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

Remove all ads!

Well, we think very differently. Let me ask you something. If the man down the street rapes your wife and gets away with it, what are you going to do? Talk?

 

No. I'm going to have him arrested, tried, and imprisoned. That way, he gets punished and I don't go to jail.

 

But if the rapist gets away with no charges, then what? Are you just going to let him go?

Though I have to say Drew, your first rebuttal made a very good argument. It just seems that when all pacifistic means have failed, sometimes violence is necessary; not just to invoke reform in the recipient, but in the one giving it out, as well.

 

Is pain the measure of penance? And is it the way you invoke remorse in other people?

Revenge? As in getting obsessed about hurting the one who has hurt you and yours?

In training dogs you can educate the canine by using violence, punishment, and even humiliation. Or you can teach it by encouragement, reward and compliments and this way is far more effective in addition of making a happier and a healthier dog.

Now lets say there's a dog gone bad, and there's a lot of those. The simplest way is just to put the dog down. Hunt it down and shoot it dead. No fuss and no more violence is required than a single bullet. And that's it, the sheep that the dog attacked, mutilated and killed won't get better because of it, but no more sheep will be killed by that dog.

But if revenge is what you want, you capture the dog alive, mutilate it like it did to those sheep, beat it to bloody pulp, let it feel it in it's skin what's it like to be a prey. And then, you let it live. Cut a leg off from it, pull it's teeth out and it can't kill any sheep anymore. Then see to it that it lives, miserable, beaten, for many years to come, confined for the rest of its life.

Of course you could train the dog again. It takes a good trainer, a lot of patience and no matter how much you'd train it there'd always be the fear that the dog would go on a killing spree again. But a training might also be a remarkable success. Good trainers do that sort of things.

There's only one thing that is the problem. Dogs don't come from out of nowhere. Neither does the way that they act. There's a bad man, who likes them doggies, likes to beat them too, likes to make them doggies' lives a living hell. Until they get loose. And get shot, eventually. Then the man gets a new doggie. And another, and another. It don't end as long as the man lives, as long as he's allowed to keep dogs.

There are ways that are more far reaching and far more powerful than violence. Revenge takes you only so far and when it is done you have only ashes left. If you don't worry about becoming a beast, worse than the one you torture because of revenge, then see where that path takes you. If you do not want revenge, but end a problem as quick as possible, then violence is a quick solution for the time being, but the underlying problem never goes away. Think carefully on what should be done, how to make it so that there might never be the need for violence.

[ March 24, 2007, 12:57: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

I have never argued that violence is never necessary. I've only argued that violence doesn't change minds. It only changes who has the power in any given situation. If all other methods have failed, well, that's better than nothing, but still not a solution to the underlying problem. It is merely a change in the power dynamics of the situation.

Regarding using violence to give out reform...it won't necessarily work. Being beaten isn't necessarily going to show the loser that he was wrong and cause him to change, first of all. Second, there is no guarantee that the person in the right will actually win. Using the rape example, killing the rapist won't un-rape my wife and I'd probably go to prison for it. If the rapist were to come to harm, I'd be the primary suspect in the investigation, so getting away with it would be almost impossible. There's also no guarantee that in attempting to enforce justice where the law has failed, I will succeed. I might actually fail to kill the rapist, get killed or caught myself, and then end up in prison. Perhaps it would be worth doing, but it's also a nearly guaranteed murder conviction if I succeed, and a lesser (but still substantial) conviction should I fail. For me, the years I'd lose for the crime would be better spent with my wife than in prison. Sometimes it's better to just lick your wounds and move on.

 

I think most problems can be solved without resorting to violence. Although of course there are times when violence must be used, like in the gun and knife example Chevalier gave at the top of this page. I've never had to use violence. I just do lots of negotiating and compromising hehehe... Being the youngest definetly has its benefits.

 

No, but it will mean one less rapist in the world, and will possibly save a whole bunch of others from being raped too, which is a very positive outcome.

I don't think so.. It means giving in, and accepting the fact that you've been stomped on, I couldn't live like that. It's better to live one day as a lion, than one hundred years as a sheep

 

Way to ignore my entire argument and just take one point out of context. First of all, many eyewitness accounts of are, in fact, wrong. It's important to realize that sometimes "guilty" people don't go to prison because they, well, aren't. Since I don't have access to the forensic tools that the police have, am working only off my wife's eye witness evidence, and am married to the victim, my take on the crime is likely to lack the necessary detachment to make a sound judgment. Eyewitness testimony isn't as dependable as you would think. You are also missing the main part of my argument...that my wife would rather have me with her for the rest of her life than in prison....which will happen if I take revenge, justice, or whatever you want to call it into my own hands. The police are the only citizens authorized enforce the law. Vigilantes end up in prison.

Look, dude, I'm not arguing that using violence against a rapist isn't somewhat justifiable. I'm arguing that doing so is trading one problem for another. Someone rapes my wife, the law fails to successfully imprison him, so I take matters into my own hands....and then I end up in prison, instead. My being in prison, from my perspective, would be a big ****ing problem. My wife would rather have me than revenge...and I'd rather be with her, too. Outside of prison, I'm free to be a lion (within the confines of the law)...and I'll be there to console and protect my wife and family. In prison, they will force me to be a sheep...and probably somebody's bitch, too.

[ March 24, 2007, 18:43: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

You agree that violence against a rapist is justifiable. That's all I wanted to know. There was no need to go into ifs and buts and all of those other possibilities.

Perhaps in Iowa, but not everywhere is like Iowa, and I can assure you that things don't always work that way.

 

Actually, I said somewhat justifiable. I still think it's wrong.

Name one western nation that exists outside a comic book universe that allows frontier justice. By the way, I'm not originally from Iowa. I've lived all over the country and actually hail from DC.

 

No nation has legislation in place that "allows", but that doesn't mean it doesn't go on. Try south america, africa, eastern europe, italy.

 

It goes on in the US, too. But if you get caught killing someone we call that murder, even if the victim was a bastard who had it coming. The law can't pick and choose whose rights it protects.

 

Add a cunning of a fox and a difference might be made. Lions are as significant as parasites. Brute force and violence do not change the world. Better to live a day as a lion than change the world, and making it better? I don't think so. There are crime victims and their families that start to build the society for the better instead of going on a murderous rampage.

 

Change the lion to lioness, and maybe I wouldn't mind agreeing!

 

I've got my eye on you..

 

Violence to me means the intent to cause grievous harm to another either physically or verbally.

Other than in protecting oneself, others or one's country from violent action I see no benefit to it. Quit the contrary because violence begets violence and hate begets hate.

A child raised by violent parents will frequently be a violent, abusive person or a door mat that thinks others have a right to walk all over him/her.

So very true.

 

Hmmm...lot of interesting discussion here.

Let me state my view on things by stealing someone else's words and paraphrasing them into this particular topic:

"War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means." - Karl von Clausewitz

Basically, 'war' is violence exerted on the national level. And please not the implication of the way this statement is worded; note only are the armies just another tool in the diplomat's toolbelt, it is (or should be) the last tool used, or only when none of the others will work.

Anyways, violence can solve things, but usually other methods will solve the same things better. But there's always those few things that only violence can solve...

...so did I say anything that others haven't already?