BigBen

When is "A little bit of Violence" appropriate?

My search of the TFP threads (Violence and Justified) revealed the more extreme end of the spectrum, namely that of murder, justifiable homocide et cetera. It also surrounded male violence, which I found odd and concerning.

Redlemon said in another thread that even a small amount of violence is a bad thing, and I have to disagree.

Tell me, fellow TFP'ers, when do you think that "A little bit of violence" is a good thing? No, I am not talking about sporting events here, although Mark Bertuzzi is a saint in my book and gave Moore everything he had coming for that Naslund hit. Ooops, that was in a different thread in Tilted Sports.
Bad Ben, stay on topic and discuss something new!!

Here is what comes off the top of my head:
1. Safety violations that require immediate correction. If you pulled the pin on the grenade when I specifically told you not to, you can expect a swift open hand come across your face. I will then focus your newfound attention in my direction, to prevent further transgressions.

2. If I know that there will be violence coming towards me, I will pre-emptively strike out with "A little" bit of violence to show that I am not one to mess with. You get to see the tip of the iceberg, and are warned to steer your angry ship in a different direction or else I will sink you.

3. Law enforcement, using an escalating amount of force when necessary to control the situation. "A little bit" of violence used to apprehend someone is much better than the lethal force alternative.

Please feel free to add to the list, or debate me in the inclusion of my points.
Remember, to keep the mods happy, if you want to debate me in the Bertuzzi/Moore thing, go to Tilted Sports.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Sage

hrm....

Personally, I think that if one takes the stance of total pacificism, then they give up their right to control their own personal space. If someone comes at you, mad, about to punch you, and you just take it, then you are in effect reenforcing that person's mindset that they can do what they want when they want. However, I don't advocate coming out swinging right away- discussion is always a good idea. That being said, if someone was about to punch Martel you can bet your ass I'd have them on the ground ASAP. I think that "a little bit of violence" in that situation, ie- knocking them to the ground, is much better than just beating them up because they were going to beat you up.

Also, some people don't respond to anything but violence. If North Korea were to have nuclear warheads and say they were going to fire them in X days if the US didn't do Y, well... you couldn't exactaly sit down with their leaders and say "Please don't bomb us." Same thing with some asshats- you just have to let them know you're not a pushover.

__________________

martinguerre

the question isn't when is violence is okay. the question is "what authority gives permission for violence?" i ask the same in greater detail back in the parent thread.

I believe that the modern state is predicated on the idea that the people give up their right to commit violence, and are given it back in very limited circumstances.

personally, i believe violence to be remarkably ineffective in most situations. moral concerns aside, it has shown itself to have distinct limitations in creating positive outcomes.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ustwo

As I stated in the other thread, pain is a learning tool, one we are afraid to use even though its the one we are evolved to listen to the best.

For example, if you insult my wife I will teach you why that is not a good thing to do. I get rather protective of her.

If you in any way shape or form threaten my child, you will learn why that is a bad thing.

And yes, if you are a male, pretending to be a female, and you are giving me oral sex, and I happen to notice you have a dick, odds are I will punch you.

Now perhaps this is just my higher level of testosterone talking due to my exercise program, but I do not think any of the above are unreasonable.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Bill O'Rights

He's an orthodontist, y'know.

Sorry...I just had to.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

zen_tom

If anyone needs to use violence, it's because they have failed in some other aspect.
As Asimov said, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

Strangely, nobody has ever called my wife, mother, grandmother or friends anything other than respectful and pleasant things, and I haven't had to beat anyone in my life!

If someone is stupid enough to be holding a live grenade and starts pulling the pin out - I have to take some <u>responsibility</u> and ask myself, why, in the normal course of events, was I in a situation where someone *that* dumb got to be standing next to me, holding a live grenade? I mean come on...I'd have to be pretty complacent in my day to day life before I found myself having to consider the practical ethics of that situation. Thankfully, I've not had to worry about that one so far.

But all this just sounds like an excuse for a lot of posturing and stating the obvious and the usual "Hurt my family, and I will kill you" lines that you normally hear at this point, so I will respectfully back away and leave you guys to it.

Yes, violence happens. No it's not a good thing. Yes, it happens anyway. Let's at least agree to try and keep it to a minimum please?

Charlatan

Violence is never a good thing. I does happen and should happen a hell of a lot less than it does.

Self-defense is one thing but if you are in a position where you need to use self-defense that is hardly a normal situation.

I agree with Asimov: "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Mr Honest

oh yeah, Asimov that legendary genuis of life. He may have written a few nice kids books about robots but that's it.

Pacifism. ROFL.
As I roll in a ball on the floor getting kicked repeatedly pacifism has won every time.
When someone punches me in the face I give them the other cheek and say 'hit that please sir'

When someone is robbing my home and the few possessions I've worked for in this slave society would I dare resist

I am not a violent person.
But self defense has it's place and violence should always meet violence.
Stand on my foot and apologise of course I won't hit you.
Bump into me accidentally and I won't hit you.
But there are limits to tolerance.

but Ustwo lighten up, a warm sweet mouth is a warm sweet mouth if it's male or female you touchy silly violent man

__________________
Human beings : who could ever claim to like them all?

Yakk

If you threaten/harm someone's family, that person quite possibly should respond to the threat.

Ie, Alice kills Bob's child. Bob kills Alice.

On the other hand, society should punish Bob for killing Alice. Bob should know that the price of revenge includes "life in jail" or "electric chair".

The same holds true of lesser violence. If a man with your consent sucks your dick, you can punch him. You should still be punished, by society, for punching him.

If you attack someone for insulting your wife, you should be punished by society.

In general, violence tends to be a sign that the society itself has failed. It quite possibly is someone's fault (ie, the fact that it is a sign of society's failure doesn't excuse the act), but it means that anarchy has slipped through the cracks.

Note that in this context, boxing and other sports isn't "really" violence.

Society should allow limited violence without punishment: violence in self-defence, for example.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

texxasco

That's a pretty bold, general statement.... What about law enforcement, etc?

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

BigBen

You would be surprised what can happen during grenade training.

All of the careful preparation and planning will still result in someone "Stupid enough to be holding a live grenade and start pulling the pin out."

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

zen_tom

The requirement for law enforcement could be seen as a failure of a society to encourage people to live by its laws voluntarily.

As such, we might view law enforcement as a display of the incompetence of our society to discourage 'anti-social' behaviours.

And, before anyone starts getting arsey, <b>I know</b> that this is never going to happen, <b>I know</b> that the world isn't a perfect place, and <b>I know</b> that there is always going to be violence around every corner. I understand that violence is going to be necessary sometimes, but I'm not going to be happy about that, and I never will be. One way or another, if one person has to be violent, it's due to a failure somewhere down the line.

raeanna74

Violence if never a good thing. Sometimes it may be a necessary thing. I did not choose to be born into a violent family. I stood up for myself one time, I stood up for hubby one time. I have not had to repeat the episodes. So in that case violence or at least appearing to be willing to be violent helped.

I learned a good lesson in elementary school with regards to a bully in a grade above me. I had to stand near him in line frequently. He loved to punch the arms and backs of those standing in line near him. Everyone would inevitably say "STOP IT." Looking back I don't recall any teachers ever stepping in but that's another rabbit trail. I finally got tired of it and decided to take a different tact when dealing with him. I steeled myself and ignored him. I gritted my teeth and suffered several bruises. This only lasted about 3 days. By then he stopped. In fact he started talking to me and I had some pleasant conversations with him. From that time (about 4th grade) until the end of 6th grade he defended me quite frequently when anyone else attempted to pick on me. We were actually fairly good friends and I got to know his sister as well and was friends with her fer several years till our paths went separate ways. Most bullys desire attention. If violence does not work then they are forced to choose a different method. Turning the cheek is not my first instinct and I could not be convinced to do it with regards to anyone else that I love. But when it comes to myself, if it seems like a form of pacifism or ignoring the violent, blustering person might work (without endangering myself more than a few bruises) then I will try it at the very least.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Astrocloud

I think that violence makes hockey worth watching.



With more discussion on this topic here

Ustwo

Ah one of my favorite authors, I love that quote, it was also tongue in cheek

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

zen_tom

It's also ironic in that it suggests, in a roundabout way, that it's the *first* resort of the competent.

tspikes51

Physical pain is the only way that some people will learn their lesson. People respond instantly to violence, so I say let the games begin.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

martinguerre

And i happen to know for a fact that DI's are prohibited from striking trainees. That whole scenario is BS, and a whole load of it.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

texxasco

Not when I went in.... I can't remember anything going too badly while we were training with grenades, or crawling under barbed wire under fire. But I can remember the occasional "incident" between a recruit and a DI. It doesn't happen anymore I don't think.

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

uncle phil

jeebus, what basic training did you go through? couldn't have been before viet nam...

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.

Charlatan

Violence just begets more violence... it is a truism for a reason.

Sure it is a fast solution. It makes someone stop or go depending on your desired result. But fast soloutions are rarely (read: never) long term.

Ustwo: you choice to beat on someone if he insults you wife is a prime example of what Asimov is talking about... who gives a fuck what someone says? Did it really hurt you (or your wife) so much that you must stoop lower than idiot who only hurled words? Sticks and stones my man...

It takes a stronger man to walk away and ignore the bullshit.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

shakran

Well in that instance, I'm not gonna waste time smacking you. I'm gonna safe the grenade, or throw it as far away from me as I can

Martian

Personally I'm pretty nonviolent these days. Fighting can be a huge adrenaline rush, for one because there's real risk involved and also because it is blatantly flouting laws and social convention. We're not supposed to fight, which lends it some appeal.

Having become much wiser these days I don't resort to kicking the living shit out of people very often at all anymore. The way I see it, violence can often be an unthinking act that occurs when we are provoked beyond our normal limit. It can also be a calculated act, but as often as not a person who decides that he needs to hit someone else is not thinking clearly. I know where my limit is and I do my best to avoid it. A lot of people (thankfully) don't have the benefit of my experience.

I'm not proud of using violence when I do, because it's not something to be proud of. I'm not ashamed either. It's what happens if you provoke me beyond what I'm capable of dealign with. And for the record, it takes a lot more than an insult to my girlfriend. That upsets me, but not enough that lose my cool.

And I think it goes without saying that self defence is a special case. If I'm defending myself or my loved ones from physical harm I will use as much force as necessary to keep the people I care about from getting hurt. The welfare of a victim comes before that of an attacker.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

alansmithee

Violence is often the most efficient way of getting a particular reaction. There is nothing wrong with it inherently, only in it's improper application (same for pacifism).

jorgelito

So maybe it's not a matter of either or, but rather of, degree? I don't know; one way to see it is violence is not good or bad per se, but rather a discretionary element of the human experience with variables.

Violence is so broad - emotional, physical, psychological...abuse etc..hard to quantify or ascribe value, it's so subjective.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

Ustwo

A coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero dies but once.

I've done my share of walking away when called for, but I am a teacher. I enjoy teaching people in my practice about what I do and do for them. Likewise some people need a lesson in life, and if called for I see no problem teaching them there as well. Not teaching them this lesson only weakens civilized society as it encourages unacceptable behavior.

Perhaps if the common wisdom of 'just walking away' was followed less, there would be less people out there requiring the use of said wisdom.

I could turn the other cheek of course, but I am not a Christian.

Finally try not to invoke the wisdom of Asimov as what he said, in my opinion, had nothing to do with what you are talking about.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

Good friend of mine TI's for the Air Force, 3rd year cadet.

as for the rest of it, it just reeks of macho posturing to me.

if someone says something about your wife, a coward dying a thousand deaths?

C'mon. Do you expect your wives to beat down people who look at you the wrong way? Do you think they're cowardly? Keep starting fights, and one day you'll meet someone who will beat you. If the only way you get respect for your significant other is a credible threat of violence, that means that you think Mike Tyson has the right to call her a ho-bag.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

mr sticky

As each altercation is unique, each reaction has varying degrees of correctness. If you are the victim of some sort of confrontation, it is not you who knows how commited your attacker is. Only he knows exactly how much abuse he intends to throw your way. If you can interupt his tirade with a well-timed slap or a slam into a wall, I feel that you may have saved yourself from a person who was abusing you while amping himself up for a full-fledged brawl. In this instance, a little violence goes a long way.

In general, if you are the victim, it is your duty to respond however you see fit. You are not given fight or flight instinct for nothing. If you happen to *over do it,* Oh well...just ask your slightly-damaged attacker to forgive you, because it's obvious your ESP is on the fritz again...Too bad.

As a side note, I consider myself a pacifist. But my definition of a pacifist differs from most. It is my philosophy that a pacifist is someone who can fight, with a good chance of winning, but choses not to. A coward cannot choose to fight. He can only run...therefore he can't choose pacifism, his choice is already preordained.

Just a thought...

__________________
The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

FatFreeGoodness

If you are sure you are seriously threatened, then you should strike out in a manner that will stop the other person from being a danger. This means (at least) temporarily incapacitating them. Waiting while the other guy works himself up through the bluster that generally precedes senseless violence is nuts.
By “threatened” I mean you can’t walk or run away, and by “serious” I mean danger of real injury. Loosing face, being humiliated, or loss of a few bucks via a stolen wallet is not a “serious threat.”

Ustwo

After seeing what can happen with identity theft from a stolen wallet from an employee of mine, I'd call it a serious threat. If you want to bend over to the criminal element be my guest. You can calculate the risk of course, if you are outnumbered badly, outgunned or whatever yes 'surrender' may be the best option, but just because some punk wants my wallet doesn't mean he gets it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

FatFreeGoodness

Regarding the quote from Asimov: "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.":

This is ambiguous, but clearly not always true.

If someone is incompetent at violence, then one would hope and expect it to be their last choice, as they will bet their butts kicked.

Perhaps someone competent would not have waited until “last resort” to try violence. It is much less effective when the opponent knows it’s coming, which implies that you launch your attack while there still appear to be other choices.

If one is poor at negotiation but very good at fighting, then tending to violence in chaotic conflict situations may simply be maximizing success. This may be reprehensible, but is not “incompetent”.

Perhaps if someone is known as skilled at fighting, others do not push them to violence, thus the incompetent do end up fighting more, but not by choice.

Paraphrasing Samuel Clemens “Everyone is incompetent, just in different spots”. Not all incompetence leads to violence.

People who are very competent at violence do not always resort to violence more than average. The restraint of highly skilled black belts is well known. On the other hand, people who are bullies generally are more formidable than average. I conclude that surprisingly, it’s not competence in battle that causes one to choose that by preference.

Charlatan

"I am a teacher"... what arrogant codswallop.

Who are you to assume that you are right or wrong? You may be a great orthodontist but come on... who died and made you the great guru of what it right and righteous in the world?

Time to put your rusting armour away Don Quixote.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

d*d

Isn't a little bit of violence like bieng a little bit pregnant - somebody is acting violently or not, there is no scale for violence.
In my opinion people are confusing violence with using force, the prerequisit for a violent act is that it has the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing - so justifying the use violence is justifying the right to violate, damage and abuse - why should that ever be a good thing? If you use force to protect yourself then it's not violence.

Phage

When people talk about violence I think they are considering it in the "damaging" sense, rather than "violating" or "abusing". It is my opinion that if someone believes in an ideal of "good" then they also have an idea of what "bad" is, and should consequently feel some sort of duty to support "good". There are two sides of this, supporting the good and damaging the bad.

Some people believe that damaging anything, even bad things or people, is itself wrong. In my mind that is a violation of principles. There is nothing inherently wrong about damaging something because morality is a construct rather than a natural law.

Redlemon

Just to cover myself here, (and as I PM'ed Ben already), I was typing quickly in the other thread the other day on the way out the door, and I hadn't been back to TFP for almost a day. I didn't realize this thread had been started.

All of Ben's examples are correct uses of violence in my eyes (I haven't read the rest of this thread yet). If I had been typing more coherently, I would have said "violence should never be a first response to a non-violent situation".

My specific response was to another user's claim that he saw physical violence as a useful response to react to hurt feelings.

/edit: Ah, it was Ustwo. He's all over this thread as well with the same thoughts.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Ustwo

Hurt feelings? Haha way to warp the issue

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Martian

I just reread my post and realized that I completely failed to provide a position on the argument to go along with my personal experiences.

Violence is never a good thing. Neither is welfare. Both are sometimes unavoidable but both should be used as little as possible.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Strange Famous

I suppose as a design for life, while it isnt one I would choose to follow, it might be essentially a human one. I think there is a little bit of "live by the sword..." though... if you;re the sort of personb liable to go punching someone out if they offend you, one day you'll probably hit the wrong dude, well... personally I hope you as an individual wont.. but generally, one day someone is gonna hit the wrong person, or hit the wrong person's brother...

I prefer to be peaceful. My own moral judgement is that violence is only ever justified in self defence. As for your comment about beating up cross dressers, I assume you are talking about the young man beaten and tortured to death by three men, who's story was quoted on here.... seems a pretty funny parallel to draw, but perhaps Im missing something?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Redlemon

That's my view of the matter. Of course, our personal viewpoints are so far apart that I'm not going to argue my point any further. Neither of us will change our minds.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Mr Honest

I disagree with one part - if you are the sort of person liable to go punching someone out if they offend you then one day you will probably hit the wrong dude and I hope they kick the shit out of you. Unlike Strange Famous

It doesn't matter what someone says to me I've never hit them. Attempt to hit me and then I'll hit back repeatedly until they are down or crawl away.

I'd never hit anyone unless they attacked me.

__________________
Human beings : who could ever claim to like them all?