"Violence doesn't solve anything!", Or does it?

Remove all ads!

I disagree, I think it does.

Although in times such as these a lot of people like to portray themselves as the purest of the pure, the ambassadors of peace and are quick to condemn anyone who dare does an un-saintly action.

But then they're usually after a state of harmony that will never be achieved, where everyone is a spineless pansy and name-calling is banned.

Whaddya reckon?

 

Sure, violence might solve something, but it still is a barbaric way to do things.

 

Yes it does. It solved two great nuisances in my schootime in a lasting, efficient way.

The only reason why it is so unpopular is that it easily gets out of hand, and because it's the expression of choise of unwise idiots. They give violence a bad name.

 

There's a huge difference in meaning between "solve" and "resolve". If I and another party have a problem and, rather than negotiate, I beat the other person into a bloody pulp in order to get my way, I haven't "solved" our problem...although I most certainly have "resolved" it. If the person I beat into a bloody pulp gains the legal or physical clout to force a reversal of fortunes and institute a more equitable understanding, he will...and since I beat him into a bloody pulp to get my way, he's probably going to have a very jaded definition of equitable.

When you solve a problem with violence, someone wins and someone loses. The underlying problem, however, is still there. Power maintained by force is always tenuous.

 

It probably was avoidable. Still, I had to show teeth after the two persons in questions ground my patience down, and that takes a while. I certainly did not beat somebody to a bloody pulp. But I think I resolved my problem by showing resolve. They didn't cause me trouble ever again.

Think of it along the lines of educating a puppy with a rolled newspaper.

 

I think violence can be usefull at times. Some people just can't be argued with (like my sister), but with the help of a little violence, or threat of violence, you can convince others to stop being morons.

(Note: I'm not beating my sister up, there are different levels of violence.)

 

And when you are no longer have the strength to back up your threats, everything you have gained will evaporate. If, on the other hand, you worked out some sort of equitable compromise, the compromise will likely stand even after you no longer hold a physical advantage.

 

Like I said, some people just can't be argued with. It's a fact.

 

The other point is that usually the trouble of violence isn't worth the risks involved.

When I am in a place where I don't like the people and odds are they don't like me, I go. I think it is a bloody waste (literally) if someone gets seriously hurt (me or my friends in particular, but it goes the other way round as well) over some drunken goon not liking my face. Somebody hurt or worse over a barfight, how moronic is that?

Violence is only a last resort.

 

Barmy, did you just read Starship Troopers or something?

I tend to agree with George F. Kennan's assesment of violence: it cannot achieve anything positive in and of itself, it can only prevent a negative.

 

Yay for violence! *^.^*

But you must be sure that you've crushed your opponent utterly, your victory is complete and that no-one will ever find out. Other tactic is to vilify your enemy that you seem pure and just and your conquest a liberation, and even better if you can make your enemy believe it as well.

When your enemy is eradicated, so as he seems to have vanished into thin air and nobody will ever find out the truth - well, problem solved. Then you can find a new enemy! Yayness!

 

Violance offers a solution to a problem in any situation. But ask yourself, is it the best solution?

I talk my way out of more situations daily then the total number of times I've used violance in my life.

However If talking doesn't work, I challenge them to beat me in chess or DOTA. Now that is a solution.

 

If brute force doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough.

 

And some negatives are big enough to force that solution. Like the "Final Solution" from WWII, or some Islamic Extremists. And when the world's leaders lose the resolve to do what must be done, then there is no freedom...

 

Violence is the best solution for where it counts, for guys who eat lightning and crap thunder, for guys who eat steel and crap barb-wire fences, for guys who bite the bullet, real manly men who don't take excrement from anybody, guys who don't even know fancypant words like 'excrement', guys who like to take pain and give it back, guys who like to test their strentgh on a pissing contest any week of the month - any day of the week, for guys who make up "final solutions" to a "Jewish problem", for guys who just like to have a bit of fun kicking the old granny's teeth in; problem: no fun - granny gets it -> problem solved.

Yeah, violence solves a lot of problems. And if you don't like it, you might as well admit it, you're a pansy or think a little too high of yourself.

We're all in the mire, kicking and screaming, might as well enjoy the ride, 'cause sure as hell it's not going to be you who makes the world a better place. So why even try? Right?

 

Freedom doesn't come from the barrel of a gun.

 

Id rather solve things with the violence of my tongue and wit than with the violence of my fists, mainly because Im a pansy with intelligence. Physical violence seems so, I dunno...'dumb'. Its like you know that in the end a Wizard will beat a Fighter with the right spell selection.

 

I'll say this about me and violence. I just don't seem to get into situations where exchanging blows would be an option, neither physical nor verbal. I find it strange how some people manage to do that quite easily, whereas I'd have to put serious effort trying to get into a fight. I don't have to avoid difficult situations where violence would come about as an option, those situations seem to avoid me. Not that I'd want it, but nobody ever tries to pick a fight with me these days.

Those times that I have gotten into a fight, which mainly have been a long time ago, it's been bloody, brief and pointless and in most cases the other guy's been the one who's taken the beating. I don't enjoy the idea of violence, but when you're dishing out the punishment it's disturbingly gratifying, which has always been the reason why I've stopped before it gets really ugly.

 

I must agree with Drew. Violence proves you're stronger, not that you're right. The conflict doesn't go away, and it can become a big problem if you're no longer strong.

Sure, sometimes it can't be (or it's better not) avoided, but these cases are somewhat rare: i.e. when being mugged you usually don't have the time to make a significant change towards a social problem. Mind you, sometimes running also achieves sufficient results.

So I guess it depends on what you want to do. If taking care of the symptoms is okay, violence can provide a temporaty solution. If you want to settle things for good, it's not so useful. I have tried not to include the moral arguments here.