violence itself.

1 man will kill 1000 and he is doing GREAT violence; he can be killed and that is the only way to prevent it. so I must do violence to prevent violence. OR perhaps all I must do is imprison him. But he doesn't want to go to prison. So I must catch him, knock him to the ground, and cuff him. I must also do violence by removing his autonomy in jailing him.

It is easy to reap the benefits of War and Violence while attacking them isn't it? Peace is kept, not caused. All of history should prove this as the most likely of possibilities by far.

So what then? I say that since violence is bad, we must prevent violene maximally. So the least violence needed to prevent the most violence is the correct action then right?

05-26-2004, 07:23 AM	#11 (permalink)
door Upright	also, techoya, most of your "TRUTHS" are not truths, but rather Likelyhoods- You must admit. You yourself admit that there are exceptions to your rules. Love and Violence aren't opposits logically- perhaps in your perception it would seem impossible to be violent to those you love. But this is not so in reality- First violence defined: simply put, it is the taking away or interupting of anothers autonomy (with scale of course). So to do something against an agenst wishes (give them a shot of ant-venom) might be a tiny violent act, since the WISHES of the agent aren't increadibly strong. Killing someone, on the otherhand is INTENSLY violent since to live is the primary wish of most everyone. If you want to define it as something else, you will have problems- since the physical acts involved can be removed and it still be violent it seems. Don't equate violence with gore, please. so if my interpretation and definition is correct (and most modern scholars would agree) then sometimes love CAUSES violence and can both exist harmoniously in an agent. If I love my child, and I spank them to teach them not to do something dangerous again, I am loving and violent. But if your against spanking, then what if I make him take his medication against his will so that he wont die of pnemonia. Or how about if I step in the way of a gunshot for my wife, even if she would will that SHE die instead of me? Thats my LOVE breaking her autonomy. So I am violent and full of love. SO love and violence cannot be opposits. Also, while peace is a good and nobel goal, it cannot be, itself, the ultimate goal. Why peace? because violence is bad (thats the normal answer). or because it allows the betterment of mankind through progression. Either way it isn't the love of peace but rather the hate of violence or love of some other thing. Once this is realized, the TRUE desire of your hearts can be sought. Why peace? if it is because violence is bad, we should do everything possible to stop violence in a lasting way for the most people. This, sometimes, requires violence itself. 1 man will kill 1000 and he is doing GREAT violence; he can be killed and that is the only way to prevent it. so I must do violence to prevent violence. OR perhaps all I must do is imprison him. But he doesn't want to go to prison. So I must catch him, knock him to the ground, and cuff him. I must also do violence by removing his autonomy in jailing him. It is easy to reap the benefits of War and Violence while attacking them isn't it? Peace is kept, not caused. All of history should prove this as the most likely of possibilities by far. So what then? I say that since violence is bad, we must prevent violene maximally. So the least violence needed to prevent the most violence is the correct action then right?