When is violence acceptable? - Page 2 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 34 (permalink) Old 06-24-08, 05:39 PM
Senior Member
 
loyalist42's Avatar
loyalist42's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hiram, Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,925
Reputation: 1
Default

It's an interesting balance...for one thing, I definitely differentiate between 'violence' in the form of competition and genuinely wishing harm upon someone. I participate in American football, which is inarguable a 'violent' sport. However, I've only ever been in one fight, because I generally don't let a bad situation come to blows. It's not because I can't fight (being 6' 290 lbs and a former wrestler, I'd say I can) but rather because I choose not to. Even in the one situation I was in, I ended the fight without throwing a punch...held the bastard up against a wall by his jacket lapels for a while; he decided he'd rather not stick around.

Anyway, I'd say violence is at least understandable in the cases of self defense or the defense of others. I'd definitely have no compunction beating seven shades of shit out of anyone who tried to mess with my friends or family. Other than that, though, I'm definitely against it...and even in those cases, I can sometimes have trouble accepting the necessity.

The other question I've asked myself a few times...what about revenge? I'm opposed to it quite deeply in an intellectual sense. However, I've gotta say, if someone killed a friend or family member, my first reaction would be to go after whoever did it. It bothers me, because I'm heavily against capital punishment...hopefully, I'll never have to find out how such a situation would turn out.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Navar89
if I hang out with you any more I just might pick up 40K...You, sir, are dangerous.

Holy shit, I've a plog again!
loyalist42 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 34 (permalink) Old 06-24-08, 06:53 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 86
Default

I love fighting but as a sport. I do MMA and can hold my own. Now because of this I tend to walk away from most things that will come down to blows cuss I believe in the Ender Wiggins style of fighting. Where you strike to make sure that your opponent will never came at you again. And given my training I can make it happen.

Now with mental violence I have been told im bad about it. I just don’t like to sugar coat stuff. I’m a very tell it to your face kind of guy. If you come at me and try to put me down mentally I will verbally crush you. Same if I see you doing it to someone else. Can’t stand it when people put others down to feel better about them self’s.
ClubnBabySealz is offline  
post #13 of 34 (permalink) Old 06-25-08, 04:52 AM
Senior Member
 
Vrykolas2k's Avatar
Vrykolas2k's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 924
Reputation: 1
Default

Using violence doesn't bother me at all.
Usually the poor bastard(s) arguably gets more than he deserves by the time I get finished with whatever he/they started, but that's what happens when you mess with someone. There's always a meaner, tougher bear.

Vae victus.

"Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your damned BOOK!"
-Patton

Light a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Light a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Vrykolas2k is offline  
post #14 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-02-08, 02:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Daneel2.0's Avatar
Daneel2.0's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,312
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
Most simply, violence isn't acceptable.

We all do it. we shouldn't accept it. we should strive not to. That's what makes us better people.
I hate to disagree with you here, but violence IS acceptable in any circumstance where the alternatives are less acceptable.

You're correct in that we should all strive to prevent situations from reaching that point, and that striving to make the world better makes us better. But unfortunately, not everyone has that particular goal. Contrary to popular belief, it only takes 1 to make a fight. At that point you can choose to fight back or you can choose to get beat down. As I see things, getting beat down is less acceptable than using violence against someone that initiated violence, therefore the use of violence is acceptable in that situation.

There are many other situations where this is the case. The defense of family, the defense of friends who can't defend themselves. The protection of innocent people who are unable to defend themselves. All of these cases are "acceptable uses of violence".

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesse View Post
[Necrons]shoot, shoot, teleport, shoot. win
Daneel2.0 is offline  
post #15 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-03-08, 02:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Son of mortarion's Avatar
Son of mortarion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Running a dark mechanicus forgeworld somewhere in the warp
Posts: 2,069
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daneel2.0 View Post
I hate to disagree with you here, but violence IS acceptable in any circumstance where the alternatives are less acceptable.

You're correct in that we should all strive to prevent situations from reaching that point, and that striving to make the world better makes us better. But unfortunately, not everyone has that particular goal. Contrary to popular belief, it only takes 1 to make a fight. At that point you can choose to fight back or you can choose to get beat down. As I see things, getting beat down is less acceptable than using violence against someone that initiated violence, therefore the use of violence is acceptable in that situation.

There are many other situations where this is the case. The defense of family, the defense of friends who can't defend themselves. The protection of innocent people who are unable to defend themselves. All of these cases are "acceptable uses of violence".
this is where absolute ethics comes into play, the idea that some things are always wrong, such as allowing a person to come to harm, when intervention would definitely have prevented harm.

personally, I try to practice a "do as little harm as possible" policy, which is why I am proactive in my self defense, instead of reactive. When you are proactive, there is less need for violent action, as you are more able to identify and avoid problems before they arise.

The distinction between acceptable, and good or preferable is blurred sometimes. Just because a behavior is acceptable, that is, considered to be reasonable, does not make it right, nor does that make the action preferable.

check out the entropic reaper or remain a vagrant on the sidewalk of life.
[http://entropomancer.blogspot.com/
Son of mortarion is offline  
post #16 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-03-08, 05:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Daneel2.0's Avatar
Daneel2.0's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,312
Reputation: 1
Default

Agreed. I never advocated that violence was good, or that violence was preferred, and it is generally a good idea to reduce the possibilities of violence whenever you can. This is the real world however. And its, a nasty, mean and dirty place where sometimes there are no good choices to be made. In addition, sometimes we choose incorrectly in our attempt to minimize the harm that we cause.

In these cases, violence is sometimes the lesser of all possible evils.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesse View Post
[Necrons]shoot, shoot, teleport, shoot. win
Daneel2.0 is offline  
post #17 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-03-08, 02:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Son of mortarion's Avatar
Son of mortarion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Running a dark mechanicus forgeworld somewhere in the warp
Posts: 2,069
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daneel2.0 View Post
Agreed. I never advocated that violence was good, or that violence was preferred, and it is generally a good idea to reduce the possibilities of violence whenever you can. This is the real world however. And its, a nasty, mean and dirty place where sometimes there are no good choices to be made. In addition, sometimes we choose incorrectly in our attempt to minimize the harm that we cause.

In these cases, violence is sometimes the lesser of all possible evils.
not as much the lesser of two evils, it's the lesser of two goods, with the greater not being possible.

check out the entropic reaper or remain a vagrant on the sidewalk of life.
[http://entropomancer.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Son of mortarion; 08-03-08 at 02:28 PM.
Son of mortarion is offline  
post #18 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-03-08, 02:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Red Orc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,615
Reputation: 1
Default

I disagree. Whatever way you use to work it out, increasing the amount of violence is always a worse option than not increasing it.

Whether you use maths to do it - where the staus quo is 0 and violence is -10 let's say, so staus quo + violence = 0 + -10 = -10, and then the addition of violence to 'counter' the origional violence is -10 + -10 = -20; or whether you use the Zen "negation of the negation" - "this violence is wrong; this violence is not wrong; this violence is really wrong" - you arrive at the same answer. Upping the amount of violence always produces a worse result than not.

"Well it's Forty-one Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-nine OK -
Gotta war across the Milky Way - "
Iggius Popiscus and the Stoogii, "41,969"


Red Orc is offline  
post #19 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-04-08, 01:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Son of mortarion's Avatar
Son of mortarion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Running a dark mechanicus forgeworld somewhere in the warp
Posts: 2,069
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
I disagree. Whatever way you use to work it out, increasing the amount of violence is always a worse option than not increasing it.

Whether you use maths to do it - where the staus quo is 0 and violence is -10 let's say, so staus quo + violence = 0 + -10 = -10, and then the addition of violence to 'counter' the origional violence is -10 + -10 = -20; or whether you use the Zen "negation of the negation" - "this violence is wrong; this violence is not wrong; this violence is really wrong" - you arrive at the same answer. Upping the amount of violence always produces a worse result than not.
I was not endorsing violence in and of itself as good, merely that the result of violence to prevent harm.

what I meant was violence to save another from harm versus not needing to prevent the harm.

Sorry if it got confused.

check out the entropic reaper or remain a vagrant on the sidewalk of life.
[http://entropomancer.blogspot.com/
Son of mortarion is offline  
post #20 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-04-08, 03:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Daneel2.0's Avatar
Daneel2.0's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,312
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
I disagree. Whatever way you use to work it out, increasing the amount of violence is always a worse option than not increasing it.

Whether you use maths to do it - where the staus quo is 0 and violence is -10 let's say, so staus quo + violence = 0 + -10 = -10, and then the addition of violence to 'counter' the origional violence is -10 + -10 = -20; or whether you use the Zen "negation of the negation" - "this violence is wrong; this violence is not wrong; this violence is really wrong" - you arrive at the same answer. Upping the amount of violence always produces a worse result than not.
Not really. I think this is at the core of our issue in the other thread too. First off, you are assuming a Zero Sum System, which I'm not certain is the case. Second lets look at a hypothetical situation concerning violence:

I'm sitting in my living room typing this thread to you and someone kicks in the door (to rob my place) and sees me sitting here staring back dumbly. He shoots me in the head and proceeds in. My wife, hearing the shot, gets the shotgun from the safe and hides at the end of the hall. When the gunman walks to the half way point she shoots him and cuts him in half.

Now according to your math we are at -20 (2 deaths). The problem is that if my wife hadn't shot the gunman he would have killed my wife and my 3 kids. Again, according to your math that would put us at -50 (5 deaths, the gunman survived).

Now is where the distinction between MURDER and KILLING comes into play. What the gunman did in killing me (and later my family) is murder. What my wife did is defend herself and her family in the face of unprovoked aggression.

According to my math, murder is -10, self defense is 0, and each saved life is +10. That means in the first case we have a +30 (-10 for me, 0 for gunman, +40 for wife and 3 kids). In the second case we still have a -50.

As you can see, my wife increased the amount of violence in the equation to reduce the overall amount of violence that would have occurred. The result is the use of violence to create a NET POSITIVE RESULT

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesse View Post
[Necrons]shoot, shoot, teleport, shoot. win

Last edited by Daneel2.0; 08-04-08 at 03:59 AM.
Daneel2.0 is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > HO Off Topic > Off Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome