Only-Violence Truly-Solves Anything.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Violent Meme
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 03:13 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;73654 wrote:
Yeah, anyone who has studied history and/or watched small children play together will disagree with the statement.

I have worked at a preschool as a TA before.

What I witnessed was incident of hitting after hitting.

When a young boy wants something, his natural compulsion is to use violence to get it. When a young girl wants something, her natural compulsion is also to use violence to get it (screaming & hitting).

So you are wrong on that point.

:whoa-dude:

---------- Post added at 02:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

Everything;73687 wrote:
there was an episode of horizon in which they explored violence and proved that everyone has it inbeded in them to commit acts of violence.

so violence, it would seem, is natures awnser

I am inclined to make the same conclusion.

Link that "episode of horizon" if you do not mind; I will watch it...

---------- Post added at 02:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

Aedes;73691 wrote:
I've got a real problem. The rosemary and oregano plants in my wife's herb garden are dry because it hasn't rained in a few days. I have a watering can in the garage, and we've got running water in the tap.

Can you think of a way that I can solve this problem non-violently?

No, you must use "violence" by relocating water to the source.

Otherwise your plants may die (i.e. violence).

---------- Post added at 02:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

Justin;73695 wrote:
Welcome to the forum.

I thank you.


Justin;73695 wrote:
I don't think so. Violence is not at all part of nature.

Wait, are you attempting to make the point that violence is unnatural...?

All I have to do is look around and I see animals/insects killing & consuming one-another. I see stars collapsing into black holes or exploding into supernovas. I see violent bursting into life, as birth. I see violent extinguishing of life, as death. I see galaxies colliding.

There is nothing non-violent about Nature, at all.

So I think you are wrong about this.


Justin;73695 wrote:
Our separation from divinity and from each other and from our own souls creates a misunderstanding which in turn allows us to perceive things in a way where we see violence as a solution.

Some people seem to believe nature is violent but in reality it's not violent at all. One of the Universal laws of nature is balance and when the thinking of man creates imbalance, nature will always balance itself out.

Oh...so you are just tricking everybody by calling violence a "balance" instead of what it apparently-is, which is just violence-itself.


Justin;73695 wrote:
We are violent because of our own misunderstanding of ourselves

So when Little Johnny hits Little Susie on the preschool playground, he is doing it because he "misunderstand himself"???

That sound nice, pretty, and "philosophical" but I reject that explanation.

The Painful Truth is: Little Johnny uses violence to get what he wants.

Violence is Natural and it will never be bred out of existence.


Justin;73695 wrote:
and our connection to everything around us. One must travel much further down that rabbit hole to understand all this and very few take those roads less traveled.

Violence breeds violence. There is no such solution at all in violence.

*OR*

Violence is the only-solution!

---------- Post added at 02:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

Caroline;73698 wrote:
Violence is imbedded in us because we need it when the need arises in one situation and only as the last resort and that is self-defence. It cannot be used in any other situation, (not that i can think of), that is why we have prisons and not absolute chaos!

You are discounting subtle forms of violence.

Is an argument an act of violence?

I assure you it can be when you truly-put your Deeply-set Beliefs on the line.

(But most people that I have met on philosophy forums are real cowards and are too scared/fearful to put their beliefs on the line. There is no success without sacrifice. There is no pleasure without pain.)

---------- Post added at 02:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

richrf;73705 wrote:
Well, if you are using the generally accepted version of violence, I would not agree. But on the other hand I don't think anything is ever solved.

I share more of Heraclitus' viewpoint. That nothing is ever solved, but merely changes into something new from which new problems emerge. And that conflict (not necessarily violence), is inherent in the concept of change.

However, some people enjoy violence, and I just try as best I can to stay away from it.

Rich

Let us assume for a second that a bum picks a fight with me on a street-corner. He is clearly-distressed about something that happened to him earlier in the day (that I have no clue about). He starts an argument with me and things turn "ugly". Before we know it, he is lunging at me and wants to strike me. So I pull out my gun and shoot him dead.

Violence solves everything.

Right...? :devilish:

(I think so!) Smile

---------- Post added at 02:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

GoshisDead;73733 wrote:
Rosemary responds well to extortion I've heard.

LOL, that is a good one! :a-ok:

---------- Post added at 02:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

Caroline;73904 wrote:
I think in your case VM contempt might arise but people do actually treat each other with respect, it's called getting along, agree to disagree and if contempt is involved which it isnt in my situations then that person has got alot to learn.
Aedes, why not take a chain saw to that disrespectful plant and be done with it, problem solved. Violence rules yey!

But are you not proving my point for me...?

The so-called "agreeing to disagree" DOES NOT SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS.

It only-postpones them for a later date.

The only-way to convince somebody that you are right is to force your ideas into their brains, like a violent meme, correct?

:poke-eye:

---------- Post added at 02:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

GoshisDead;73905 wrote:
Meme:

Like I assume that we will do here, the thread will die, you will likely consider yourself victorious in some way, and everyone else will go about their merry, still believing what they beleived before this devil's advocate OP.

The sad fact of the matter is that most people stop arguing because they think the other person is a fool and don't feel like wasting their time, and the violence of trying to force an argument creates more problems than it could ever solve. The old maxim comes to mind, "you catch more flies with honey"

I am not referring to when people give up on an argument though...

What I mean is when they are ABSOLUTELY-FORCED into accepting an ulterior point-of-view as Superior, True, Objective, Authoritative, etc.

I am referring to when somebody slams you across the head with the blunt Force of Reason. I am referring to when that same person crouches over your limp body and shoves Truth down your Throat!

VIOLENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :devilish:

(There is no room for second-guessing here...play to win, shoot to kill!)
 
Joe
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 06:41 am
@Violent Meme,
For me, Violence is basically just a form of communication. Thing is, its very uneffective and short lived. I've heard the arguement on how violence influences people to the right thing or it ends "undeserved" violence. I'll be Frank. Thats the lazy form of thinking humans can fall back to. But we already know the issues it clings too. Ego, Quick solution, Pride, etc...

People also throw around the idea of violence without experiencing its most depraved circumstances. There have been millions upon millions of deaths in the past century from bloody, bloody, bloody, wars.

I might as well keep going.......

childeren who grow up without a parent/s, negative enviromental impact, innocent lives lost, mental breakdowns from intense exposure to violence, destroys civilizations, etc.........

"Do unto others, as you would want done to yourself" : I dare someone to argue that they want a bullet in their head. Mental clinics are available.

Peace.
 
Violent Meme
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 06:47 am
@Joe,
Your son is disobedient.

What should you do???

(Spank his ass hard with a belt!)

(Violence solves problems!)

:thats-enough:
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 06:59 am
@Violent Meme,
Violent Meme;73892 wrote:
I know for a fact when somebody argues against me that I plan to win every time.
You're apparently not married, are you... Very Happy

---------- Post added at 09:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 AM ----------

Violent Meme;73921 wrote:
No, you must use "violence" by relocating water to the source.

Otherwise your plants may die (i.e. violence).
So a dying plant is violence? And putting water in a watering can is violence?

So in other words, anything that happens is violence. Makes one wonder why we bother to have such a word.
 
Violent Meme
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 07:09 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;73953 wrote:
You're apparently not married, are you... Very Happy

LOL!!!

(Of course not.)

I plan to marry a very, very submissive woman who completely-conforms to my Will without question or hesitation. I imagine she will probably-be an Asian female since they are the most submissive.


Aedes;73953 wrote:
So a dying plant is violence? And putting water in a watering can is violence?

So in other words, anything that happens is violence. Makes one wonder why we bother to have such a word.

Perhaps we had better define what Violence is in the first place...???

:perplexed:
 
Caroline
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 07:11 am
@Violent Meme,
But are you not proving my point for me...?

The so-called "agreeing to disagree" DOES NOT SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS.

It only-postpones them for a later date.

The only-way to convince somebody that you are right is to force your ideas into their brains, like a violent meme, correct?

:poke-eye:

---------- Post added at 02:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

So if i disagree with you what would you do?
 
Justin
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 07:41 am
@Violent Meme,
Well, I've read about all of your posts Violent Meme and don't want to read anymore. Violence is not allowed on this forum and your discussion of it is as shallow of a discussion as I've ever read.

So, with all that said, I bid you farewell and suggest you find a forum and a community where you go and discuss whatever your heart desires. Myspace.com would probably more suitable for you.

MEMBER IS BANNED!

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

Maybe it's old age, maybe it's just that I'm sick of the crap but my answer to violence is to ban it.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 07:56 am
@Caroline,
As far as I can determine, it appears the problem you are trying to solve is how to get your way, and the method you are suggesting to get your way is using violent coercion. This is a method employed around the world by thugs, militia, armies, etc.

There is nothing new in what you are suggesting. It has been used throughout the ages. However, you can look at the results and observe which direction is preferable for you. For example, compare the current situation in Iran after using coercion in their election and the results in other countries such as Canada, Germany, and the U.S., after their elections. Observe the kinds of problems that manifest from one approach vs. another. You may want to deal with riots in the street with more violence, I would rather avoid them.

Thugs, using violence, have existed since the beginning of history and will probably continue for the foreseeable future. My preference is to live in countries where thuggish violent behavior is not the accepted method to approach problems. However, if your preference is otherwise, there are many places in the world where you can go to to test out your theory where violence is prevalent on a mass scale and they are looking for people who will help perpetuate coercion via violence.

Rich
 
Everything
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 10:21 am
@Violent Meme,
One thing that confuses me about human nature is letting anger out on inanimate objects like slamming a door or punching a wall.

This truly solves nothing. I'm not saying this is wrong i am saying it would apear to make no sense.

Being violent towards people and animal is understandable as defence but a doors not going to harm anyone.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 10:49 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;73866 wrote:
I couldn't disagree with this statement more. This would only start more disputes and problems.


It really depends on what the problem is. One size doesn't fit all. The destruction of Carthage solves the problem of Carthage for Rome, It was never again threatened by Carthage. The First World War solved few problems, and mostly set the stage for the Second World War. But the Second World War put an end to Germany's ambitions in Europe, and since then there has never been a major war in Europe. The American Civil War put a definite end to any threat of succession of the States, and ended slavery. It just depends on the particular circumstance, Sometimes violence solves problem, and sometimes it doesn't. Not much different from what happens with other issues.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 10:54 am
@kennethamy,
Justin:
ROFL good call, like we didn't see this coming in his/her introduction.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 10:55 am
@Justin,
Justin;73964 wrote:


MEMBER IS BANNED!

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

Maybe it's old age, maybe it's just that I'm sick of the crap but my answer to violence is to ban it.


No one committed any violence, nor even advocated it. He initiated a legitimate philosophical discussion. You did not ban violence at all. There was no violence committed. So how could you have banned it? I strongly disagree with the banning.
 
Justin
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 11:18 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;74020 wrote:
No one committed any violence, nor even advocated it. He initiated a legitimate philosophical discussion. You did not ban violence at all. There was no violence committed. So how could you have banned it? I strongly disagree with the banning.

And you have every right to disagree with it. However, after reading all of his posts and his comments I didn't feel his involvement here was an asset to this community. He was promoting violence and this isn't a violence promoting forum.

Let me say one thing. Being here and being an active member of this forum is not a 'right'. There are certain rights one has and being a member here is simply not one of them.

There will be NO MORE putting up with any bull on this forum any longer. One will be either an asset to this forum or a liability and the liabilities WILL BE PRUNED. Neither myself or the moderators have time to deal with every personality out there and we have a 'RIGHT' to choose which ones we will put energy into. Violence was this members name and his posts reflected the promotion of it. So banning was appropriate.
 
salima
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 11:58 am
@Violent Meme,
the guy was a jokester-i cant believe how many replies he got. he couldnt have been more than 11 years old. if he was really serious someone should send the secret police after him and put him in detention. i am violently opposed to violence!

thanks for taking out the trash, justin
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 12:18 pm
@salima,
Well here's another one who thinks it was an over reaction.I thought the idea was to confront the devils advocate not sling it over the cliff.I thought the humour should have been examined, i think his humour was a bit close to the mark but humour all the same.
Do you honestly believe he was suggesting violence rather than we confront our demons.I saw not encouragement to violence only the acceptance of the fact we are all capable of it.I saw my demons in his post having a problem with rage and its consequence.No warnings, no request of explanations, sorry Justin you over reacted.
 
Catchabula
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 12:31 pm
@Violent Meme,
You said Catch?? Sorry, I must have dozed away ;-) . Hm, now, trying to say something sensible. The military! Yes, we all know that the armies of the free world are under the complete control of democratically elected governments and will never abase themselves to any act of gratuitious violence. There was no Abu-Ghraib, that was a communist plot to discredit the intentions of a great nation to protect the interests of the free world. The statement that violence is institutionalised, baked in the structures of the world's economical and political relations is only communist propaganda, besides there was never any army that was used for violence. The army protects peace and it is the main instrument of it. Did one ever knew one single army that was violent? Ok, sorry to disturb. Back to bed...
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 12:32 pm
@Violent Meme,
I also thought Violent Meme was pretty confrontable, and doing his reputation more harm than anything else. However, Justin's house - Justin's right to tell the guests when to go home.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 12:33 pm
@Justin,
Justin;74022 wrote:
And you have every right to disagree with it. However, after reading all of his posts and his comments I didn't feel his involvement here was an asset to this community. He was promoting violence and this isn't a violence promoting forum.

Let me say one thing. Being here and being an active member of this forum is not a 'right'. There are certain rights one has and being a member here is simply not one of them.

There will be NO MORE putting up with any bull on this forum any longer. One will be either an asset to this forum or a liability and the liabilities WILL BE PRUNED. Neither myself or the moderators have time to deal with every personality out there and we have a 'RIGHT' to choose which ones we will put energy into. Violence was this members name and his posts reflected the promotion of it. So banning was appropriate.


But, no one argued that you, and the other moderators, do not have a right to ban who you think should be banned, nor is it being argued that anyone has a right to membership on this forum. So you have committed the straw-man fallacy. What I (anyway) argued is that you were not right to ban him. Having rights, and exercising those rights, are two very different things. An instructor may have a right to grade harshly, but it may be wrong for him to do so. Having a right to do X doesn't mean that you are right to do X. The member did not, so far as I can see, promote violence, unless saying that violence may be called for is promoting violence. But then, I have argued that same thing on this very thread.

And, it is not true that everyone is either an asset or a liability.Some people are neither, and some are both. You are committing the black or white fallacy.
 
Justin
 
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 12:35 pm
@Violent Meme,
Yeah, maybe I did over react. But, it's also my responsibility. Based on the amount of time, money and effort that I and others have put into this forum and continue to put into this forum, I have every right to pull whatever weeds deemed appropriate at the time. This doesn't make it right and I could very well be over-reacting... Oh well. Everyone makes mistakes. I'll live with those mistakes, admit them and move on and hope not to continue making them in the future.

If you all want to discuss violence and the nature of it and the why's and why nots, lets do it in another thread. Feel free to open a thread discussing violence if that's what we want to discuss.

This thread is closed.

For the rest of you, thank you for understanding.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2024 at 02:11:29