Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

Frumple, clearly you don't realise that the full title of Sun Tzu's work is "The Art of War for Wussies".

[Zrk2]

Violence is only justified in self-defence or the defence of others. /thread

[Luke_Prowler]

While Pacifism admirable, and non-violent solutions should be strive for, I can respect a person who knows when violence must be used and in that moment hold nothing back in skill and dedication.   

[Naryar]

Fighting is incredibly fun, plus it permits you to learn about yourself and your opponent.

Violence has it's uses though. Conflict is existence, and forges one's own personality. Violence is just part of it. It's far from being all of conflict, but it's a good part of it. Violence can be used for evil, but it is not evil nevertheless.

Of course, you should still control your violent instincts so that they do not control you instead, else you quickly become a tool to your own emotions and there is no worse slavery, and I will agree intellectually that there are plenty of conflicts where violence is far from the best answer. We are not ravening beasts, after all.

[Muz]

Tbh, I find pacifism very frustrating at times. Much of the world has resorted to passive-aggression.

This means double parking in front of someone's car because they can't smash your window. This means spreading lies and slandering people you don't like. This means nonviolent protests that actually do some kind of economical/political/social damage and leave the 'stronger' party powerless to counter.

Nonviolence is not harmless, it is often swapping physical violence for some other form of damage.

Gandhi was the master of passive aggression. He drew the British into attacking him, and used it to paint himself as the good guy/victim. A lot of modern political movements involve doing something to spite their opponents... drawing them into a fight, such as with slander or insults. A common modern use of passive aggression is by anti-Islamists who actively insult the Muslim community, hide behind free speech, provoke counter-attacks and use samples of those counter-attacks to paint all Muslims as bad guys.

Of course, violence is certainly bad, but the degree in which we're not allowed to be violent has a negative impact on society. A pacifist is no better a person than a non-pacifist.

I sympathize with the philosophy of Robert E Howard (Conan author) in which he believes that civilization has made people a lot more rude. When the threat of violence is removed, people are free to verbally and emotionally attack others.

[fqllve]

Nonviolence is not harmless, it is often swapping physical violence for some other form of damage.

The thing is, ideally in most situations you do not need to inflict any sort of retribution on any other party, be it physical, verbal, or circumstantial. And in most of the situations where people behave passive-aggressively, well it's good they don't resort to physical violence because it would be completely unwarranted in those situations. If passive-aggressiveness isn't warranted (and I think it rarely if ever is) then violence certainly isn't.

I sympathize with the philosophy of Robert E Howard (Conan author) in which he believes that civilization has made people a lot more rude. When the threat of violence is removed, people are free to verbally and emotionally attack others.

Yet violence is more damaging to society and to people. Obviously the lack of threat of violence allows people to behave more rudely than not, just look at the internet and it pretty soundly proves that point, but the solution isn't to bring back violence, because at least rudeness is more equal than strength, it's to realize that in most of the situations people are rude the whole thing is pointless, ineffectual, and unwarranted.

[lordcooper]

Passive-aggression is a lot less messy than the other kind.

[Scoops Novel]

As a male teenager, more then one of my friends has wanted a fight. I've held the theory that many would gleefully jump on the chance of attacking a bully for a while now. I can understand why, for a host of unavoidable reasons, and we all find the concept appealing at times (i know i like my bouts in the martial arts I've done for a while), but disproportionate retribution looks like it could easily be the order of the day in such a case. On the other hand, i don't hold with pacifism at all. Rather a lot are technical pacifists who don't seem to fully grasp that not terming yourself one often also means that you view it as a last resort option.

[Gamerlord]

Sometimes violence is necessary. And sometimes it just feels soooooo goooooooood. Especially when it's inflicted on someone who has really pissed you off.

[Neonivek]

I think everyone is sort of going outside the area of discussion the topic creator is refering to.

He isn't refering to geopolitical nonviolence

He is refering to Person to Person violence. Without weapons.

As well it seems to hint at violence against women. Though if only because of the natural conclusion there is to "satisfying your needs through the dominance of others with violence"

[fqllve]

Sometimes violence is necessary. And sometimes it just feels soooooo goooooooood. Especially when it's inflicted on someone who has really pissed you off.

Rarely is it necessary, and I try not to inflict suffering on people just because it feels good (it doesn't) regardless of whether or not I think they deserve it (I don't).

I think what really bothers me about this statement is the implication that violence still feels good when inflicted upon someone who hasn't pissed you off.

[Gamerlord]

Sometimes violence is necessary. And sometimes it just feels soooooo goooooooood. Especially when it's inflicted on someone who has really pissed you off.

Rarely is it necessary, and I try not to inflict suffering on people just because it feels good (it doesn't) regardless of whether or not I think they deserve it (I don't).

I think what really bothers me about this statement is the implication that violence still feels good when inflicted upon someone who hasn't pissed you off.

The implication was that it feels better on someone who has really pissed you off. Read the entire post before you reply.

[fqllve]

Dude, how could I have not read the entire post? If it wasn't your intention to say that, I apologize for suggesting otherwise, but just because you put really in bold doesn't exactly make it clear what situations you think violence feels good.

[Loud Whispers]

While Pacifism admirable, and non-violent solutions should be strive for, I can respect a person who knows when violence must be used and in that moment hold nothing back in skill and dedication.   

The idea of self defence and martial arts is that a proportional amount of force can be redirected towards an attacker. It is not a no-holds barred scrum. The entire idea of martial arts is to cultivate better ideals in one's self, not to be destructive.

This means double parking in front of someone's car because they can't smash your window.

This is better than smashing their window and is something that can be reasoned with.

This means spreading lies and slandering people you don't like.

This is better than beating them up and is something that can be harmless and at its worst reversed and reasoned with.

This means nonviolent protests that actually do some kind of economical/political/social damage and leave the 'stronger' party powerless to counter.

The idea is that when oppressed, people use their right to protest to be heard when all else are ignored. And as the occupy protests show, there is too much power that is used to counter.

Nonviolence is not harmless, it is often swapping physical violence for some other form of damage.

That is not what nonviolence is. Nonviolence is not just the absence of violence, it is the appreciation for the sanctity of life and the well-being of others.

Gandhi was the master of passive aggression. He drew the British into attacking him, and used it to paint himself as the good guy/victim.

He didn't draw the British into attacking him. The British wanted to put down protests of which Gandhi was later a key component of. One who fought for civil liberties, peace between the religions in India and all without violence deserves to be painted as a right person.

A lot of modern political movements involve doing something to spite their opponents... drawing them into a fight, such as with slander or insults. A common modern use of passive aggression is by anti-Islamists who actively insult the Muslim community, hide behind free speech, provoke counter-attacks and use samples of those counter-attacks to paint all Muslims as bad guys.

This is not a discussion about free speech, but I must digress. There are a lot of crimes that fundamental Muslims are guilty of. Free speech allows the criticism and discussion of said crimes without fear of beheading. The things I see wrong with your hypothetical situation is that you call actively harassing an entire community as passive actions, and that reacting violently is excusable if provoked. Not to mention no one who isn't xenophobic would generalize any one creed or nationality in such a way, in which case free speech is not your problem.

Of course, violence is certainly bad, but the degree in which we're not allowed to be violent has a negative impact on society. A pacifist is no better a person than a non-pacifist.

Please explain how violence can improve society.

I sympathize with the philosophy of Robert E Howard (Conan author) in which he believes that civilization has made people a lot more rude. When the threat of violence is removed, people are free to verbally and emotionally attack others.

Not without social backlash.

Sometimes violence is necessary. And sometimes it just feels soooooo goooooooood. Especially when it's inflicted on someone who has really pissed you off.

I cannot see a situation where it wouldn't be a day of regret when people have the power to inflict suffering on those they do not like.

[PanH]

I sympathize with the philosophy of Robert E Howard (Conan author) in which he believes that civilization has made people a lot more rude. When the threat of violence is removed, people are free to verbally and emotionally attack others.

I can't agree with that. Violence, verbal or physical is rude. If you consider verbal attacks as rude, then physical attacks are too.
Not accounting for the fact that without society, there wouldn't be politeness.