Violence

[C'jais]

When is it justified to "get physical"?

 

Is it a-okay to beat up a would-be rapist that tried to get a little too friendly with your sister?

 

Is it alright to push people aside who are fronting you?

 

Should one never get violent?

 

 

A complex question no doubt, and one that isn't easily answered in black and white terms. While it's nice to sit at home drinking coffee and preaching Ghandi from the comfort of one's chair, in some parts of the world you just won't survive for long if you aren't willing to trade blows at some point.

 

But even if it's "justified" and "necessary", would it still be a moral thing to do?

[El Sitherino]

when it's a matter of iminant (sp?) threat such as the rape thing, then yes, if that's the only solution, perhaps you could talk to the person and help them change their actions, but if worse comes to worse then sometimes you have resort to violence. Same with someone trying to kill you, it's life or death, I'd prefer to fight back and atleast just knock the person out so noone has to die.

[Druid_Allanon]

Like it or not, violence is sometimes needed in parts of our lives. If you have some knowledge of fighting skills, and a robber was threatening you, what would you do? Beat him up, and run away, or beg him to let you off? I don't know about some of you, but I would choose the former. Being the 'not nice' guy can save you lots of troubles from idiots seeking a fight.

[CapNColostomy]

My work requires violence on a pretty regular basis. I got no moral problem with that if it's keeping the lights on and food in my childrens mouths.

[Hiroki]

What do you do, break the legs of a debtors for the mob?

 

I believe violence has its place, just as everything else does. If somebody tried to do anything to hurt anyone that I truly cared for, I'd go at them with all I had right then and there. No lengthy talks on how to stop them, I would make sure they never did it again.

[toms]

I've gotten through my whole life so far without any need for much violence. (just childish fights in the playground and picking on my sister, nothing serious).

 

I guess my criteria would be based on 3 things:

(a) motivation

(b) alternatives

© balance of force

 

Motivation: Should be the desire to do something positive, such as help/rescue someone... not the desire for revenge because they have done something to you or someone else.

 

Alternatives: Ideally it should be a last resort, only when other alternatives have failed. (but have been tried)

 

Balance: If by hitting one guy i'm going to stop him hitting other people then fine, but i'd try to use minimum force required. On the other hand, one strong attack that incapacitates someone and prevents further violence might be preferable to minor attacks and retailations that escalate to more serious violence.

Or this might mean that by sticking up for yourself once you prevent years of bullying.

 

Is it alright to push people aside who are fronting you?

 

Almost ertainly a bad idea. Studies have shown people consistently overestimate the ammount of force used, so they will shove you back HARDER, you will shove back HARDER STILL and so on.

 

The two things i really hate (and are big among drunken english people) are Unprovoked Attacks (mainly drunken violence for no reason on someone who has done nothing) and Kicking someone when they are down. Both are highly dangerous and should get pretty tough sentances IMHO.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

I'm all for it.

 

I will only get voilent if someone provokes me/friends/family first, but usually I try and get them to apologise, therefore avoiding confrontation.

 

Besides if we had no voilence the world would be a pretty boring place. In theory it is good if we all just got along, but in practise it's another. Even if it means that civilians will get killed in some random African village, horrible though it is. There has to be a balance.

 

NOTE: I am not in any way, shape or form encouraging voilence towards Africans. I'm just saying such things are human nature and deserve a place, just like anything else.

[Spider AL]

To learn to fight efficiently, one must develop a mindset in which one attacks with overwhelming force and accuracy, without thought.

 

The difficult part about this is that one must key this reaction into recognition of a situation so dangerous that injuring another person is unavoidable, otherwise you'll be totally flipping out and killing people all the time, just like a regular ninja. So before one takes up the sword, one must decide in what situation to use it, so to speak. Morally there is NO situation in which violence is justified, except the situation exemplified by:

 

1. Being PHYSICALLY cornered so that RUNNING, which is PREFERABLE, is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

I don't mean difficult or damaging to one's pride, I mean impossible. If you attack someone when you could have run away AT ALL, you're not using self-defence.

 

2. Actually witnessing one of your friends or family being SERIOUSLY ASSAULTED.

 

I don't mean having an argument, I mean being physically battered or held down and molested.

 

I believe it's important to be moral. However, I don't consider it always to be practical, sadly. Often, strategic concerns override moral concerns, ie: It's often SAFER to run away, but then again it may be safer sometimes... not to. If you catch my drift.

[Kain]

I react to violence with violence. If someone seriously threatens violence on me, I usually won't hesitate to respond physically. Better to get the jump on them then the other way around. Of course, I'm not foolhardy, so I won't jump into a situation where I've got no chance. But I'm not excessivly violent: when they quit fighting back I'll quit hitting em.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Hiroki

What do you do, break the legs of a debtors for the mob? :

 

Something like that...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, seriously. I work at a state forensic center. People who are found unable to assist their attorneys in their defense in a criminal trial are sent there for evaluations and competancy training. So given the nature of the majority of the people I work with, there's violence.

[Ray Jones]

yesterday a 15 year old boy got 9 years jail for murdering his grandparents. the judge said it's incredible how such a young man can murder two persons like this, beating and stabbing them to death "several times", so he could be sure they are death. The judge also said the only reason why he "only" got 9 years is his motivation for this deed:

 

his grandfather abused his little sister and his grandma knew it WITHOUT doing anything against it.

 

this is how violence works. in the end the innocent are guilty. fighting back brings trouble, not fighting back too.

the only way is NOT to consider violence as way to solve problems. but that again depends on what one has been taught..

[Doomie]

The simple fact is that without violence, there'd be no need for violence.

 

EDIT: hmmm, this may actually be a bit half on-topic. Well, my opinion on the thing is this: there are ways to defend yourself physically without killing or mutilating people. If violence is used in defense, without any permanent damage, i'd say it's justified.

[Kain]

Originally posted by RayJones

yesterday a 15 year old boy got 9 years jail for murdering his grandparents. the judge said it's incredible how such a young man can murder two persons like this, beating and stabbing them to death "several times", so he could be sure they are death. The judge also said the only reason why he "only" got 9 years is his motivation for this deed:

 

his grandfather abused his little sister and his grandma knew it WITHOUT doing anything against it.

 

this is how violence works. in the end the innocent are guilty. fighting back brings trouble, not fighting back too.

the only way is NOT to consider violence as way to solve problems. but that again depends on what one has been taught..

 

Murder is never an answer though. I'd of simply beaten the old prick to within a hairsbreath of paralyzation and told him that if he wants to beat someone, he'd better try beating me. The grandma would also suffer the threat, but not the beating unless she tried something.

 

I don't believe in hitting women, no matter the age or reason...unless of course they start it and I know I'd be in trouble if I didn't fight back.

[Spider AL]

I don't believe in hitting women, no matter the age or reason...unless of course they start it and I know I'd be in trouble if I didn't fight back.

That attitude went out when equality came in.

[Kain]

Originally posted by Spider AL

That attitude went out when equality came in.

 

And that attitude will get you a lack of sex. Seriously, why hit a woman? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Does it show her who's boss?

 

1 word definiton of DELETED

[Doomie]

Look, jsut because he isn't afraid of hitting women, doesn't mean he does it all the time. You say you're not afraid to hit men. But you don't hit every man that comes near you. He's just saying that Men and Women have an equal chance of a beating with him.

 

I hope so for his wife/girlfriedn anyway.

[Spider AL]

Doomie:

 

Look, jsut because he isn't afraid of hitting women, doesn't mean he does it all the time. You say you're not afraid to hit men. But you don't hit every man that comes near you. He's just saying that Men and Women have an equal chance of a beating with him.

Exactly right. Doomie: What a guy.

 

Kain:

And that attitude will get you a lack of sex. Seriously, why hit a woman? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Does it show her who's boss?

 

1 word definiton of DELETED

Not only did you fail to comprehend the clear-as-day meaning of my post, but you decided to flame me too. Well, I'm not the one who doesn't believe in equal treatment for men and women. DELETED?

[Kain]

Well its good to know that you'll hit your woman for the same reason you'll hit that guy over there...

 

...oh wait, no it isn't.

 

Honostly though, I would trust you with my sister/daughter/mother/niece/aunt about as far as I could throw you.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Kain

Well its good to know that you'll hit your woman for the same reason you'll hit that guy over there...

 

...oh wait, no it isn't.

 

What would you do if some woman came up to Selene and hit her in the face? Would you just stand around and sit idly because you wouldn't want to hit a female? I think that's what Spider Al means, why should you not deck her? You would if it were a man...

[Kain]

Originally posted by Tyrion

What would you do if some woman came up to Selene and hit her in the face? Would you just stand around and sit idly because you wouldn't want to hit a female? I think that's what Spider Al means, why should you not deck her? You would if it were a man...

 

For one, even if Selene got nailed by some psycho broad, the only thing I'd do is push the other woman away. Two, if it was a guy he'd be lucky to be able to leave under his own power.

 

This is just the way I was raised and its also my own beliefs. I don't care if anyone agrees with it or not, I just think its wrong.

[TheLiberator34]

In my opinion violence is either necessary or it isn't. If you have no choice but to fight to defend yourself or someone else then that's what you have to do. But violence is never justified, its never right. It's just a matter of what you have to do to survive.

As for the amount of violence you use, you use enough to subdue your opponent, no more, and for you own sake no less. That's just my take on it.

[Hiroki]

I consider refusing to hit a woman under the same circumstances that you would hit a man, to be sexist. Really, I'm serious. If some odd woman came up to me and started shoving me, and throwing punches at me, you bet she would get a few back.

[Doomie]

Yes. That idea came from the fact that men were usually strong because they either had to siwng around swords all day or work on their crops (Yes, this idea originated somewhere in the middelages i believe, or maybe even sooner.) But these days, there are enough Male wimps that can't lift a pound, or female bodybuilders. So refusing to hit a woman is a bit silly these days. But it should only be done in self-defense, as all violence should be.

 

If all violence was done in self-defence, there would be no more violence.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Doomie

Yes. That idea came from the fact that men were usually strong because they either had to siwng around swords all day or work on their crops (Yes, this idea originated somewhere in the middelages i believe, or maybe even sooner.) But these days, there are enough Male wimps that can't lift a pound, or female bodybuilders. So refusing to hit a woman is a bit silly these days. But it should only be done in self-defense, as all violence should be.

 

Er, it came since Mesopotamian times...which is the first recorded human civilization.

 

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Tyrion

Er, it came since Mesopotamian times...which is the first recorded human civilization.

 

The first self-recorded human civilization

 

There are records of human civilization existing in regions outside of Mesopotamia, though the first examples of writing appear to be Mesopotamian in origin and begin with cuneiform and proto-cuneiform symbols.

 

Human civilizations existed in other Near Eastern regions, Asia, Europe, Africa, and even North and South America by this time.

 

The earliest examples of agriculture, which also offer a record of human activity begin with the Mesolithic period in Natufian Palestine. This marks the period in which people began to become sedentary and move from hunting/gathering to domestication of animals and plants. Between 10,000 and 7,000 years BCE.