Violence is the Only Answer

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Now I know many people say that there is NO EXCUSE for resorting to violence in ANY situation whatsoever. I certainly believe that it is the worst method of changing things, HOWEVER I do know that sometimes reason and words will not reach the unjust. Can violence ever be the answer in order to solve things?

I'll give you all an example. Brutal military regimes in countries such as Burma have exploited minorities for DECADES. Rape, murder, thievery and unquestionable atrocities that I can't even speak of occur every single day. Child soldiers are indoctrinated at such a young age that all of this violence is the only behaviour they KNOW. Sometimes an individual or group of people can be so firmly set in their way of doing things that words WILL NEVER REACH THEM. So what can the answer be?

If you came home to find someone harming your family, would you sit them down for a drink and TALK it over with them? When do you think violence against others is justified? If your answer is NEVER, then why? What can be done in these extreme situations.

We need to face ourselves. Violence is what we know. What do we do about it? That's for you to decide...

[Octo22]

Violence is the Only Answer

Agreed.

[thesphinx]

I think violence for defense purposes and for unjust situations is fine we would probably be under a Nazi government if we hadn't have used violence to stop Hitler, but I think violence for the sake of violence is not ok.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I totally agree with that. Violence for the sake of violence is NEVER justifiable. Violence is not even the BEST answer to a problem. But sometime it IS the ONLY answer. I wouldn't hesistate to resort to violence however if me or my own were at stake.

[redcar]

Violence is a key part of who we are. Something we have to face and accept. We are humans, we all have different needs and wants and it is in our nature to be agressive in getting them. Also we have families and friends who we love, peoplw we will protect at any and all costs.

I would never say it is the only answer, but it is an answer. If your smart in a lot of cases you can find a way to prevent it going that far.

[Camazotz]

Sometimes violence is the best and only answer. You should avoid using violence by all costs, but sometimes you have to enforce pain to bring justice. If there is a war, and the enemies will stop at nothing to kill innocent people, they must be dealt with.

[theOperaGhost]

I totally agree with that. Violence for the sake of violence is NEVER justifiable. Violence is not even the BEST answer to a problem. But sometime it IS the ONLY answer. I wouldn't hesistate to resort to violence however if me or my own were at stake.

I agree with that. Violence has its time. I would use violence if provoked enough to do so. I don't think that anything is going to stop people from fighting with each other. It's human nature.

[*Dissident*]

Is it our responsibility to help those people, yet let gang warfare tear our own inner cities apart? Our responsibility to spend over half of our tax money on defense while people in our own country die from poverty and lack of health care? I agree, violence would inevitably be a solution to problems such as Burma and Darfur. But I also believe that it is not the time, place, or responsibility of the US to intervene in a violent manner. There are ways, nonviolent ones, to quell violence in these countries. Stop the gun runners. eventually, they will have more broken guns than good ones, and with no supply of bullets or new arms, the violence will eventually stop on a large scale. Embargo the leaders of these nations as long as they refuse to do something. etc.

I believe that, in the ultimate point of human existance, a general world peace can and will be achieved. violence ALWAYS (inevitably, unrelentingly, forever) breeds more violence. The sooner countries and the people in them can restrain themselves from throwing a punch, the sooner we can turn the other cheek, the sooner we stop saying war is inevitable, the sooner we wage PEACE, the sooner world peace will arrive.

just my opinion.

[NextToNormal]

violence is human nature, not gonna lie. but violence doesnt solve everything. it may work for the time being, but in the end it only causes more problems or causes small problems to get bigger. being human, we are quick to react to situations through violence because even as kids we were taught when someone hits you, you hit them back. and as kids, minimal violent behavior like hitting someone causes problems. and as we grow older, things we learned as kids stick with us and we revert back to that when we are faced with problems.
really, its just a quick fix.

[0=]

Violence is never the answer because violence is the problem. Self-defense (NOT preemptive wars) is acceptable, but violence can only destroy. The example of Burma is a good one. If every man, woman, and child goes out in peaceful protest absolutely refusing to move out of the way of violent authorities they would win. It would be self-defeating for the government to destroy all of its own people. Violent people have no place on this earth and should be dealt with by isolation in a concrete cell, including anyone who supports a non-defensive war.

[Whisper]

Violent people have no place on this earth and should be dealt with by isolation in a concrete cell, including anyone who supports a non-defensive war.

For someone who hates violence
you seem to have no problem what-so-ever with hurting people who disagree with your opinions

Not a very peaceful stance now is it

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Yeah and it kinda shows ignorance towards the situation we're in. You can believe all you want in what SHOULD be done as a solution. But what IS being done? Nothing so far has solved this problem. And if violent people should be locked up; you might as well lock up everyone. Not a single person in their life has ever NOT done something violent towards another person (no matter how big or little the action was). It's practically ingrained into our DNA for survival.

Most of all there is NO such thing as a non-defensive war. If you WANT you could call that a LOSING war. Think about that for a second...

[Φρανκομβριτ]

If you can avoid violence at any cost, do it. It doesn't bring anything but bad. Sometimes you do need to defend yourself, or your loved ones i agree, but taking over a country with force just because? No.

[The Entertainer]

As soon as ThatCanadianGuy said "DNA for survival" I sighed with relief!
Im certain that the only reason why we use violence is to survive. No matter how civilized people think we are today, morals and the like have been around about 1% of homo sapiens' existence.
If we feel threatened, we naturally want to use violence. Its part of our biological make-up, to survive, to get rid of the potential predator, threatener to your survival.

[Gavin]

I think if your life is in really DANGER then violence is the only answer, i wouldn't just stand there and get the crap beaten out of me and i don't think anyone else would for that matter.

[japanman]

I think if your life is in really DANGER then violence is the only answer, i wouldn't just stand there and get the crap beaten out of me and i don't think anyone else would for that matter.
i ahgre for example would you let someone walk by you with a gun and points it at you theres proof that you can react

[0=]

If it's absolutely necessary for self-defense go ahead, but I don't see how it's hypocritical to say violent people should be locked up. It's a non-violent form of defense for the good of society. Violence may be part of your instincts, but to be civilized is to act in a logical, thought-out manner, not based on emotion or gut feeling alone. People seem so set on separating themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom, but wearing clothes, living in a house, and driving a car do not separate you. The only real separation between humans and the rest of the animals is our intellectual capacity, which is so often misused and ignored by violent individuals, among others. By killing another person you are defeating your own purpose for existing.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

I think its safe to say, if you want to be the initiating violent person (the one who throws the first punch), then you should be revoked of your rights as a citizen, including death in some cases. Nothing makes it alright to start a fight.

[The Entertainer]

whilst its fine to debate the self-defence argument, if you are in the process of being mugged, you have about 0.5 seconds to react.

[Whisper]

I personally have no problem beating the shit out of someone who deserves it
I've only been in one real hardcore first fight
I started it
he fuckin deserved it
I won!
BOO-YAAA!

The "violence is never the answer" movement is as big a bullshit as the "shoot first fuck questions" movement

You need a balance
Violence is something that as an intelligent species we have the ability to know when and when not to use it
You shouldnt run around attacking people/countries
but you don't let people walk all over you either
Because being completely pacifist basically means your not willing to stand up for yourself or those you care about

[*Dissident*]

Because being completely pacifist basically means your not willing to stand up for yourself or those you care about

Not True.

Merriam-Webster:

opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds.

Apathy would be what you are talking about. I am a pacifist. I would not actively engage in a fist fight if I were threatened until I felt that it was necessary for my health to do so, which would usually be as the opposition draws his fist, at which point, I would not engage in a preemptive attempt; I would cover my face with my forearms like a good boxer.

You must make a distinction between defending yourself, and seeking violence as a means of problem solving. I would defect if i was called for draft in the Iraq war, because I do not see it as a war for defense. On the other hand, for the most part WWII was for defense purposes, and I would have showed up at the barracks.

[theOperaGhost]

It's practically ingrained into our DNA for survival.

I agree with this. We're just like animals and animals are violent. I'm not saying we're animals, but violence is just our first instinct. The only difference between humans and animals is that we have the capibility to think before we act.

[The Entertainer]

we are clever animals, we have a conscience, which stops us from killing our rivals to some extent. But think about how much self-control we use every day, and how much we are over-riding our natural (and sometimes evil) instincts.

[spawn123]

violence is not the only answer but its simples and easiest solution.If someone is pricking me for a long time i don't say anything to him just come closer to him a smack him into the nose

[Mannequin]

I agree with this. We're just like animals and animals are violent. I'm not saying we're animals, but violence is just our first instinct. The only difference between humans and animals is that we have the capibility to think before we act.


We ARE animals....literally, like we are.

[0=]

violence is not the only answer but its simples and easiest solution.If someone is pricking me for a long time i don't say anything to him just come closer to him a smack him into the nose

I fail to see how it is a solution.

[Jman35]

In certain situations, I believe violence is needed. If violence wasn't meant to be, why is it natural to resort to it first thing? All animals fight, including humans. If it is last resort, than violence can be used.

BUT, you should try other methods before violence, and if you KNOW violence won't solve shit, then don't use it out of anger.

[Bobby]

Please try to avoid posting in old threads.

Locking.