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. 

Views: 624

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Let me see if I understand this despite that unnecessary obfuscation:

The Chinese invading Tibet is not a political event. But the US invading Afghanistan is political.

Weird! But as long as you are not going to state next that resistance against political invasions are not permissible whereas resistance against non-political invasions are, then this distinction shouldn't be relevant to the argument.

@Unseen: I'm not sure I understand your point... it looks like you're trying to say that violence is justified in expelling an oppressive invading force, but it's not obvious.  You ask a question that seems to be rhetorical, but condemn someone who does the same to you...

So I'll ask the obvious: are you arguing that violence is ok when used to fight against a group that previously invaded another?

If so, would Native Americans would be justified in fighting against the US Government today?  If not, why would it apply to Tibet and not Native Americans?  Why is Afghanistan off-limits for discussion?  As Albert asks, why is one political and the other not? 

Is there a statute of limitations on violence in responding to an invading force?

Perhaps the American Indian has cause to rearm themselves then.

Don't they?

A simple fist fight back in the day (when I was growing up) was as bad as it got. Today, a fist fight or a confrontation can easily end up with a gun or knife being drawn and rather than just defending someones honor or reputation, you are now defending your very life. That's not a matter to be taken lightly. 

Having practiced self-defense since my early 20's, and having a concealed handgun license, I'm not a strange to preparedness and at 57, it has become no less of an issue.

I stick to my motto that I will not kill man nor beast unless they try to kill me first.

Avoid confrontation unless it will simply not avoid you, then fight like its your last.

Some really good comments on this thread by Danny, Misty, Unseen and BryanPaul. I'm probably repeating some stuff but here's my two cents:

Violence shouldn't be the go to reaction to a problem but there are times (more than some people seem to think) that it is warranted. Violence can solve problems and it can make them worse the key is know when to fight and when to back off. I'd love it if all the people in the world could use their words and reasoning to solve problems and violence was never necessary but that's not the world we live in. The world we live in is sometimes messy and violent, human beings are no different it's part of our nature. Like any other part of our nature we cannot completely suppress it nor would it be healthy to do so. I agree with the sentiment in Misty's posts... in some places in the world *cough USA cough* we take for example a couple teenage boys throwing a punch a little to seriously. I'd much rather be punched a few times than deal with the psychological warfare that my gender is notorious for. I have and will again throw a punch or two if it's necessary. I grew up with two brothers, a group of neighborhood boys and a bunch of wilderness to run around in for hours every day. I would have never survived without using some violence occasionally. Sometimes it takes throwing a punch to knock some sense into someone and sometimes it takes taking a punch to have some sense knocked into you and sometimes it just makes you or the other person feel better (a release) so you can actually move on to dealing with the problem in other ways.

Physical violence is nowhere near as damaging as mental violence. Black eyes and broken lips heal long before the accusations of being called worthless recede into our forgotten past.

I'm of the attitude, and I've taught my kids the same, to not start a fight. However, If you cannot get out of it then you finish it quickly. In other words, put the person 'down hard'. In my experience this has prevented additional future violence/fighting. I know there are situations where this would approach would not work, but as a general rule it has worked for me. 

I think it is indisputable that there are some situations where violence has to be used.  At an absolute minimum, one must recognize the right to use it to defend oneself or others against unprovoked or unjustified violence.

@Albert Bakker

Let me see if I understand this despite that unnecessary obfuscation:

The Chinese invading Tibet is not a political event. But the US invading Afghanistan is political.

Weird! But as long as you are not going to state next that resistance against political invasions are not permissible whereas resistance against non-political invasions are, then this distinction shouldn't be relevant to the argument.

Why would I deny it? I don't. It's just that it's nothing to do with the discussion. Poeple fight wars based on their perception of right and wrong. It's common (almost the rule) that both sides view their position as justified.

So?

@Phil Tibbs...

@Unseen: I'm not sure I understand your point... it looks like you're trying to say that violence is justified in expelling an oppressive invading force, but it's not obvious.  You ask a question that seems to be rhetorical, but condemn someone who does the same to you...

So I'll ask the obvious: are you arguing that violence is ok when used to fight against a group that previously invaded another?

If so, would Native Americans would be justified in fighting against the US Government today?  If not, why would it apply to Tibet and not Native Americans?  Why is Afghanistan off-limits for discussion?  As Albert asks, why is one political and the other not?

Is there a statute of limitations on violence in responding to an invading force?

I'm not saying it's justified, I'm asking how can you say it's not? Take the Native Americans and Afghanis for example. (Were you writing under the delusion that I didn't think either had a good case?)

International politics, like all politics, is power politics, so in that context it's never too late to rebel, if you think you've got the wherewithal to succeed. Now is obviously not the time for Native Americans to rebel. It would be a disaster. Probabably always will be, so I think it'd be unwise to rise up at this time, or ever, even were it morally justified.

At the same time, who lives where and who governs what is in a state of perpetual evolution. Certainly YOU aren't arguing that we should insist on no further changes in who occupies or governs what territory, thus locking the oppressed into their situation with no glimmer of hope for relief, ever(?).

Statute of limitations? Don't be silly. That's not how these things are done/settled. If some third party intervenes to defend an existing status quo, that is just further evidence that these things aren't settled on the basis of actual right and wrong, but rather on perceptions.

"Right" will be judged by your descendants, if you survive long enough to have any.  Use violence pre-emptively if necessary, in self defense if necessary, run away if necessary...whatever you gotta do.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Blog Posts

Dead man's Switch

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 11:29pm 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service