Thread: The Use of Force

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.