Is violence ever the answer?

[Murlough]

Is violence ever the answer? I believe so, but I wanted some other opinions on violence.

Many say that violence never solves anything but is that even a realistic thing to say? Many people are bullied growing up, governments attempt to enslave citizens, and the threat of terrorism is more real than it has ever been.

With these things in mind, including any points others bring up, do you think violence is unnecessary or necessary?

 

[MisterDom]

At most times, it is unnecessary. There will be times that all you can do is punch someone, but that really is rare, and we aren't at a point where violence is necessary. Violence shouldn't be started by being a victim of it, and what you should do is try to stop it. Violence makes things worse, and you have a voice in the political world, even without a revolution and without riots or deaths. There are peaceful ways to do everything.

Unless there's a test asking "what does war include?

A) Hugs by enemies
B) Violence
C) just made up stories
D) none of the above "

It ain't the answer.

 

[Murlough]

There will be times that all you can do is punch someone.

If all you can do is be violent in a given situation doesn't that mean at the time it was necessary?

we aren't at a point where violence is necessary.

I disagree. Specifically with the threat of ISIS, we are most certainly at a point where violence is necessary. If we stand by and peacefully ask them to stop they WILL continue to kill us. The only solution to stop them is violence as far as I can see. They have proven to be far too dangerous to ignore.

Violence makes things worse, and you have a voice in the political world, even without a revolution and without riots or deaths.

Yes, currently I have a voice in the political world of my country, but what happens when that voice is taken? Right now we have politicians that are criminals and (one specifically) defend a dictator who kills those who speak against him. The threat of losing this voice is very real. Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not. If it does then people should be prepared to get violent. Protesting is pretty hard when you lose your voice.

 

[Jenna Zant]

1. Is your life endangered?
2. Is someone else's life endangered?
3. Have you exhausted all other options?
4. Can you escape your current situation?
5. What are the consequences of resorting to violence?

These are all questions you should ask yourself before being violent.

 

[Foxus]

I divide violence into two categories. Necessary Violence, and Unnecessary Violence.

An example of Necessary Violence is if a intruder breaks into your house in the middle of the night, and is threatening to kill you. You take out your gun in this case on the guy.

An example of Unnecessary Violence is that riot in Ferguson. Breaking into CVS Pharmacy to make a point, really? What good will it do to burn a police car?

 

[FamilyTeam]

This is an example where violence solved a problem far better than peace ever could.
Is violence always the answer?
No.
Can it be a viable answer?
Sometimes.

 

[Rosten]

I don't feel like it's ever really fair to impose a single, blanket-rule on all situations. Violence isn't always the solution to a problem, and pacifism isn't always the solution either. The wonderful thing about human beings is our ability to make decisions like this, and decide when force, lethal or otherwise, is appropriate or not.

 

[FlusteredBat]

First define violence--any action intended to forcefully influence another living thing. That includes threats as well as physical impositions.

Violence is only immoral through initiation and only if the victim can be considered a moral agent (It's also my intuitive preference that potential moral agents count too). An equal degree of violence expressed in self-defense is acceptable, and usually completely necessary. Do not allow aggressors to plow through everything you value under the misguided assumption that violence is evil no matter what!

Senseless acts of violence committed against harmless non-persons such as pets are not on the same level as stabbing a baby, though should be considered implicit threats depending on the circumstance. It would be wise for society to temporarily/indefinitely detain mentally unstable individuals who openly broadcast their sadism.

 

[Murlough]

Senseless acts of violence committed against harmless non-persons such as pets are not on the same level as stabbing a baby, though should be considered implicit threats depending on the circumstance. It would be wise for society to temporarily/indefinitely detain mentally unstable individuals who openly broadcast their sadism.

I agree with you for the most part but pets are not "harmless non-persons." They are living just like people and feel pain just as we do. If a person came into my house and beat my dog I wouldn't give him any leniancy.

Whether he attacks my dog, my child, my wife, or I his intention to hurt another living being would be more than enough for me to act in defense.

I could be misinterpretting so I apologize if so.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I agree with you for the most part but pets are not "harmless non-persons." They are living just like people and feel pain just as we do. If a person came into my house and beat my dog I wouldn't give him any leniancy.

Whether he attacks my dog, my child, my wife, or I his intention to hurt another living being would be more than enough for me to act in defense.

I could be misinterpretting so I apologize if so.

"Person" is a specific term, it does not simply mean "able to feel pain". Personhood requires the capacity to consciously make decisions and thus be subject to ethical judgement, i.e. free will.

I never said we should allow the abuse of non-persons, only that it's not immorally equivalent to attacking other humans. Killing another person's pet is like the destruction of irreplaceable property, not murder. Defending one's pet against an aggressor is not unethical, though if they somehow pose no direct threat to human life then lethal force would be crossing the line (even if your pet ends up dead).

 

[Duplighost]

"Person" is a specific term, it does not simply mean "able to feel pain". Personhood requires the capacity to consciously make decisions and thus be subject to ethical judgement, i.e. free will.

I never said we should allow the abuse of non-persons, only that it's not immorally equivalent to attacking other humans. Killing another person's pet is like the destruction of irreplaceable property, not murder. Defending one's pet against an aggressor is not unethical, though if they somehow pose no direct threat to human life then lethal force would be crossing the line (even if your pet ends up dead).

To some degree, I agree with this; to some degree, I do not. In some crazy scenario, let's imagine an intruder has broken into your house, and his (I will refer to him as a male just for convenience) intentions are to harm you/your family. If you, in self-defense, were to pull out a gun to protect yourself, others, and your property, what would you do if the intruder pulled the trigger on your pet dog or cat? At least to me, there's no way that guy's getting any tolerance from me, and therefor I would probably bestow the same fate upon him. Pets are often categorized as irreplaceable property, yes, but to some people (myself included), dogs and cats are family.

However, if someone were to harm your dog or cat by, let's say, physically abusing it, then I don't think one should kill that person. Should one do everything aside of killing that person to protect the animal? Yes, to a certain extent. But if this aggressor were to pull a gun out on one's dog or cat... I'm not sure how that would morally play out.

 

[FlusteredBat]

To some degree, I agree with this; to some degree, I do not. In some crazy scenario, let's imagine an intruder has broken into your house, and his (I will refer to him as a male just for convenience) intentions are to harm you/your family. If you, in self-defense, were to pull out a gun to protect yourself, others, and your property, what would you do if the intruder pulled the trigger on your pet dog or cat? At least to me, there's no way that guy's getting any tolerance from me, and therefor I would probably bestow the same fate upon him. Pets are often categorized as irreplaceable property, yes, but to some people (myself included), dogs and cats are family.

However, if someone were to harm your dog or cat by, let's say, physically abusing it, then I don't think one should kill that person. Should one do everything aside of killing that person to protect the animal? Yes, to a certain extent. But if this aggressor were to pull a gun out on one's dog or cat... I'm not sure how that would morally play out.

It's important to understand that the gloves are completely off as soon as an intruder pulls a sufficiently dangerous weapon with violent intent. Any lethal action committed by a defending party would fall under justifiable homicide so long as their attacker still poses a serious threat. Violence is no longer justifiable if it strays from self-defense toward revenge/spite, though may elicit sympathy depending on the circumstance.

Best to avoid what-if scenarios in favor of principles and prevention.

 

[Brash Candihoot]

I think Violence should always be an option when necessary.

For example -

Batman is one of the dumbest "heroes" of all time.

His morals and past keep him from killing the bad guys, instead he locks them up and slaps them on the wrist. Those bad guys then escape from jail and murder his close friends and 100s of other people. Rinse and Reapeat. If Batman had just killed the bad guys in the first place it wouldn't keep happening over and over.

Not everyone deserves a second chance, and not everyone in this world deserves to actually be shown mercy. Some never learn and some are broken and evil.

 

[saviorslegacy]

Violence is the last answer you want.
It is occasionally the best and most effective answer.

I was in the military for over 4 and a half years and I only had to be violent twice......
(I had an 8 month extension)

 

[Shiida]

yeah, sometimes you just need it

 

[Poppin]

depends on the situation but generally yes

whether it be physical, mental, passive, etc, any form of violence can be healthy to a degree
not good to hold it all back . . .

 

[Tino]

If your life is being threatened, then you do what you gotta do to save yourself.

Other than that, violence is never the answer to any solution. At all.

 

[FlusteredBat]

If your life is being threatened, then you do what you gotta do to save yourself.

Other than that, violence is never the answer to any solution. At all.

Saving another person counts too.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Violence is always an answer. Whether it's the right or wrong answer depends very much on the situation at hand. Generally, it should be considered ONLY when you have no other options left, and even then it might not be so much a right answer, but a necessary one.

 

[Darkpit54]

Violence is never the ONLY answer, but sometimes it is the most effective answer.

 

[Deleted member]

if you are attacked yes

 

[MarMarTheGreat]

Violence sometimes is the answer as is Pacifism

You just need to be wise enough to know when to choose Violence or Peace

 

[I-ninja]

Violence is always an answer, it's just never a good one, it normally just comes back around on you normally.

Even when attacked, unless you know they want to kill you, one should try to get out of it the best they can, and if they really want to fight one should restrict themselves to only counters, grapples, fight defusal moves (like a move so crazy they would never fight you again), and styles (but only if you know that they are a punk).

This goes for anything physical, one should never go to violence for mental or emotional attacks. That also goes for comforting people with ideological differences, violence should never be in the cards.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Avoid it when possible, but there are circumstances to where you would need to fight and have no choice in it.

There are situations where fighting is needed and you can't avoid it.

 

[Dutch Kirby]

Well, of course there are times where you need to use violence in self-defense to survive or save someone's life. Otherwise, violence is never okay. I'm a quite fanatic pacifist (but still Smasher, weird ).

And even if such a situation can be solved with violence, it's better to do it without violence whenever possible. Just making someone unable to hurt/kill you/others means doing the lightest thing possible for that, it's not an excuse to kill them if it's not necessary.

 

[SSG SAX GAMER]

I think there are a few instances where violence is necessary. For example, certain wars are needed to protect the rights of people. I think violence is necessary if the person or group at hand isn't being reasoned with. It should probably be a last resort

 

[The Rhythm Theif]

Violence isn't ALWAYS the answer. It should be used when necessary, as the video I'm providing below will explain to you.

(Footage from the 2002 dub of Dragon Ball Z: Cooler's Revenge)
In the video, Goku saw memories of an explosion which hurt Piccolo, but didn't kill him entirely. Then he opened his eyes and he saw a bird with a red crest on it's belly die next to him. Goku was already upset at this point, because Cooler had already defeated the majority of the Z Fighters, including Krillin and Goku's son, Gohan, and murdered millions of innocent civilians. However, Goku would not go down without a fight, and he went Super Saiyan and laid the smackdown on Cooler, hitting Freiza's brother with a hook and a knee bash to the stomach. (Who taught Goku how to WRESTLE?!) It eventually led into Cooler's giant Death Ball being sent to the sun with a Kamehameha Wave, taking Cooler along with it. The video shown is also in my signature, since I think that besides Ash vs Paul, Ash vs Tobias, and Ash vs Gary, which are all good, Super Saiyan Goku vs Final Form Cooler is the BEST anime fight of all time.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The Rhythm Theif What made you feel like trolling the thread.

 

[The Rhythm Theif]

#HBC | Acrostic Hey, I'm not trolling the thread, it's just something related to anger!

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

#HBC | Acrostic Hey, I'm not trolling the thread, it's just something related to anger!

So your example was to substantiate that violence is acceptable in the world of Japanese cartoons. Do you understand what I'm getting at or am I going to have to burn ten posts to orient you towards what's wrong. Because, I'm actually not going to do that.

 

[The Rhythm Theif]

Yes. I will admit I DID try to substantiate that violence is sometimes acceptable by posting the final battle of Dragon Ball Z: Cooler's Revenge, but it was still related because Goku got angry and beat the ever living bajeezus out of his strong opponent!

 

[Teeb147]

Violence is most often never the best answer.

It can be one in certain situations, but even then there's always better. Defending yourself or someone else isn't necessarily violence. Just like using force by itself doesn't mean it's aimed at hurting someone. Taking someone down that are themselves violent can make sense. If you can't pin them down or you really need to knock them out or something then there's also ways to minimize damage, just like, ideally, tazers would be used instead of shooting someone. (that's some more extreme situations if it even comes around that tho.)

As humans we can get better and be creative in finding good ways that dont harm people or encourage more violence, to try to solve situations. Most of the time when we see it, it's coming from anger or hate rather than an actually good thought out solution. It's better to go for peace and harmony and finding ways that promote that as much as possible too, and only use force against someone if all other options aren't good enough.

It's also a judgment call. But in general it should always be one of the last options. (if any)
You can fight for what you believe is right without being violent. You can even be strong and make a stand without any of that.

 

[The Rhythm Theif]

Most of the time when we see it, it's coming from anger or hate rather than an actually good thought out solution.

So, it was kind of like the video I posted, with Goku turning Super Saiyan because of anger of Cooler destroying the planet's inhabitants, right?

 

[Teeb147]

So, it was kind of like the video I posted, with Goku turning Super Saiyan because of anger of Cooler destroying the planet's inhabitants, right?

Well emotions are normal, but it's not good to do things from anger that comes up. Doesnt mean it can't be part of wanting to do things that are important. It's also an anime about fighting, abd dire situations, so I would say it's not quite a match to modern life xD

If someone is destroying and hurting or killing people, and they're so strong that someone has to use violence to take them out because nothing else could work, then i would count that as an extreme situation ;p I think goku was right to use violence in that case, unless he would learn moves that subdue them like the sealing technique. That could be better But then you wouldn't get an entertaining show.

If we take it further, we could say it's better to create ways that make violence obsolete. As much as people can.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Yes. I will admit I DID try to substantiate that violence is sometimes acceptable by posting the final battle of Dragon Ball Z: Cooler's Revenge, but it was still related because Goku got angry and beat the ever living bajeezus out of his strong opponent!

I didn't ask if it was related, you are using an example in anime with no relevance to how it connects to the real world. You literally just posted your favorite show and forced it into the topic because you didn't want to address the topic itself on its own merit. What's next? To Love Ru on why intergalactic sex should be legalized? I like how you had to backtrack to the notion that it is "relevant" to the topic when the topic is looking for justification for violence. You're aware that apart from some anime, most of them are incredibly divorced from actual reality right? So using them as some form of justification is just intrinsically bad and fundamentally immoral to use as a justification.

Let's be real, you think that I'm an asshole for calling you out on this. And you're completely right. But the only reason I'm even wasting my life to make this point to you on this is because I don't think anyone else in your life is treating you like an actual adult yet and calling you out on some of the **** you are typing/posting. Which I think is honestly going to screw you when you realize that no one took you seriously because they thought you weren't worth the effort. Seriously, next time you float an opinion like this to your friends IRL look at their body language & facial expressions. Being able to read in between the lines sooner rather than latter is going to do you a ton of favors.

And yes, I will actually be mildly annoyed if you quote me again with more justifications on why you're right and why I'm wrong if it's going to continue to be completely illogical because I already typed in my prior post that I don't want to waste posts attempting to orient you when someone else should be doing this job e.g. the two people that conceived you.

 

[Lore]

Just popping in to say that simmering down might be the best call here, Acrostic. It's starting to get a bit heated and personal.

I also disapprove of using anime as a source for real life dilemmas here, Rhythm. I recommend pulling from real life history to make a point next time instead.

 

[Deleted member]

When it comes to the way I live, I find it not so necessary.

The only case where I would see myself doing anything close to violent behaviour would be a slap to a close person who is getting muddled up or extremely nuts at specific points.

But that’s really it, honestly.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Lore I'm in the wrong, but I had to type what I typed out of principle. I'm not interested in escalating.

The Rhythm Theif I'm not interested in escalating, but you will understand why I'm taking the stance I'm taking when you have to start taking it. I see too many kids being treated with kid's gloves and then playing the victim when they get slammed by a dose of reality. I've also seen too many negligent parents because many of them are unfortunately my friends who are wonderful people who had kids too soon and treat them like best friends, but honestly have 0 interest in growing them up to be adults. Then their children ask me some ridiculous af questions where I have to take an honest look at some of my adult friends and honestly wonder if they are still a kid raising their kids to be kids.

I've always been shameless in sticking to what I think is the right call, if there is a flaw in my line of thinking then I will be willing to entertain how I'm wrong in private conversations, but if it's a non-logical discourse and more about you perceiving hate speech or being offended then please keep that to yourself.

 

[Lore]

I've always been shameless in sticking to what I think is the right call, if there is a flaw in my line of thinking then I will be willing to entertain how I'm wront in private conversations, but if it's a non-logical discourse and more about you perceiving hate speech or being offended then please keep that to yourself.

Acro, you can't say rough things, admit that they are rough, then say that the person can't say that they are offended lol. Come on man.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Acro, you can't say rough things, admit that they are rough, then say that the person can't say that they are offended lol. Come on man.

True that. I think it works if I can admit that I'm an asshole though.