Violence, is it never really an answer?

[sixtyandaquarter]

I'm pissed.  I was having a good time then I got thrown out of the Vanessa's car and had to walk a few blocks to get home.  All because of violence.

It was a conversation, and it ended up about her brother getting furious.  And he ended up punching up a wall, and the usual line "Violence is never the answer" was brought up.  And me being a dick, who will say something just for reaction to argument, said "Uhh...yes it is."

This resulted in a few things where I pulled "impossible hypothetical" as she called them.  Things where violence could never not be an answer, but only happen in situations where things were allowed to escalate.  Wars etc.  The whole WWII excuse of "Would the concentration camps stop with diplomacy in WWII?" and stuff.  So fine, I thought.

"Okay listen your walking down the street and I come over, and I'm some bum off the street whose crazy" - which caused her to laugh oddly - "and I come over and do this" and with that I gave her a push in the arm.  "You say stop and I don't" and I did it again.  Blah blah blah, a third push, and she started to get annoyed, which for some reason I love when she's annoyed.  "Well, diplomacy don't fail you now" and she hit me back - though technically I was giving pushes I wasn't hitting.  Which immediately set me off laughing and saying "Hypocrite!" which set off the "Get the fuck out of my car" and blah blah blah.

So.  Violence.  Can it always be deterred?  Is the case of some crazy guy with a gun the only situation where violence is an answer, and if so isn't that a little half hearted hypocrite and half hearted in and of itself,  to say then that violence isn't an answer except when...

We see it all the time.  Sometime someone just snaps.  Is this a case of hindsight when broken to go "Oh, here we are - if we just talked here none of this would have happened, and violence wouldn't have been needed", and if so doesn't that make it a shit statement - since technically the same could be said for "violence is always an answer", because in hindsight if you just killed the fucker then, the resulting violence that would have happened, never would've happened in the first place.

So, violence.  Extreme measure for the "except when's?  A legitimate reaction and counter to an occurrence?  And no, no.  I am not meaning so much the actual words "Violence is NEVER an Answer" in it's almost mantra like way, but rather the whole idea behind it.

Can violence be stopped?  Can it be held back.  Is it extreme or is it normal?  Shunned or embraced?  Do we need it, like some have said we do, or do we need to cut it out completely as others have said?

Perhaps violence isn't the answer.  Maybe it's the entire question.
Har har bad joke parade.

 

[arbiter]

;D

 

[Tindy]

I'm with arbiter, violence is always an answer if you need to defend yourself or others. 

But I have to ask: What, exactly, constitutes "violence?"  Is hitting my dog because he pissed on the rug "violence?" Does it have to be person-on-person?  Is punching violence, or can you get away with just pushing and have it considered the same? 

If any act that annoys or hurts someone else, human or otherwise, is considered "violence", then while violence isn't the best answer, it's going to happen anyway - remember, humans are still animals.  And animals inflict "violence" all the time - like the mama bear snapping at her kids, or cats clawing each others' eyes out.  It happens.  All we can do is try our best.

 

[arbiter]

;D

 

[Tindy]

Well, it just strikes me as odd that so many people have so many different ideas of what violence is.

I personally believe that violence is a completely concious effort on the part of the inflictor to intentionally cause pain, with no other motives.  Thus, punching someone in the face is violence; punching back is not.

However, there are people that believe that giving your children a smack is violence and must be stopped (but that's another discussion, now isn't it?)

I like to go into a debate knowing exactly what it is I'm debating, thus my asking for a simple description of what the people of this forum believe violence to be.

And thus, with my own description in mind, violence is never an answer.  But as I posted before, if violence is to be considered ANY act of hitting, punching, pushing, crunching, slapping, etc etc, then it most certainly can and is an answer.

 

[arbiter]

;D

 

[Karasawa]

Violence is emotion through physical interaction rather than a verbal interaction. Arguing with someone using violence without dishing out any of your own will do nothing. Words mean nothing over physical strength. At the same time, nonviolent protests have worked in the past. I guess it's really up to that person to decide if violence is the answer or not. People telling you otherwise are selfish, weak minded individuals with no sense of empathy.

It's merely a matter of choice. Of course, nonviolence can work better in some situations.

 

[BlueScope]

sixty, as you mentioned yourself, violence would always be an answer, the thing is that you can't simply mess everyone up who's getting in your face in our societies... but yeah, diplomacy is just as far away from being the recipe of success over everything really... The saying should be something around "Violence is rarely the best way to solve a problem in a socially-compatible way.", because that's rather truthful.

Personally, I tend to solve personal issues (as I don't think that saying refers to non-personal conflicts such as not being able to open a door without a key) non-violent, simply for the reason that no matter how unimportant you consider the other person to be, you never can tell really. So yeah, then there are the cases that were mentioned in the first post, with another person starting it really. While you could perfectly argue with someone who's just pokes you, you don't really should consider that when you're getting in a fight somehow... getting yourself beaten up of course kinda solves the issue without you using violence, but saying "I'm the true winner of this!" afterwards is kinda relative. Instead, if someone goes violent on you, stop him from hurting you by whatever you can do. For me as a martial artist, that means I throw whoever down and restrain him/her. If you never learned such things and people get violent on you, nobody can really blame you if you fight back... well, I wouldn't blame anyone.

On a side note: Never expect a woman to agree with you on things like these ^^

 

[e]

The thing is, anything built upon violence will eventually topple; the saying "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" hasn't been invented for no reason. Violence calls up more violence; you don't just lay down and die when someone beats you up, especially if you outnumber said person.

The only way to produce anything durable is through reason and such; unfortunately, faced with an unreasonable person (that is, someone who cannot reason, literally unable-to-reason), you're probably better off punching them. But, in theory, this should be a rare case, unless some arch villain dropped a vial of crystal meth into the city's water supply, or something as idiotic as The Happening actually happens, and Mark Walhberg isn't there to save us.

 

[Crystalgate]

I think that if someone claims that violence is never the answer, then he or she should back that statement up. The statement carries some serious implications regarding how you should act and when you ask of someone to act in a certain way, you really should have a convincing reason as to why.

As for whether or not violence can always be deterred, I think you may first want to ask if you can always deter a violent action against yourself. Maybe someone else could in the past have steared away a person from violence, but didn't do it. Parents are a good candidate for this. If now that person attacks you, it won't help you if his parents could have deterred him from violence. What matters now is whether or not you can. Another possibility is that it would be possible to deter a violent actions against yourself, only doing so requires skills you don't have. Basically, even if violence always can be deterred, there's no guarantee you will be able to do so.

That said, part of the meaning of violence is that it causes harm. People have different definitions on what violence is, but whenever an action is called violent, it's pretty much always the case that the action in question is very likely to cause harm. If we consider violence as something negative, we should work towards minimizing it. However, that does in no way or shape mean that there cannot be situations where violence is the best answer.

 

[FlippyD]

Violence is always an answer, and sometimes violence is the best answer.

 

[kyonides]

Violence may be an answer if you need to get out of a trap, a fire, a building that's about to collapse, then you're allowed to make some good use of your adrenaline or start yelling... to let people know you're still there. That's why it is still there. Otherwise why would you need it? To kill some guy just because he insulted you? Obviously it wouldn't be smart to get in trouble for such a stupid thing.

The real problem is that society, especially a technological one, doesn't offer you not places where you can get rid of stress but TIME to relax as much as you need, not as much as you'd want to... Deadlines and debts are becoming a big issue nowadays, too, but again time is the problem, because people want things now, not a day or a month later. Frustation does make you violent or force you to make terrible mistakes due to your nerves that are goind to explode...

 

[Samhatake]

Violence may be an answer if you need to get out of a trap, a fire, a building that's about to collapse, then you're allowed to make some good use of your adrenaline or start yelling... to let people know you're still there. That's why it is still there. Otherwise why would you need it? To kill some guy just because he insulted you? Obviously it wouldn't be smart to get in trouble for such a stupid thing.

The real problem is that society, especially a technological one, doesn't offer you not places where you can get rid of stress but TIME to relax as much as you need, not as much as you'd want to... Deadlines and debts are becoming a big issue nowadays, too, but again time is the problem, because people want things now, not a day or a month later. Frustation does make you violent or force you to make terrible mistakes due to your nerves that are goind to explode...

I think that if someone claims that violence is never the answer, then he or she should back that statement up. The statement carries some serious implications regarding how you should act and when you ask of someone to act in a certain way, you really should have a convincing reason as to why.

As for whether or not violence can always be deterred, I think you may first want to ask if you can always deter a violent action against yourself. Maybe someone else could in the past have steared away a person from violence, but didn't do it. Parents are a good candidate for this. If now that person attacks you, it won't help you if his parents could have deterred him from violence. What matters now is whether or not you can. Another possibility is that it would be possible to deter a violent actions against yourself, only doing so requires skills you don't have. Basically, even if violence always can be deterred, there's no guarantee you will be able to do so.

That said, part of the meaning of violence is that it causes harm. People have different definitions on what violence is, but whenever an action is called violent, it's pretty much always the case that the action in question is very likely to cause harm. If we consider violence as something negative, we should work towards minimizing it. However, that does in no way or shape mean that there cannot be situations where violence is the best answer.

Violence can actually be a double edged sword. On one part, Rage (or violence) makes your organs work poor such as heavy breathing and cause you to be obese (yes it is true ==>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/6409.php). yet on the other hand, violence can cause adrenaline, cusig the body to exceed its limits of physical strength. Briefly, Violence can or cannot be the answer based on: The Situation, How it's used, The Enviroment and The Reaction. Some people may think violence is always the answer and others think it's never the answer.
I'm neutral and is one of the things in life we can really balance out.
All I got to say is that if you have a Violence Situation with somebody, you a video game to solve things out such as a fighting game or a Game of Chess. It sounds awkard but it can help save lives and prevent certain consequences.  :smile:

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

All I got to say is that if you have a Violence Situation with somebody, you a video game to solve things out such as a fighting game or a Game of Chess. It sounds awkard but it can help save lives and prevent certain consequences.  :smile:

And when is that ever going to happen in the real world?
Umm... Pol Pot stop ordering the deaths of 2,000,000 Cambodians, no - no listen to me.  This is going to sound silly, I know, but why don't you sit down and we'll play Street Fighter II, how's that sound?  Awkward?  Well maybe, just the other day I was with Ted Bundy and you know, he just settled down and stopped raping women and killing them left and right, it was really quite the thing.  But no Dhalsim that's cheap!

I know I'm mocking you, or at least it sounds like that.  It's the idea I'm set against, not you.  I'm mocking the idea of venting via proxy.
The problem is there, it is.  You can not vent via proxy.  Several studies have shown this.

You give a bunch of people something to do, like a paper.  You say a fellow person is going to grade it, but there is no other student.  Everyone is marked as a fail, a horrible paper - and insults to the persons intelligence.  You let half of them sit for a few alone, and the other half you give something to vent with.  A pillow and a bat to beat.  A violent videogame, or even movie - hell books work to (so I'm not blamming just videogames here, the whole violence in and of itself).  Give them then a test, a childish test.

You give them half filled out words.  Like R _ _ E.  The ones who were alone, left to sit and not vent come up with amazingly reverse things than you'd think if you followed anger issues.  They put innocent words like R O P E, whereas those who vented put angry things like R A P E.  _ I _ L for those who sat alone could be H I L L, while those who vented put things very uninnocent such as K I L L.

Another thing instead of word play is ask them to prepare a food, such as an ice cream dish for the person who graded their papers.  The ones who didn't vent do it.  They might skimp on the toppings - oh no.  The other guys?  Well you have a few toppings, but they add their own like spit.  One guy even took a piss in the milk shake in one study.

Competition, it only works if your not competitive.  If you are competitive then your going to rise your ire even more.  Your blood is already going, your already aggravated, and putting you in a situation where your going to want to win - very bad idea if the other person can match skills, it only creates an angrier solution.

The only way to vent properly is with a counter like either laughter or some other positive feeling or extinction.
How many people are still angry and violent when something amazingly hysterical happens in front of them.  I've had weapon ready to beat the hell out of someone and having people try to talk me out of it.  Playing chess wasn't an option.  But Jim's exploding and -for him- very embarrassing gas while sitting on a wooden bench, only making the sound even louder and hollow, that was too funny to even hold on to the baseball bat.

 

[arbiter]

;D

 

[DaithioDell]

All I got to say is that if you have a Violence Situation with somebody, you a video game to solve things out such as a fighting game or a Game of Chess. It sounds awkard but it can help save lives and prevent certain consequences.

www.rmxp.org -ametuer gaming devolopment forum (lol) - symposium thread about is violence the answer - play games as an answer: i put it to you, is this such a surprising statement?

(although i can see the reasoning/concept behind the answer)

In a certain respect, that makes a lot of sense. Video games are, in some respects, a better outlet than most, for the sensation of causing harm mollifies the applied anger over time. The important thing, however, is simply time removed from the situation that causes anger. Reading a book, exercise, heck even angry sex, so long as the body and mind are allowed to cool down, are all suitable responses to violent situations. And, of course, the methods sixty mentioned are also good. Laughter and euphoria are constant cure-alls for moments of mental anguish. The difficulty would be allowing the mind to accept it: some people just cannot let go of anger enough to laugh. Although, that's not so much venting as diversion.

Angry sex being the most fun, naturally.

What I believe causes most altercations is an inability for two parties to cope with the rising adrenaline levels terse encounters incite. Adrenaline does cause more impulsive responses, and resorting to physical violence is a leftover from cro-magnon era humans, before language, when the only way to protect your tribe or food was by fighting. More often than not, people are unfamiliar with said feelings (the so-called 'seeing red' effect) and lash out by using physical violence (or even, in lesser cases, verbal abuse - we've all had this, when you say something you regret later, out of anger) in such a situation where it is viable.

Adrenaline is a very powerful hormone, triggering the aptly-named 'fight or flight' reflex. People such as top athletes, boxers, and martial artists (amoung others) use intense training of both body and mind to be able to control the effects adrenaline (or more properly, epinephrine) has on the body, utilizing the physical push combined with mental preparation to perform better than an opponent. Even with such training, they lose control on occasion (albeit for multiple factors).

This is a long way of saying I agree with Ixis. I however, do not confuse 'best' with 'proper'. Best is always relative and therefore unreliable.

Sixty I'd love to see that study, if you have it or a link available.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I was just watching Penn & Teller: Bullshit! on demand today (why didn't anyone tell me a new season started?) and they did the exact same experiment.  Students were asked to grade papers, were told they sucked, some left alone some to vent.  The word play is the EXACT same, and then they are told to make the person's chili, and they are able to use as much hot sauce as they want.  The angry venting people used much, much more hotsauce.
Granted, they could easily like their hot sauce.  Granted it's a skewed TV show who makes no qualms about calling these "bullshit experiments" ha

I'll try to find it however, the one I was referencing with the videogames and movies at the very least.  That I should probably know where to find (but not today).

 

[___]

Ah, Bullshit.  Good show.  They did porn and NASA this year.

 

[Dissonance]

Violence is always the answer.

 

[FŲϿҜ]

@Dissonance:
Yep, violence is always the answer!

Anyone who says violence isn't the answer is a fucking pussy.