General / Off-Topic ......and down we go, into the rabbit hole!
- Thread starter lysan
- Start date
I think violence kind of invalidates any (potentially) good effort.
It can be fun, though.
It can be fun, though.
It's a nice sentiment but oversimplified.
You can create things with violence. For example, with violence, you can create more things out of fewer things.
It is also possible to end one violence with another violence, but there is a trade-off in that your fresh, new violence will be ended by somebody else's future violence.
My grandmother always used to say, 'violence is golden'.*It's a nice sentiment but oversimplified.
You can create things with violence. For example, with violence, you can create more things out of fewer things.
It is also possible to end one violence with another violence, but there is a trade-off in that your fresh, new violence will be ended by somebody else's future violence.
She had a nice song about it too, by the Tremoloes.
*My memory's not what it used to be.
It's a nice sentiment but oversimplified.
You can create things with violence. For example, with violence, you can create more things out of fewer things.
It is also possible to end one violence with another violence, but there is a trade-off in that your fresh, new violence will be ended by somebody else's future violence.
It is much more than a sentiment, it is a philosophy!
Society can be changed with violence... a number of historical examples exist, the Bolshevik uprising, French revolution, Mao's Chinese revolution, Pol Pot Khmer Rouge...etc
But you are asking if Voilence is ever justified in changing a society, and your opinion is no.
Lets say that your society has been changed with the use of violence,.... is voilence then justified to change it back?
Hitlers Germany for example and the NAZI Empire. Where any of the invaded states justified in their use of voilence to change their society back?
An invading influence has changed your society and your country, your home is now a nightmare... Are you justified in the use of voilence to change that society again?
Last edited:
You can't separate whole of human history from violence, and you can't go without it. Wars is how we progress. Wars bring changes, technological advancement, discoveries in medicine, chemistry, etc. I think in the right circumstances violence isn't just justified, it's the only mean of moving in the right direction.
Well, philosophy is a sentiment. It is something you observe and explain the world around you with.
It literally means "loving the knowledge".
It's an internal process. It can help you understand things, but it won't prevent things from changing. Or make things change. Just your perception.
I kind of agree with Caramel Clown. Violence is so ingrained within our culture that it is hard to change things without it. On larger scale at least. We may have moved away from violence individually, but as a whole we're still a bunch of cavemen.
Violence is absolutely justifiable under certain circumstances. Every law we abide by in a civilized society, for instance, is backed up by the threat of violence.
"Violence, begets violence." Martin Luther King.
The basic problem with humans, is a basic lack of control. I learnt, very young, that violence and aggression; or the simple threat of it, works. In the short term, at least. People take notice, they listen and do whatever they have to do, to avoid violence. So to get what someone wants, to make changes. It works.
That is until, a bigger threat, or a greater level of violence, comes on to the scene. Thus, we have escalation. The shouting gets louder, rocks thrown, become bullets and then, bullets, become bombs. Khans Ladder of Escalation, is a good example of this.
Khans Ladder Until, we reach the point of MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. A state, where the really big threats of violence, are kept in reserve, as potential threats and 'proxy' wars, take place.
On a social level. Unfortunately, violence is influencing change, all of the time. From bullying in the play grounds, to controlling crime. So in a way. It 'is' justified, because it 'does' work, it is effective and so when we get down to it. it is the only thing, that humans understand, or take notice of. On a social level, most of the great changes. Have only come about, after mass 'violent' protests, have taken place.
From a personal level. No. Violence is never justified.
The problems are.
Humans are basically, violent creatures.
Those preventing change, for whatever reasons. Often do not wish to, or even feel that they 'don't have to' listen, to those who need changes to happen. Until things become violent.
The basic problem with humans, is a basic lack of control. I learnt, very young, that violence and aggression; or the simple threat of it, works. In the short term, at least. People take notice, they listen and do whatever they have to do, to avoid violence. So to get what someone wants, to make changes. It works.
That is until, a bigger threat, or a greater level of violence, comes on to the scene. Thus, we have escalation. The shouting gets louder, rocks thrown, become bullets and then, bullets, become bombs. Khans Ladder of Escalation, is a good example of this.
Khans Ladder Until, we reach the point of MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. A state, where the really big threats of violence, are kept in reserve, as potential threats and 'proxy' wars, take place.
On a social level. Unfortunately, violence is influencing change, all of the time. From bullying in the play grounds, to controlling crime. So in a way. It 'is' justified, because it 'does' work, it is effective and so when we get down to it. it is the only thing, that humans understand, or take notice of. On a social level, most of the great changes. Have only come about, after mass 'violent' protests, have taken place.
From a personal level. No. Violence is never justified.
The problems are.
Humans are basically, violent creatures.
Those preventing change, for whatever reasons. Often do not wish to, or even feel that they 'don't have to' listen, to those who need changes to happen. Until things become violent.
Last edited:
How about in self defense? Or defense of an innocent victim being mugged on the street, or a child being dragged into a kidnapper's van?
If someone forces you against your will to do something, and use violence all bets are off, however violence should not be your first choice to change politics or people’s behavior.
I agree, they're two dramatically different positions. I was specifically probing Arry's stance to see how far he's thought that through.
Self-defense isn't really violence in a sense that it is not "done" with a deliberate intent to harm.
I.e. not every use of physical force is violence.
Well, that's how I see it, at least.
Oh Chris...no. I don't think you can re-define it that way
You see. This was a point I was thinking of making.
Out cultural history shows us. Violence, rights wrongs. All of the heroes from Zorro to the characters played by the likes of, Steven Seagal, Sly Stallone and Bruce Willis. All have used extreme violence, to 'deal' with the bad guys and so the viewers, think that is the way, to do things.
Self defence, or the defence of the weak, against aggressors. Does not have to be considered as violence. It is not violence, for violence sake. Those that 'act' in defence, or to assist others in peril. Have not set out to be violent, they often, do not have violence in their hearts. They are simply reacting to a situation. How they go about this, is a different matter. I believe that this is a different subject, to the O.P. This is not about making, or forcing change in society, by the use of violence. This is about, dealing with aggression, or acts of violence, someone may be confronted with.
I disagree. I used to be very violent. I would make a mess, go for the face, shock anyone watching. Use things like walls, or the floor to, 'make my point'. These days, I just 'dance' when I have too. I let the other party make their move. We dance for a second or two and they fall over. I then advise, that they don't really want to get up again. However: Most of the time, the other party, will step back and go away, after I have spoken to them.Oh Chris...no. I don't think you can re-define it that way
To answer J.B. If I saw someone being violent to a child, maybe attempting to abduct them or something. I will hurt them, it would be permanent and they would never forget me. So far, I have never been confronted with this kind of situation. I have never claimed to be a good person. These days, I just try to be better that I used to be.