I am 1/32 black, so if i needed to i could benefit from it. :mrgreen:
The Case for Violence
-
Civilization has a need for violence. Logic and morality demand it.
This refers not to some abstract need for uncivilized violence, or a psychological need to return to roots, or any such thing, but a inevitable and absolute requirement for violence from first principles.
Take for example, this case -
A woman is late for work and is speeding in a car. She sees police car lights flash behind her and pulls over. She knows, based on previous violations, that her speeding violation will cost her $200. She decides to pull over and let the officer write her a ticket.
Maybe the woman pulled over out of civic duty. But my point is not that some will observe their civic duty. My point concerns those that will not observe their civic duty, those that, absence violence or the threat of violence, would not comply.
Imagine a world in which the absolute limit of authority of police, prosecutors, judges, and so forth, was to issue a stern reprimand. Imagine that not only they, but society at large adhered to a strict policy of “strict reprimand”.
In such a world, it would only take one madwoman to turn everyone’s life (except for hers) into a living hell.
I apply a similar argument to not only individuals, but societies, and even nations. The ability to deal violence (not simply deal WITH violence) is a necessary component of a well ordered society.
–
On the other hand, one might argue, what if everyone carried around guns and shot each other at the slightest provocation? Might order be self-regulated? Who would want to start hostilities were they to be shot in return? “A well armed society is a polite society”, so to speak? But that is only more idealistic jibber jabber.
In parts of the world, certain behaviors that are considered quite normal are considered incredibly insulting by others. So all you need in that case is a provincial mindset, which humans are more than willing to fall into. Besides that, there are actual conflicts of interest for vital resources, then there’s the human drive to get more more more. What if a thousand other children go hungry, if my children and my friends’ children are well fed and secure? And so forth.
The fact is, when you have a bunch of guns floating all over the place, you’re going to have problems.
–
So if the solution is not to remove guns from everyone, nor yet to give guns to everyone, what IS the proper solution? It must clearly be an institutionalized system of violence (even if torture &c not inherent, such a system would have to be able to deal violence. Imagine if police officers were made out of gingerbread and M&Ms, with guns that shot low velocity cotton candy.)
In fact, most states, societies, &c DO have this. But the institutionalization of violence has insulated some from reality, who insist that violence cannot be the answer to problems. Such people conveniently ignore the fact that every day of their lives they are protected and nurtured by institutionalized violence. As one so aptly put it, “Freedom isn’t free”.
-
The solution is spanking children.
-
-
The solution is spanking Trollers.
-
I’m actually entirely serious.
There is a ton of evidence that supports it. Government (Or civility if you like) Starts with SELF. How you govern/control yourself and your emotions etc. The next level, is Family, and how a family governs itself, and how it raises it’s children to govern themselves.
The act of physical violence (Or spanking) being used as a punishment, instills the concept in children of consequences for hurting others, or committing crimes against them. And those consequences being painful (A natural motivator for change or action), allows children (who later become adults) to understand what it means to hurt others, and how they should conduct themselves in a manner that doesn’t do so.
Violence is a primary component of Humanity. Just because in the last 50 years it has become less and less socially acceptable in the west, doesn’t mean it’s about to be abolished. That’s like trying to remove organs in your body, because society says you don’t need them. You will die without them.
It’s important to remember as well, that more people have died from “death by violent human action” in the last 100 years, than death by violent human action in all the rest of history combined.
It’s not about to go away, it needs to be understand, and the fundamentals of violence and consequences need to be taught EARLY.
Hence, spanking your children is an answer to this issue.
-
I’m actually entirely serious.
There is a ton of evidence that supports it. Government (Or civility if you like) Starts with SELF. How you govern/control yourself and your emotions etc. The next level, is Family, and how a family governs itself, and how it raises it’s children to govern themselves.
The act of physical violence (Or spanking) being used as a punishment, instills the concept in children of consequences for hurting others, or committing crimes against them. And those consequences being painful (A natural motivator for change or action), allows children (who later become adults) to understand what it means to hurt others, and how they should conduct themselves in a manner that doesn’t do so.
Violence is a primary component of Humanity. Just because in the last 50 years it has become less and less socially acceptable in the west, doesn’t mean it’s about to be abolished. That’s like trying to remove organs in your body, because society says you don’t need them. You will die without them.
It’s important to remember as well, that more people have died from “death by violent human action” in the last 100 years, than death by violent human action in all the rest of history combined.
It’s not about to go away, it needs to be understand, and the fundamentals of violence and consequences need to be taught EARLY.
Hence, spanking your children is an answer to this issue.
Im confused :-P
-
Endure hardship as discipline…as Gargantua pointed it allready out
I’m actually entirely serious.
There is a ton of evidence that supports it.  Government  (Or civility if you like)  Starts with SELF. How you govern/control yourself and your emotions etc.  The next level, is Family, and how a family governs itself, and how it raises it’s children to govern themselves.
The act of physical violence (Or spanking) being used as a punishment, instills the concept in children of consequences for  hurting others, or committing crimes against them.  And those consequences being painful (A natural motivator for change or action), allows children (who later become adults) to understand what it means to hurt others, and how they should conduct themselves in a manner that doesn’t do so.
Violence is a primary component of Humanity. Â Just because in the last 50 years it has become less and less socially acceptable in the west, Â doesn’t mean it’s about to be abolished. Â That’s like trying to remove organs in your body, because society says you don’t need them. Â You will die without them.
It’s important to remember as well, that more people have died from “death by violent human action” in the last 100 years, than death by violent human action in all the rest of history combined.
It’s not about to go away, it needs to be understand, and the fundamentals of violence and consequences need to be taught EARLY.
Hence, spanking your children is an answer to this issue.
…And…
It is allways starting with you, If you don´t change, do not expect everything else will change…treat everybody the way you want to be treated and violence will stop chasing you arround…
-
-
I am not sure if you are exploring a philosophical topic or driving at a point here BPW.
I must say that I agree with Gargantua in that discipline of a society, and their willingness to adhere to rules of their own accord, begins with the individual within the family. Of course, without a stable upbringing, any person is more prone to personal anarchy, resulting in future social anarchy.
In the way you are describing it, violence, or the threat of it, is necessary or at least a part of the way society functions. Maybe that is why some people obey, while others do so because they have been ‘trained’ to. You seem to question the modern Western rejection of violence as a solution to problems. Since we as humans are apt to engage in violence, and our societies are held up by institutionalized violence, is not violence then a natural, ‘human’ solution to the problem of violence? - Something like that? Are you searching for a justification that: because violence is used for order, violence is acceptable to resist that order?
Regarding family and discipline and even governments and discipline… I would certainly say there is a difference between discipline (and/or punishment) and what you very broadly call violence, as it may be popularly understood.
-
Regarding family and discipline and even governments and discipline… I would certainly say there is a difference between discipline (and/or punishment) and what you very broadly call violence, as it may be popularly understood.
Yes, violence is too broad a term, and normally “violence” has negative connotations and is not normally used in the context of consequences…
I don’t understand the difference between the 2nd and 3rd poll choice. Doesn’t “no relation between the two” mean pretty much the same thing as “mutually exclusive”?
Governments need to maintain law and order, and this can only be done with the threat of force. Force in unauthorized hands (criminals, vigilantes) is violence. Force exercised in accordance with legitimate laws is not violence.
Re-reading your post, it seems I pretty much agree with your points Bunnies…
Maybe here is a bit of the “confusion”?But the institutionalization of violence has insulated some from reality, who insist that violence cannot be the answer to problems. Such people conveniently ignore the fact that every day of their lives they are protected and nurtured by institutionalized violence. As one so aptly put it, “Freedom isn’t free”.
“Violence” indeed is not the answer to problems. But “violence” doesn’t include “institutionalized violence”. I think that term is where the confusion comes from. I would use the term “force” when used by authorized personnel (government, law enforcement officials), but “violence” only by “unauthorized” (criminals, individuals)…
-
@Bunnies:
Civilization has a need for violence. Logic and morality demand it.
This refers not to some abstract need for uncivilized violence, or a psychological need to return to roots, or any such thing, but a inevitable and absolute requirement for violence from first principles.
Take for example, this case -
A woman is late for work and is speeding in a car. She sees police car lights flash behind her and pulls over. She knows, based on previous violations, that her speeding violation will cost her $200. She decides to pull over and let the officer write her a ticket.
Maybe the woman pulled over out of civic duty. But my point is not that some will observe their civic duty. My point concerns those that will not observe their civic duty, those that, absence violence or the threat of violence, would not comply.
Imagine a world in which the absolute limit of authority of police, prosecutors, judges, and so forth, was to issue a stern reprimand. Imagine that not only they, but society at large adhered to a strict policy of “strict reprimand”.
In such a world, it would only take one madwoman to turn everyone’s life (except for hers) into a living hell.
I apply a similar argument to not only individuals, but societies, and even nations. The ability to deal violence (not simply deal WITH violence) is a necessary component of a well ordered society.
–
On the other hand, one might argue, what if everyone carried around guns and shot each other at the slightest provocation? Might order be self-regulated? Who would want to start hostilities were they to be shot in return? “A well armed society is a polite society”, so to speak? But that is only more idealistic jibber jabber.
In parts of the world, certain behaviors that are considered quite normal are considered incredibly insulting by others. So all you need in that case is a provincial mindset, which humans are more than willing to fall into. Besides that, there are actual conflicts of interest for vital resources, then there’s the human drive to get more more more. What if a thousand other children go hungry, if my children and my friends’ children are well fed and secure? And so forth.
The fact is, when you have a bunch of guns floating all over the place, you’re going to have problems.
–
So if the solution is not to remove guns from everyone, nor yet to give guns to everyone, what IS the proper solution? It must clearly be an institutionalized system of violence (even if torture &c not inherent, such a system would have to be able to deal violence. Imagine if police officers were made out of gingerbread and M&Ms, with guns that shot low velocity cotton candy.)
In fact, most states, societies, &c DO have this. But the institutionalization of violence has insulated some from reality, who insist that violence cannot be the answer to problems. Such people conveniently ignore the fact that every day of their lives they are protected and nurtured by institutionalized violence. As one so aptly put it, “Freedom isn’t free”.
is this post to long or am I just lazy :wink:
-
is this post to long or am I just lazy :wink:
too long. I didn’t read half of it the first time
Suggested Topics
