Poll: Violence is never the answer
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
See that's what weapons are for, I'm ok in a fight but even then against some 250 pound or more bruiser I'm way up shit's creek. Similar to a small woman being dragged off by a large man, put a knife, gun, tazer or even Mace (which I hesitate to recommend unless you can run like hell) or more improvised items like say... a trash can lid, and that small 100 pound woman is now capable of fending off her assailant. Yes you have to acquire the item and train with it, but in a self defense situation I'd think everyone thinks their necks are worth the time, effort and investment.metal mustache said:
"God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal"
Now on the other hand the non-violent way out of it, is avoiding the situation all together, using solid SA (situational awareness) and keeping a good eye on what's going on around you, you can avoid a bad situation before it happens. Making smart choices like not walking around "local rough area" after dark is probably a good plan as well.
It's striking a balance between the two options that gives you the most choices, because one day your back might be against a wall and then you might need violence to escape with your hide intact. Same token, getting in to a tussle every situation that comes up is an excellent way to shorten your life span drastically. Using the two methods together is what results in an effective strategy.
Edit: oh and I thought of a new response to OP's poll
Don't try to pick an answer till you know the question.
Violence is never the answer but sometimes its just easier to think it is. Its a hard thing to stand against human nature and society and truly be a pacifist.
Wow reading your comment while listening to Requiem by Mozart = epic philosophy.rokkolpo said:
OT: You will always eventually come across someone who is relentless, persistent, violent and unwavering when anyone talks to them. Some people can not be negotiated with therefore violence will be the answer. Sure there are alternatives to fighting but many times before a great big conflict all those alternatives have been tried and exhausted and then a violent outburst is on the doorstep.
EDIT 1: Violence is the correct answer to the correct question. Much like if you asked what is 1+2 the answer is 3, we all know that. Let's say while China was studying for the big literature test (I'm not game to say math test), America came along and stole China's girlfriend. Now violence is a possible answer, much like 4 is a possible answer to 3 x 3, it doesn't mean 4 is the best choice, it is just a possibility. So violence isn't the best answer to all situations but it is absolutely the best answer in some situations.
But it should never be the preferred answer. Violence just causes pain, and sometimes pain is needed for the greater good, but pain is still pain, regardless of the reason, and so, to minimise suffering violence (or all things pain/damage) should always be used minimally.Aby_Z said:
Some people only listen to violence. Can't hurt to bust a few kneecaps once and again. Alltho i should admit I've allways tried to be the 'bigger' man and only fought twice in my life.
Once I didn't have a choice. It was self defense.
Once I was so angry that it was either breaking my fist on a wall or on his face. I choose face.
Once I didn't have a choice. It was self defense.
Once I was so angry that it was either breaking my fist on a wall or on his face. I choose face.
I would like to say that non violence solution should be use 95% of the time. There will be a time when violence would have to be necessary use depending on the situation (should be use if the situation is small not on a gobal scale well again depend on what the situaton is).
Thats it really. I not going to punch my friend because he burns my toast, but I might he pulls a gun on me.DeadlyYellow said:
Wherever possible, violence should not be used. Only as a last resort, and even then it is only because someone/ thing is being a bit of a problem.
EDIT: Captcha says "144 oropm"
I say "what?"
EDIT: Captcha says "144 oropm"
I say "what?"
Violence and peace are two sides of the same coin, like light and darkness. It wouldn't be likely to have one without the other. We're humans, we're inclinded to disagree and argue. Once we can try to look past these things, can peace be in the majority.
Of course violence is never the answer. Because diplomacy worked so well back in 1938-39. "Peace for our time" as Chamberlain so well put it.
I consider myself the ultimate optimist dood. I would like to believe all people are capable of learning and are capable of controlling themselves rather than submitting to whatever indulgence happens to meet their fancy at the time. Violence, as a device for solving a problem, is only the quick and easy route that doesn't actually meet an end. It is the device for people without enough patience, understanding, or intelligence to see to a problem without any sort of insight.
It is an answer in the sense that people will always use it, forcing another into the will of someone else is easier than persuasion in getting what one wants. Which is not hard to see that side. Most everyone only looks out for themselves and what they need it is easy to lose the foresight to notice you're not the only one here. The path in which one tramples on others in pursuit of a goal is a lonely, restless path, fighting for the rest of your existence. And to what existence could you possibly look forward to? Constantly having to pick up a bigger stick? A never=ending vortex of violence spiraling out of control.
To the folks who believe that nothing will change so it is pointless to even try, to that I say you raise a valid if not at all uninteresting point. Nothing will change if we continue down our course and history proves that humans are not at all learning from our past mistakes. (Provided you believe the history the conqueror decides) That is not to say we are not at all capable of learning and controlling ourselves and perhaps living above our own selfish childish desires to further society, it is just laziness, rashness, and insecurity that prevents us from doing so.
Then again I'm preaching to a wall here, so I will end this rant short. I'm the ultimate believer in that you should believe whatever you want to believe. Have all the belief you want, just don't think everyone should agree with you or you're more right than anyone else. Do not limit yourself so that you are incapable of learning or accepting thoughts contrast of your own.
It is an answer in the sense that people will always use it, forcing another into the will of someone else is easier than persuasion in getting what one wants. Which is not hard to see that side. Most everyone only looks out for themselves and what they need it is easy to lose the foresight to notice you're not the only one here. The path in which one tramples on others in pursuit of a goal is a lonely, restless path, fighting for the rest of your existence. And to what existence could you possibly look forward to? Constantly having to pick up a bigger stick? A never=ending vortex of violence spiraling out of control.
To the folks who believe that nothing will change so it is pointless to even try, to that I say you raise a valid if not at all uninteresting point. Nothing will change if we continue down our course and history proves that humans are not at all learning from our past mistakes. (Provided you believe the history the conqueror decides) That is not to say we are not at all capable of learning and controlling ourselves and perhaps living above our own selfish childish desires to further society, it is just laziness, rashness, and insecurity that prevents us from doing so.
Then again I'm preaching to a wall here, so I will end this rant short. I'm the ultimate believer in that you should believe whatever you want to believe. Have all the belief you want, just don't think everyone should agree with you or you're more right than anyone else. Do not limit yourself so that you are incapable of learning or accepting thoughts contrast of your own.
I think the general consensus here is that, in context, violence can be the right answer. One of my favorite quotes is this:
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ? Dalai Lama XIV
One of my closest friends is a doctor. He has devoted his life to helping people and healing them. That said, he sleeps with a Glock 9mil on his side of the bed and his wife has a .38 special on her side of the bed and his shotgun is in the closet and loaded. If anyone breaks into his house he will give them a warning before shooting, but someone is already in your house, there is no way for the police to get there in time to save your life. So in this situation violence is the answer. Most parents are quite willing to do anything to protect their kids, up to and including killing anyone who threatens their child. I don't think that violence is always or even usually the answer, but to refuse it in all circumstances is foolish.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ? Dalai Lama XIV
One of my closest friends is a doctor. He has devoted his life to helping people and healing them. That said, he sleeps with a Glock 9mil on his side of the bed and his wife has a .38 special on her side of the bed and his shotgun is in the closet and loaded. If anyone breaks into his house he will give them a warning before shooting, but someone is already in your house, there is no way for the police to get there in time to save your life. So in this situation violence is the answer. Most parents are quite willing to do anything to protect their kids, up to and including killing anyone who threatens their child. I don't think that violence is always or even usually the answer, but to refuse it in all circumstances is foolish.