Battlecruiser Operational
Smash Journeyman
This topic was inspired by a pre-Tale of Two Cities activity my English class is doing.
What is violence? Well, I wrote my own little defenition, but I realize it has flaws. Here it is:
"An act of malicious intent and/or resulting in an intended or ignored harmful situation for another thinking being (excluding situations of self-defense and survival instincts/tactics)."
What I've come to realize about my defenition is that it lacks a broad defenition about what "intended/ignored situation" is. One might say that if you throw a baseball at a batter (on purpose, mind you) and it misses and hits the umpire, that is non-violent against the umpire. However, if you were to shoot at someone, miss, and hit someone else, it would probably be considered an act of violence against the bystander. So basically, how does collateral damage affect whether the act is truly violent?
There are other issues that are bound to come up, probably including what the defenition of a "thinking being" is, but consider my defention my position on this topic.
Some other things to think about: are boxing and wrestling violent? Is killing plants for the sake of killing plants violent (I say no -- they are not thinking beings)? And where do you draw the lines for self-defense and survival tactics? To be defending yourself, do you have to be attacked violently first?
What is violence? Well, I wrote my own little defenition, but I realize it has flaws. Here it is:
"An act of malicious intent and/or resulting in an intended or ignored harmful situation for another thinking being (excluding situations of self-defense and survival instincts/tactics)."
What I've come to realize about my defenition is that it lacks a broad defenition about what "intended/ignored situation" is. One might say that if you throw a baseball at a batter (on purpose, mind you) and it misses and hits the umpire, that is non-violent against the umpire. However, if you were to shoot at someone, miss, and hit someone else, it would probably be considered an act of violence against the bystander. So basically, how does collateral damage affect whether the act is truly violent?
There are other issues that are bound to come up, probably including what the defenition of a "thinking being" is, but consider my defention my position on this topic.
Some other things to think about: are boxing and wrestling violent? Is killing plants for the sake of killing plants violent (I say no -- they are not thinking beings)? And where do you draw the lines for self-defense and survival tactics? To be defending yourself, do you have to be attacked violently first?