Quote:
Originally posted by analog
Violence <b>can</b> solve <b>some</b> things. *Random sarcastic comments I decided to remove before posting*.
You <b>cannot</b> say that in ALL cases, there is a non-violent way to solve things, and make them equal- or even CLOSE to equal. Automatically eliminating an option (violence) from your problem-solving methods makes your methods weaker.
I would like to convey my thoughts on this, as a serious debate of the specific pros and cons using examples and reasoning. Consider for a moment, if you will:
If you don't consider violence as an option, which is obviously the most drastic measure, then how can you accurately measure the relative pluses/minuses of your other options?
Example- If a guy grabs your wife or girlfriend on the ass, you have several options open to you.
You can...
1. tell him his actions were inappropriate, and that if someone did that to HIS wife, or sister, or mother, or daughter, HE'D not like it either (a good, non-violent answer to the problem)
2. punch him in the face
3. punch him in the face and then beat the shit out of him while he's crying on the ground...
if you don't take into consideration ALL available options, you'd fail to see the TRUE power of each option, and you will not be as ready to handle the situation should it turn toward violence, which you'd not originally considered.
If he were to then tell you "fuck off, you want to make something of it?", and PUSHED you, and you'd originally not considered an act of violence as a possible option, you could suddenly and- without thinking- react to his pushing with a return of violence or take too long in reacting to his violence, giving him an edge over you. You've now put yourself AND the person you're trying to protect into actual jeopardy. <i>Now</i> try to resolve it without violence.
In any situation, regardless of what facet of life you're talking about, you can never really master the art of negotiation and fully control your surroundings unless you consider every option available to you, and fully understand the benefits and risks of them.
That is why, in my opinion, saying "violence solves nothing", and immediately dismissing it, can only be a detriment to your decision-making skills, making you less effective than someone else.
Few people have friends like me. The thought of such has never deterred me from doing what I feel is necessary, but I DO consider the possibility- and the consequences of my decisions.
(wow, i CAN have a calm debate! lol  )
|
That case is very different from the one I was criticizing you about. You were talking about using violence to get revenge on someone who would dare touch "your people".
Violence didn't solve anything. Let me get one thing clear. When I say "violence", I mean the destructive way to deal with things. I every situation, I believe there are 2 general paths you can choose: that of "construction" and that of "destruction". Destruction is
always easier. Destruction gives you instant gratification at the expense of long term damages. This, I believe, applies to
everything .
Quote:
|
If you don't consider violence as an option, which is obviously the most drastic measure, then how can you accurately measure the relative pluses/minuses of your other options?
|
It's because I've considered the violent option that I'm having this debate with you. I did consider it and I've come to the same conclusion for every situation I've ever been in and most likely will ever be in in my life.
Now, Id like to get back to your example. You didn't make it very clear which option you thought was the best. I don't know if you meant punching him in the face was the best option so I'll wait for your reply. If you want, you can include another example in which you consider violence would be the best option and I'll try to debate it.