I do not condone violence and I do my best to avoid it whenever possible; however, I have been in many fights and I can think of only one that I believe was not justified.
I was raised with two younger sisters and my father has always told me that it was my job to protect them and to stop anyone who might threaten them. My parents said this of not just my sisters but of my family and as I grew and this became one of my characteristics I placed my protection on my friends as well. This was very common in my family among my relatives and my cousins and I always defended each other. This does not mean we are like a gang going around beating people up but rather the opposite. We feel safe around each other and that gives us a greater sense of freedom because we never fear violence.
When an older bully at my school would not stop harassing me and school authorities did little to stop the abuse my father taught me how to fight properly so that I can be more effective at stopping some one quickly and efficiently.
I have never gone into violence easily. In over 34 years I can still count with the fingers on my hands how many times I have been in a fight that was not for sport. I can almost always win a fight with my brains and I have learned to use it effectively in that way. But there are those who would resort to violence because they lack the intelligence to defend themselves without it. I refuse to be a punching bag for those people and I will fight back and hit them hard and effectively.
Sounds as if we grow up a lot alike Danny. Does violence solve problems? Sometimes it solves more than you think, other times it makes them worse. I've had fights with people who were nothing but bullies and after a good round of "I'm not the one", they quit picking on anyone. Don't know why some people are like this but I have also fought people that if you beat them they bring friends the next day. They don't learn anything except how to be bigger bullies. I was raised rural (very rural), and I seen every animal in my part of the world fight for one thing or another. People are no different. To me civilized is just a word used by people who have never seen what it is to have to fight. Not that this is a bad thing. If you can afford not to fight, it's the best option. If not fighting means torment for your sister or someone taking what you have, I've fought for less. I know many on here will disagree but I say to you, I'm just not as civilized.
I feel you.
More and more I see people acting like pack animals. There is this struggle for dominance we see played out in offices and shopping malls every day. Mean Girls, Queen Bee Syndrome. I'd argue that the psychological warfare little girls commonly wage on each other is far more damaging than boys getting in a tussle. In fact, the hysterics that seem to surround what most people used to consider normal milestones of growing up have some how become on par with rape or molestation. It's insane!
The parent figures I had in my life were the ones that cared enough to spank my little ass when I got out of line.
Some people aren't so evolved that stern words are enough.
I see the same thing in dogs. Again.. pack animals. I've owned wolves that I had to be physically violent towards when they misbehaved, because that's how they learned not to. Now I have a Doberman that's so sensitive and in tune with my every spoken word, I barely even raise my voice. He's just not that type. People are the same way, I think.
Our society has gone batshit crazy over something that's pretty natural. I mean, it's like Victorians repressing sex.
Violence in self-defense is acceptable. In fact, one might argue that it is necessary to protect themselves or others. I would tend to agree with this. Violence for the sake of violence is, in my opinion, wrong, and should be avoided at all costs. That's just my take on it.
I dunno. I think that in some cases I'd rather be hit than 'restrained.'
One seems way less of a violation than the other. One is considered violent and one is considered passive, though. That's just me, personally.
So let me go out on a limb here.
What's the big deal about violence?
Now obviously, I don't mean maiming, crippling or killing. That's not good for the species over all.
Let's just talk about a good old ass stomping. Isn't that sort of a part of human nature? And what happens when you suppress any part of human nature? We do it for a reason. Eradicating it from our species full stop might not be the best idea.
I'm pretty sure I read a study somewhere that said cops with pepper spray were in more incidents where they had to use it than cops without. The study pretty much indicated that the pepper spray made the police forget how to use 'words' to de-escalate a situation.
I buy that. 'Upping the game" with weapons is an intent to do bodily damage. That's not what we are talking about here.
Straight bitch slapping someone?
Eh. That's kind of a gray area for me.
I was mouthy as a kid and got in plenty of school yard fights.
I've been in my fair share of bar brawls.
I've been in full contact sports and even found myself in a riot or two. Seriously. I survived.
So since when did violence become the new taboo? Is it going that way? Is that hijacking the conversation?
If the author wants, I'd be happy to repost this somewhere else. I think it's relevant considering the overall scope of the question originally asked.
I have been in policing almost 15 years and this is the best book I have seen on the subject I have seen for civilians:The Littte Black Book of Violence. Safety trumps all.Period.
So, not to reclaim land unjustly taken by an invader? To take an example, you think Tibetans should be limited to begging China to give it back its sovereignty. Now, I don't think it's very likely the Tibetans will rise up against China, but apparently, to be consistent with your opinion, you would condemn them if they did.
I think that would be consistent with the first statement he made, self-defense. After all, fighting off an invader is self-defense, isn't it?
Only during the invasion.
That's a nice example. Tibetan history is rich and not at all easily characterized as Chinese invaders occupying Tibet. This is not to say that any of it is morally or politically justifiable, but it is not as obvious an example to clarify your argument as say that Afghani and Iraqi's fighting off American invaders would be.
That's a rather dishonest end run around my point the gist of which was, if some country annexes another country and years later the annexed country decides to fight for its original sovereignty, isn't violence justified then? or should it just plead its case?
You might try actually answering comments instead of leaping at an opportunity to inject your personal political views. There are other discussions for that.
So I take it you have no ACTUAL reply to my point. Or if you do, here's your invitation to make it.
What do you mean? Dishonesty? End run around your point? I did not even deny your point, in fact I gave another more clear example of your point.
Now it could be that all of the sudden you have developed some ambivalence about the consistency of your argument. Possibly even to open yourself up to an accusation of hypocrisy when in some cases of invasions violence is not permissible. That is this judgment appears to be more dependent on the question who is doing the invading and who is doing the violent resisting.
It doesn't even change with your ad hoc provision of imposing a delay (undoubtedly adjustable to your arbitrary criteria) before a violent response to an invasion becomes permissible.
You are being silly.
You didn't even ADDRESS my point, was my point. People who never miss an opportunity to turn a nonpolitical discussion into a political one where they can get on their soapbox to talk about something else entirely are a waste of time.