Thread: The Use of Force

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Meanwhile, people are getting into screaming matches, destroying their own homes and belongings, hobbling themselves with criminal records, and going to war. A substantial portion of my country demands that their commander in chief be willing to drop a nuclear bomb.

I don't agree with the attitude towards violence here. In fact, I think it's very silly. Taosaur, you're making violence sound like a tornado. A random force that is unpredictable. You go on talking of mad men that go about killing each other, and bombs that you seem to believe are thrown left and right without any thought to where they land.

Anyways, that's what it sounds like to me.

There is such thing as controlled violence.

In an ideal world, when Mr. A was doing something awful, then Mr. B could confront Mr. A, and explain how ti was wrong. Mr. A would cease. In this world, it is quite possible that Mr. A won't cease. He may either ignore Mr. B, or hurt/kill him. If it comes to this, and Mr. A is hurting innocent people, and will listen to nothing, which would be worse? To allow Mr. A to continue hurting people? Or to disable Mr. A, and thus save the innocent people in question? This is a logical, controlled, and well thought out situation.

I think of controlled fires. Fires, out of control, can be devastating to humanity. When under close control, they can be one of the most useful and productive forces harness-able.

I especially feel that way about criminals. Swift, and painful judgment to criminals quickly stamps out hurtful actions, and the fear caused keeps people in line.

We live in an imperfect world. Force, and violence is sometimes necessary to keep the peace.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I personally decided that I would never strike the use of force off my list of options, but that I would still treat its use as a failure to find a different solution.

I agree that violence should (usually) be a last resort. But, you have only failed if there was a different option that you refused to take. If there were absolutely zero options left for you, you took the only available option and have not failed.

Of course, all IMHO.

Originally Posted by Noogah

I don't agree with the attitude towards violence here. In fact, I think it's very silly. Taosaur, you're making violence sound like a tornado. A random force that is unpredictable. You go on talking of mad men that go about killing each other, and bombs that you seem to believe are thrown left and right without any thought to where they land.

Anyways, that's what it sounds like to me.

There is such thing as controlled violence.

But what percentage of the world's population do you think is capable of clearing their heads in the heat of the moment? I would argue that the vast majority are prone to impulsive and rash behavior, behavior they are inevitably going to regret. For most people, violence is unpredictable and it is uncontrollable, like a tornado. I'm sure we've all experienced an anger that completely engulfed our senses and literally took over our bodies. There were times when I was playing football where I felt like an animal, like I was thirsty for blood and there wasn't anything anybody could do to stop me. All it takes is a trigger and you enter into that mode. Then you get that fire in your eyes and the rest is history. There are certain factors that amplify that feeling as well, like crowds of people or a girlfriend close by. That's why you always see fights around crowds of people. People act like idiots in crowds.

I think we would all like to believe that at least our nation's governments don't behave in this way when waging war, but when you really analyze historical wars, you'll find that nations tend to act a lot like primordial man; driven almost entirely by instinct. Sure, the actual war plan and execution of said plan is highly controlled and calculated, but the forces which drive nations into war with each other are as unpredicatable as a man who has just found out his wife cheated on him with his best friend.

Originally Posted by Noogah

I don't agree with the attitude towards violence here. In fact, I think it's very silly. Taosaur, you're making violence sound like a tornado. A random force that is unpredictable. You go on talking of mad men that go about killing each other, and bombs that you seem to believe are thrown left and right without any thought to where they land.

Anyways, that's what it sounds like to me.

There is such thing as controlled violence.

In an ideal world, when Mr. A was doing something awful, then Mr. B could confront Mr. A, and explain how ti was wrong. Mr. A would cease. In this world, it is quite possible that Mr. A won't cease. He may either ignore Mr. B, or hurt/kill him. If it comes to this, and Mr. A is hurting innocent people, and will listen to nothing, which would be worse? To allow Mr. A to continue hurting people? Or to disable Mr. A, and thus save the innocent people in question? This is a logical, controlled, and well thought out situation.

It seems both, Taosaur and you, are talking about the same thing.

Also, are you saying that controlled violence is the act to engage in violent conflict with whomever you consider unpredictably violent? There is too much ambiguity in your post for me to clearly understand it, and I assume your post might be confusing to other readers as well. So, Noogah, please clarify your post so we may understand it better.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I would argue that the vast majority are prone to impulsive and rash behavior, behavior they are inevitably going to regret.

Of course, I won't argue that this type is heavily prevalent. It's sad, really. But what I'm trying to point out is that this is not the definitive use of violence. Violence can be used in a controlled manner as well, and when it is, it can be very useful in helping more people out than other methods.

Originally Posted by malac

It seems both, Taosaur and you, are talking about the same thing.

...well, we're both discussing violence, if that's what you mean.

Originally Posted by malac

Also, are you saying that controlled violence is the act to engage in violent conflict with whomever you consider unpredictably violent?

Not at all. The only reason I said Mr. A was hurting people was an example. Mr. A could, alternatively, be engaging in common crime. Theft, fraud, and yes, senseless violence.

What I am saying, is that "violence" can be used to suppress harmful/illegal activities in a very swift and effective manner, without anyone dying, or getting permanently hurt.

Not in all cases of course. Just in severe cases, where common methods (I.E, Prison, fines, etc.) are ineffective.

Of course, in this case, I would say it defies the very definition of violence. Perhaps what I am talking about is really just the use of physical force to stop unethical/harmful/illegal activities where more civilized methods more or less fail.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Of course, I won't argue that this type is heavily prevalent. It's sad, really. But what I'm trying to point out is that this is not the definitive use of violence. Violence can be used in a controlled manner as well, and when it is, it can be very useful in helping more people out than other methods.

I don't think there is a person in this thread who hasn't acknowledged that point, Taosaur included. I think one of the main sentiments of this thread is that while you can control yourself in the face of violence, you can't ever control the other person. That's where the factors of unpredictability and uncontrollability come in.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I don't think there is a person in this thread who hasn't acknowledged that point, Taosaur included. I think one of the main sentiments of this thread is that while you can control yourself in the face of violence, you can't ever control the other person. That's where the factors of unpredictability and uncontrollability come in.

Well, not so much. The volatility of violent action is more a corollary of the fact that one can never control the exact consequences of one's actions nor find their precise causes. We can only control the qualities of our actions and the motivations from which we act. If you throw a punch, a man may end up dead. The man may be you. If you enter into a stream of violence, do not make any assumptions about when you will reach the other shore.

Originally Posted by Noogah

I agree that violence should (usually) be a last resort. But, you have only failed if there was a different option that you refused to take. If there were absolutely zero options left for you, you took the only available option and have not failed.

Of course, all IMHO.

There is always another option, that is why I say that the use of violence is a failure to figure out what the other options are, or to use them. Violence is always accompanied by a certain degree of failure. It may be the lesser of several failures that the person is aware of, but it is still a failure nonetheless.