When is a "Little Bit" of violence a good thing?
 

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. :hmm:

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.

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.

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.

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.

He's an orthodontist, y'know. :D

Sorry...I just had to. :lol:

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?

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."

oh yeah, Asimov that legendary genuis of life. :crazy: 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' :crazy:

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

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 :p

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

I think that violence makes hockey worth watching.

http://members.aol.com/MarkMess11/cairnsbe.gif

With more discussion on this topic here

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ;)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.”

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Hurt feelings? Haha way to warp the issue :)

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 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?

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 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.

Sometimes violence is called for.

A pre-emptive strike when you know if you do not, they will hurt you even worse.

Self-defense.

Sometimes a spank for a child (i believe in spanking, not often, but it can be called for).

Punishment.

Violence is rarely, if ever, justified. Instances like self-defense, protection, and punishment should still require a great amount of thought before resorting to a violent method. To me, violence is the easy way out. There are usually better ways to do things.

I have come to a conclusion that most of you have never been pushed to your 'breaking' point. This is something genetically programmed into us. We are a species that is led by the dominant, not the passive, this aggressive nature is in you somewhere. You can choose to be an omega but my guess is if you are pushed hard enough you will find that you will lash out, and you will feel it was the right thing to do.

Everyone has their buttons.

I am sure everyone can be provoked, amd anyone can be pushed to a point they will lash out. I have thrown one punch in real anger as man (when I was a boy I used to fight a lot in school)... and it wasnt a nice feeling, it scared me, but like anyone I'm capable of it. And like anyone I probably like to think of myself as pretty tough if it came to it, but I know I could get wiped out. Even for those who have a sense that their own aggression could not be matched... you only need to try punch out some kid who pulls a gun on you... and thats that.

The point I was trying to make that is you allow situations to frequently provoke or incite you to violence, sooner or later you'll come across someone who will fuck you up.

A lot of times someone might do things that are out of order, and you feel like they might deserve a slap. I'd turn the other cheek to the point it was impossible for me not to. If someone attacked me I'd defend myself, and if they attacked someone I loved I'd defend them, to the best of my ability - other than that - I chose to turn the other cheek.

This reminds me of a thread I put up a while ago.

I asked a Q like - "what would you rather... you are packing in a situation, and for the sake of argument it has to go one of two ways... either you are beaten and robbed of your wallet and phone - hurt but not seriously (black eyes, bruises), or you kill the guy who attacks you. The fight is caused by a mugger who attacks you without provocation"

I would chose to be mugged and beaten up rather than kill someone in self defence. To me, I cannot comprehend how I could follow the other path, to kill someone would be far more painful than bruises or lost possessions - even if I was acting in self defence. But I think about 2/3's of people said they would kill to defend themselves rather than take a medium beating and be robbed. I can only say how I am and how I feel. It may not be the majority view, but I cant be anything else, myself.

And yes, obv in real life you dont have a choice that stark and clean cut.

Since Asimov was trotted out, I thought I would add a quote by my favorite SF author.

Certain types and applications of violence are very effective for producing an end. The trick, in my mind, is to use violence sensibly, which most people almost never do.

I would agree that violence should be a last option in most cases.

Yes, I've been pushed to the 'breaking' point. But I always use my razor-sharp tongue to cut people, not knives.

In response to Lebell, coordination and organisation is a much more powerful force than violence. Coordinated violence is of course more powerful than either. For every Napoleon or Wellington (who by the way were far better organisers than they were fighters) there is a Ghandi or a Jesus, or a Malcolm X. If man had never discovered how to cooperate, and look past his innate behaviours, we would still be fighting over bananas in the jungle. Yes, survival of the fittest prevails, but it is a far more economical, far more rational, and a species has far better chances for survival if they are able to evolve beyond force and control the far more subtle, and powerful forces that can only come from non-violent and cooperative behaviours.

Yes, we have to accept our violent past, and yes, we all have a breaking point at which we revert to our baser instincts. But isn't it more advantageous to us as a species, and even as individuals to at least try and push that breaking point as far as possible?

With the invention of technology, it is unsustainable to advocate violence. To succeed in a state of open conflict, all one has to do is become more ruthless than the next guy. It would be a simple matter to slaughter people, either through open conventional violence, or through stealth, surprise, poison or suicide bombing. Is that what we want?

It isn't what I want.

Yes it's idealistic to advocate pacifism, some people argue the morality of it - I am arguing that having the strength and the courage to turn the other cheek and allow a route for reconciliation is a far more powerful tool than rushing in to floor the other guy.

In agreement with Lebell, violence should always be the last resort, once all other avenues have been attempted.

There are two basic levels of violence, interpersonal, and that which is sanctioned and sponsored by society in some form. Societal sanctioned violence is a much stickier subject, so I'll just weigh in on interpersonal.

Interpersonal violence is justified only in defense of one's person or that of another, and to a much lesser extent, one's property.

Words, messages, beliefs by themselves, in the absense of a physical threat, never justify violence in retaliation, no matter how offensive they might be.

That you have offended or insulted me or hurt my feelings, or done the same to someone I love does not justify the smallest bit of violence on my part in return, unless there is an active threat of violence that goes along with it.

The reason is that what offends us differs greatly from person to person. If a man hits on me, he's implicitly questioning my sexuality by suggesting he thinks I'm straight. So long as he's polite and doesn't put his hands on me, I likely wouldn't be offended. Heck, I actually find it a bit amusing much of the time. Yet some find a challenge to their sexuality so offensive that they respond violently, even to the point of murder.

Which is the right response to someone challenging your sexuality, amusement or offense? Neither, though the former does make life quite a bit more pleasant. What amuses or offends us is a highly personal part of our makeup, and because of that there is no way to define exactly what is or isn't something that is offensive enough to justify violence. Which is why no words ever are.

Gilda

One thing I noticed in my high school days is that certain things were always "cool" to say.. saying them immediately made you a macho tough guy and couldn't really backfire.

One of these statements was that if someone ever "said X to me" then I'd "kick the shit out of them." Another was that "if he ever hit me, I'd kick the shit outta him."

The nice thing about college is that most people have grown out of this juvenile, irresponsible mindset. Some never do.

Violence is never justified. Anyone advocating violence in "self-defense" has obviously never thought about what self-defense means. It means responding with an EQUAL amount of force, not more. If someone hits you with their fist, and you hit them with a bat in self defense -- its criminal. Likewise, if you think you're GOING to get hit, and you hit them pre-emptively -- yep, still illegal. No one likes to have their physical body attacked, and anyone who thinks that violence is okay likely doesn't understand the Golden Rule very well.

Oh and "teaching" people? Horseshit. Last time I checked we had POLICE OFFICERS and LAWS for "teaching people." Using teaching as a justification belies your need to justify violence on your part to patch an ego..

I don't mean to pick on you here onesnowyowl, but this in particular jumped out at me. The problem I saw immediately with this is that in the case of self defense or protection one rarely has time for a great amount of thought. If I make the wrong wise crack in the wrong bar and someone comes at me with a pool cue, I don't have time to give it any thought. I either react or I get a pool cue broken over my head.

Or he knows you're not straight and that he has no chance and wants to flirt anyway. By the way, what's your sign?

And if a very pretty straight man were to hit on you pretending he was a woman and went down on you?

Or perhaps if I went up to your SO and said something about the 'ugly bulldyke cunt' she was with?

Everyone has their point where the shock of the insult, the level it, and the amount of disrespect will result in a violent (and justified) response. If I know someone is trying to provoke me, its easy to let the logical part of your brain absorb the insult, but the violent response comes more from the suddeness of the attack, much as if you were attacked physically and the response is the same.

Luckily for us, such insults are rather rare and we are not often forced to face our reactions to them, but when they do occur who do you blame for the resulting violence?

Oh and a side note, I’ve seen first hand what happens when a straight male hits on (or in one case even spoke to) a lesbian who has a more masculine partner. My poor room mate in college had a bad habit of accidentally doing this. :p

to be honest, names are names. Im pretty sure no one could say anything to me that the words alone would make me hit them. You just have to have some self control. Im certainly not going to risk either getting aknife pulled on me or doing 6 months inside for ABH cos someone calls my girlfriend a slag or whatever.

And as for this whole transexual thing... I really dont feel its thats hard to tell what gender someone is. And if it went down like it went down, in what sense is physical violence a justified? Is it natural to feel such a horror of a different type of sexuality that having a man touch you in that way, when you consented (under a false understanding perhaps) to it - that you want to damge them so badly? Is not to want to inflict harm on someone else because YOU feel bad a deviation from a normal personaility.

When we are children we lash out when we are hurt, as adults it is hoped that we learn restraint.

If I was in the situation of having "by accident" had sexual relations with a man, I probably would feel bad about it and betrayed, and it would be confusing... but the dude in question obviously would be someone who had a lot of issues and confusion about himself... why the hell would anyone want to beat him up?

So, if words are enough to justify violkence, then this incident is justified?

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-onlin...19772830.shtml

For those advocating pre-emptive strikes and believe violence is ok if someone's words offend: Then you will be ok with this.

I mean he was, TEACHING them so it's ok right? Please write letters urging the judge to reverse his decision.....

I'm sorry but you have no argument at all, just a link and a straw man.

Well, gee, that's not quite the same thing as what I was talking about, now is it? Perhaps you should revisit your last post and the straw man fallacy listed there.

Was that really necessary? Couldn't you have proposed a hypothetical that wasn't in the form of your taking a nasty personal shot at me?

I'd say most people can be provoked through words alone, but not all, and a violent response to offensive language is never justified.

A physically aggressive response is appropriate to a physical attack, to the degree that's necessary to end the threat. A verbal response is appropriate to a verbal attack, or, more often, ignoring it and sometimes walking away, which is the approach Grace and I take to such personal insults, which occur on an infrequent, but regular basis.

I would blame whoever initiates the violence.

She politely asks the man to leave? That's what happens when a guy hits on me in Grace's presense.

Gilda

Lack of violent force is part of why the crime rate (and the bullshit rate) is so high in America. Rioters and criminals aren't hesitant at all to use violent force, but when a cop hits back, we scream police brutality. Basically, when somebody attacks you, there are two possible outcomes: you respond with violent force, or you get your ass kicked. You can't sit there and hope that the attacker calms down because they won't until you're incapacitated or you can hold them back.

Few have argued against self-defence here. Generally speaking we would all defend ourselves.

There are just some of here that would draw the line differently. Some would be so hurt by words that they would feel the need to commit violence to stop the words. Others take a more rational view and see words for what they are, rude bluster and move on accordingly.

The real issue is when is it OK to instigate violence... the answer is that it is never OK to instigate violence. Sure it will happen, but it is rarely (if ever) justified.

Violence is good in self defense and entertainment. If someone is trying to physically hurt you, violence coming from you can save your life and/or protect your physical well being. Instinct in a sense.

Now violence in entertainment, well it's just entertaining, so thats good.

This seems logical to me.

It's important that we keep in mind the difference between violence that is "effective" and violence that is "justified." There are many cases where violence is effective for achieving a particular end - as a learning tool for some of you - but the cases where it is actually justified are few and far between. If one should, in their response to a situation, inflict more violence than the threat calls for, then one has exceeded the justifiable amount.

But I think the most pertinent question of all is... would Jesus punch someone in the face? I think he would...out of love, of course. :)

I was with you on your points Ustwo until you kept saying:

..which is absolutely wrong. Just becuase you and a few people you know do, doesn't mean "everyone" does. I have no such line -- words are words.

pain is a distinct tool that is genetically linked to us deep in our genes and psyches.

we get violently ill from things we eat and we will not eat those things again. they even make us queasy at the thought of them. Why? because of survival.

same thing with "a little bit of violence"

animals set up their pecking order in ways that are violent, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, wolves, fish, turtles, birds. do you really think that humans are exempt from this?

I don't think humans are immune to this. If we were, people wouldn't be "teaching lessons" by beating the snot out of someone.

The point is, that we do have the ability to rise above violence.

How do I know this? I have a very short and nasty temper... or at least I did. I used to fly off the handle with the right sort of provocation. I learned to recognize that this was *not* and acceptable method interacting with my fellow humans, that provocation is empty if you don't react to it...

I still lose my temper from time to time, but nowhere near what I used to.

I have seen what violence can lead to and it isn't pretty.

Yes - of course we are exempt from this :rolleyes: it's what makes us different from all of those creatures. When was the last time you saw animals such as these build a city, invent farming, form governments, create technology and pay taxes?

It's precisely BECAUSE we are able to step beyond simple stimulus/response behaviours that we are able to have this discussion today.

lots of animals have social structures and build cities, not in the same traditional sense of tall skyscrapers but there are animals that do build things from hives to underground structures of termites, ants, prarie dogs. Governments are just fancy words for social structures, all animals have some sort of social heirarchy when they gather in groups. Technology? Chimpanzees have been known to make and use tools. It's not a computer but it's still a technology. Otters do it to to open sea urchins. Farming... ants farm aphids. Some even raid other ants colonies and create slaves.

and if you do a search here I believe that Ustwo put up a link regarding Chimpanzees commiting acts of violence on other members.

The only thing left is taxes, which no one can corroborate since there would have to be a currency structure.

Thankyou Cynthetiq, yes, there are exceptions, but on the whole, we all have to accept that humans have achieved more because of our cooperative qualities than we have from our destructive ones.

If the monkeys are still fighting in the jungle, that's because they are still monkeys. If they figured out how to cooperate more and fight less, they might not be living in the jungle any more...Congratulations to Ustwo for linking to that for me, it's a very good point.

It would be rather depressing to learn that only taxes seperate us from the animals :lol:

and if you look at history how many years of humankind are there where there were no wars or people killing other people? I'd have to say that for wars it's a handful of years, and for just people killing people... it's never.

people have always been killing people that's not different because we live in houses, tall buildings and drive cars.

Ustwo, thanks for your rebuttal. However, I don't see how my post is a strawman; I don't see how the examples I provided are different from the one you provided (if someone insults your wife you will teach them a lesson - assumed to be violent). Unless I completely misunderstood you.

Anyways, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Simple refutation? There's a difference between what we did and what we SHOULD do. No one can argue that we're more productive in destruction and violence then we are in creativity and sharing. Which SHOULD we do? The answer is simple; avoiding violence progresses society, and sticking to archaic ("hey look, the monkies do it too..") values degrades society. Which would you rather be a part of?

sure you could sum up what you said as, "What would Jesus Do?"

but that's not the reality of the world. A great number of countries are fraught with graft and corruption. Where I sit now there are skyscrapers when 10 years ago there were none. Are the people any better off? Usually construction means jobs, jobs mean taxes, and better life for many. But no.. there's still lots and lots of poverty here in the Philippines because people are people. The Marcos regime stole billions of aid from the gracious US government and they kept it from the masses and used it for their own luxury. It's still happening to this day just on a smaller scale.

I'm not saying that I don't want to strive for a higher place, but the cold reality of it is that while we sit in our comfortable houses with electricity and temperature controlled living with food in an icebox, and armchair monday morning quarterback there are people just down the road from me in shanties and happy to get a nickel for making a simple sampaguita (flower) headpiece.

Skogafoss was at a public school yesterday where the japanese rotary club donated 15 computers to a school of 3,000 students. She's trying to get them to get books at a cheap price but even that is difficult when there's 3,000 schools and only enough funds for 50 to get books.

It isn't as simple as wishing it or talking that it should be different, one has to actively make a change. We figured out that it only costs about $2,000 to get simple books to these kids per school.

People get violent for lots of different reasons, some countries it's because they don't have food or medicine. Others like America, it's because someone made someone else feel bad.

I have absolutely no doubt I could get you to throw a punch using just words. No one is totally submissive.

Short of including a direct threat of physical violence, I have absolutly no doubt that there is nothing you could say to me that would, by itself, induce either me or my wife to violence against you, and we have been the target of some truly nasty verbal attacks.

Absolutely right. Many people have the strength of will and character to resist their baser urges, and not submit to them.

Gilda

You're not wrong. My point is that we have got where we are today largely because, on balance, in general and among other things, we have been able to cooperate with one another, for the ultimate good of us all, even when it hasn't always been in the immediate interests of the individual.

Because someone does not rise to your nasty words does not make them submissive. It just means that they can rise above the pettiness of your words.

To me a willingness to lash out at someone's words is a clear example of ones insecurities.

I don't know about that. If someone said, "Your mother is a cunt," I would kick the shit out of them. Same goes for, "Your girlfriend is a filthy whore," someones gonna wish they never said that. Call me whatever you want, but leave them out of it or I'll hurt you. Violence justified in my eyes.

Charlatan, you are married correct?

Lets say you and your wife are having a nice walk in a park.

Some guy obviously weaker than you jogs right past you rudely saying, 'Get out of my way cunt.' to your wife. He then turns around and says does the same. He continues to jog back and forth, making a rude comment about her each time.

So Charlatan you will be the bigger more "secure" man?

Somehow I don't think so.

I would. (And as already established, Charlatan and I are the same person. :D) I'd probably laugh at him. And I also doubt you could draw me to violence with words. I can't believe that your buttons are so easily pressed.

I'm not saying it wouldn't piss me off if he kept doing it... but my most likely response would be to laugh. I mean really, anyone who made that kind of effort to keep jogging back and forth, just to call my wife a cunt would have to be a bit nuts.

I am fully secure in the knowledge that my wife is not a cunt (though she does have one).

I've been in two fights my entire life, my buttons are NOT that easily pressed, but I do know myself.

But you guys claiming that they can't be provoked make me laugh, personally I think you are full of shit :icare:

I've been in no fights in my 36 years of life, nor have I had to restrain myself from punching the lights out of someone. Believe me or not.

Likewise in my 20 years - no fights, no need. I didn't even hit the guy who thought he would stab me in the parking lot (he tapped me on the chest with the knife, mind you). As a matter of fact, I managed to leave, completely avoiding the need to defend myself. Its a lesson I learned long ago that the strongest "warrior" avoids combat completely.

And yea.. the idea of someone jogging back and forth calling my girlfriend names actually made me giggle a little bit. Someone THAT ridiculous would either be doing it out of jest or insanity, both conditions I can laugh at. Its possible that she might be offended, but it is NOT my duty as a man to prevent that. She's a strongminded woman, and I'm certain that if it really bothered HER, she'd know how to deal with it. I don't need to be the big thug who protects my woman -- this isn't the Middle Ages anymore. (Physical threats are their own category, however they are just as easy easily avoided or ignored, or defended against with equal force).

ustwo, i am astounded by your talent in finding reasons to post "hypothetical" insults about fellow TFP'rs. Is there a cause for this?

I'll defend ustwo on that action. He's just trying to 'cut close' in order for us to feel rage, and therefore understand his position. It isn't working, though.

I can be provoked... I can be angered. Mostly I keep that part of myself in check as I know nothing good would come of taking action.

In other words, to follow up on the original post, if someone were to try and provoke me, it would not be a "good thing" to counter that provocation with violence. I might hurl an insult back (meeting the provocation with a matching response) or more likely, I would just shake my head and wonder what the provocateur's problem is...

Water off a duck's back.

I just don't see it: Unless your under actual threat, how are words justified by violence?

If someone called you or your wife names and you hit them, it's assault. It is a crime.

However, all bets are off if you are actually threatened.