Print

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

[Flying Dice]

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.

This is deeply flawed thinking. The real outcome is essentially that people with the power to harm others while avoiding an equivalent amount of harm in return are free to speak their minds, and everyone else had better just shut up and listen to their betters. The notion of a time when the lack of restrictions on physical violence made everyone polite and well-mannered is a dangerous, delusional, romanticized fantasy.

[Neonivek]

Actually hold on Flying Dice... Lets say that was true.

Think about it closely. The Threat of violence made people "Polite and well mannered".

As in if you think about it. People were holding their tongue because someone tougher then them was willing to beat them down with physical violence that would hurt, injure, maim, and kill them.

That isn't "Romantic" that is horrific!

Why is Howard right? Because he didn't catch onto what he actually found out.

It was the lack of threat of violence indeed... but it was MORE because of a growing belief that people shouldn't be punished with violence because of what they say. That dissent isn't something that should be quelled destructively. No one was there to kill you because you spoke your mind.

This isn't about being "polite" this is just the ability to say what you are thinking openly and freely without the looming threat of disproportionate retribution hovering over you.

[Flying Dice]

Actually hold on Flying Dice... Lets say that was true.

Think about it closely. The Threat of violence made people "Polite and well mannered".

As in if you think about it. People were holding their tongue because someone tougher then them was willing to beat them down with physical violence that would hurt, injure, maim, and kill them.

That isn't "Romantic" that is horrific!

Why is Howard right? Because he didn't catch onto what he actually found out.

It was the lack of threat of violence indeed... but it was MORE because of a growing belief that people shouldn't be punished with violence because of what they say. That dissent isn't something that should be quelled destructively. No one was there to kill you because you spoke your mind.

This isn't about being "polite" this is just the ability to say what you are thinking openly and freely without the looming threat of disproportionate retribution hovering over you.

That. Was. The. Point. I. Was. Making. Seriously, did you read my post? At all? Everything I said was explicitly opposed to the romantic ideal of a world where everyone is a decent person because they are all allowed to injure, maim, and kill each other. Did you miss the "dangerous, delusional fantasy" bit?

[Neonivek]

Ohh I read what you wrote.

I am just saying that you can take what the person said at face value, but deconstruct it.

Rather then saying "it isn't true".

[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.   

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.

I do not refer to "not holding back" as beating someone down, since if they are unable to fight back then the violence is no long necessary. If anything, defeating your opponent without throwing a single blow is the greatest representation of martial prowess. Merely that should your hand be forced, then let that hand fly true.

I was more considering the defense of others rather than self defense, though it's my fault for not referring to that.

[Flying Dice]

Ohh I read what you wrote.

I am just saying that you can take what the person said at face value, but deconstruct it.

Rather then saying "it isn't true".

So, "These are the underlying assumptions of this statement, and they are faulty." isn't functionally equivalent to "This statement is false." in this instance?

Incidentally, I hope you understand that to take something at face value and to deconstruct something are by definition mutually exclusive actions. Literally.

Take at face value: To accept someone or something just as it appears; to believe that the way things appear is the way they really are.
Deconstruct: To analyze something by deconstruction, typically in order to expose its hidden internal assumptions.

[Gamerlord]

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.

I do not refer to "not holding back" as beating someone down, since if they are unable to fight back then the violence is no long necessary. If anything, defeating your opponent without throwing a single blow is the greatest representation of martial prowess. Merely that should your hand be forced, then let that hand fly true.

I was more considering the defense of others rather than self defense, though it's my fault for not referring to that.

I'm an advocate of the idea that if you do need to resort to violence then you should go full on, no holding back in order to cause fear.

Example: You're at a party, you're drinking, your friends are drinking, everyone is having a good time until someone starts making trouble and resists the efforts of you and your friends to resolve it peacefully. Basically this is a guy looking for a fight. Now, is it better to take him down with the absolute minimum amount of force possible, or to give him a beating him and his friends won't forget?

I believe that you should always try to head off confrontations long before they happen, which leads to me believing that if you knock a guy out quick, the his mates are gonna come after you later, but if you beat him down, break his bones and smash his face open, then no one who witnesses it or the result will dare take you on.

[Neonivek]

leads to me believing that if you knock a guy out quick, the his mates are gonna come after you later

Especially since chances are... you just killed him.

If you just knocked that guy out "quick" get him to a hospital even if he regains consciousness because chances are you just gave him hematoma.

[Gamerlord]

By 'knock out quick' I don't necessarily mean to knock them out, I mean to incapacitate. Maybe stun him, dislocate a joint or two maybe, nothing major.

[Loud Whispers]

Now, is it better to take him down with the absolute minimum amount of force possible, or to give him a beating him and his friends won't forget?

I believe that you should always try to head off confrontations long before they happen, which leads to me believing that if you knock a guy out quick, the his mates are gonna come after you later, but if you beat him down, break his bones and smash his face open, then no one who witnesses it or the result will dare take you on.

This is why we don't excuse the actions of vigilantes. It solves nothing yet creates more problems.

When you scale that force and use intimidation, not only are you a terrorist with no concern for anyone but yourself, but people will want to kill you too. Shock and awe works for no one.

Humans are not dogs that instinctively follow the one with the biggest stick and the strongest arms.

[Il Palazzo]

Oooh, this thread is making me very violent. At least 390 nm!

[moocowmoo]

Has anyone else gotten into fistfight and then afterwards they were good friends with the guy? When I was growing up there was one guy who made my life hell by always making fun of me in a passive aggressive way. It was super uncomfortable and toxic to be around him. One day we finally got into a fistfight and then after that he was really nice to me and we were friends. I'm against violence generally but I agree that sometimes passive aggression can hurt way more than violence.

[Gamerlord]

Now, is it better to take him down with the absolute minimum amount of force possible, or to give him a beating him and his friends won't forget?

I believe that you should always try to head off confrontations long before they happen, which leads to me believing that if you knock a guy out quick, the his mates are gonna come after you later, but if you beat him down, break his bones and smash his face open, then no one who witnesses it or the result will dare take you on.

This is why we don't excuse the actions of vigilantes. It solves nothing yet creates more problems.

When you scale that force and use intimidation, not only are you a terrorist with no concern for anyone but yourself, but people will want to kill you too. Shock and awe works for no one.

Humans are not dogs that instinctively follow the one with the biggest stick and the strongest arms.

No, we are not dogs. We are still organisms and the language that all life understands is: mess with me and I will f*ck your shit up. And I'm not going on about 'shock and awe'. Neither am I a terrorist.

[Neonivek]

By 'knock out quick' I don't necessarily mean to knock them out, I mean to incapacitate. Maybe stun him, dislocate a joint or two maybe, nothing major.

Stunning?

You REALLY don't know how to incapacitate a person safely do you?

Which I would rewrite but it is a point. Attempting to stop someone with violence without knowledge of how to apply said violence has the concequence of causing undue harm.

[Loud Whispers]

No, we are not dogs. We are still organisms and the language that all life understands is: mess with me and I will f*ck your shit up. And I'm not going on about 'shock and awe'. Neither am I a terrorist.

You are talking about beating up a drunk until they are broken and disfigured in an attempt to intimidate their friends into not retaliating.
Shock and awe and terrorism aptly describe what you suggest.

We are complex organisms and big sticks that fuck shit up do not stop violence, any more than beating up children gets them to lead peaceful lives as adults or the existence of the justice system eliminating murder.