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.
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.
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.