NationStates Jolt Archive

Violence never solves anything.

And if so, what reason(s) do you give to back it up.

Violence never solves anything.

And if so, what reason(s) do you give to back it up.

Violence may solve, quite finally, the problem at hand. However, it also tends to beget violence, so you end up with escalating mayhem.

Violence is a last resort. It is the last problem solver but it solves problems.

Violence is a last resort.

Not in a boxing match it ain't.

People say no problem can be solved by violance and i agree but face it can you name a problem that couldnt be fixed by a large amount of explosives

Hunger.
What color to paint the house.
Whether to send your child to parochial or public school.

"You got a problem? I got a problem solver. And his name is revolver"

My favorite rap song line.

I agree more with this quotation:

In order to achieve peace, we must prepare for war.

Sometimes violence is necessary, but usually the threat of violence is sufficient. If somebody broke into my house and threatened to kill my family (and I had the opportunity and power to do so), I would use violence to solve that problem - probably even lethal force.

People say no problem can be solved by violance and i agree but face it can you name a problem that couldnt be fixed by a large amount of explosives

Goldbach's conjecture - every even number greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes?

Goldbach's conjecture - every even number greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes?

I'm sorry, I don't get it.

As Katganistan pointed out above, violence may solve the immediate problem at hand. However, even a cursory examination of human history and psycology shows that initiating violence provokes further violence unless the object of your violence , be it one single person or a whole nation, is totally incapacitated. And even then, it will create a negative situation forcing you into a pattern of perpetual violence against, or fear of retaliatory violence from, others.
Additionally, acts of violence do psycological harm to those who commit them.

I'm sorry, I don't get it.

Mathematical (and for that matter, logical, ontological, moral, epistemological, und so weiter) problems do not disappear with the application of explosives.Goldbach's conjecture is an example of a mathematical problem that remains unsolved.

Hunger.
What color to paint the house.
Whether to send your child to parochial or public school.

Well, actually...
Those problems can be solved by the application of large quantities of explosives. It's just that blowing up the hungry, your house, or your children isn't really an ideal solution...
;)

Mathematical (and for that matter, logical, ontological, moral, epistemological, und so weiter) problems do not disappear with the application of explosives.Goldbach's conjecture is an example of a mathematical problem that remains unsolved.

:D Good one! :D

Mathematical (and for that matter, logical, ontological, moral, epistemological, und so weiter) problems do not disappear with the application of explosives.Goldbach's conjecture is an example of a mathematical problem that remains unsolved.

At least they can disentigrate most of the problem :)

At least they can disentigrate most of the problem :)

Hunger can be solved by blowing up the hungry. No more hungry people, no more hunger. Ditto the house and what school to send your kids to problems.

But how does one blow up an abstract? :confused:
(Blowing up the people who ask doesn't blow up the question...)

But how does one blow up an abstract?

Presumably with abstract explosives.

Presumably with abstract explosives.
:) LOL

http://ftaaimc.org/images/2004/01/3516.jpg
That bastard sure learned his lesson.

Kids, NEVER park in a cop's spot. NEVER!

Violence never solves anything.

And if so, what reason(s) do you give to back it up.
Nope.

I believe in capital punishment, if people are scared to do crime they won't commit crimes. Violence is also a way of making people know when they cross the line, pain is the best deterant.

I believe in capital punishment, if people are scared to do crime they won't commit crimes.

If the sole purpose of capital punishment is to scare people, then it is unneccesary to actually carry out capital punishment - just as long as it is widely believed that it takes place, then according to your theory people will be frightened away from crime.

Totally disagree with it....

Violence can solve a great many things.

Let's say someone's about to do something catastrophic...

Is the use of violence or threat of violence upon that person a way to remove the problem?

Actually let me amend that, violence doesn't SOLVE the problem, is REMOVES the problem.

If the sole purpose of capital punishment is to scare people, then it is unneccesary to actually carry out capital punishment - just as long as it is widely believed that it takes place, then according to your theory people will be frightened away from crime.
Yes but then there is speculation that perhaps it was never done, that it is just another government scam. It's better capital punishment be carried out in public, with beatings. Capital Punishment itself would also be rare, reserved only for very serious cases or reoffending of serious cases. Serious cases being murder, rape, large arson, large theft, vicious hate crimes etc. Very serious crimes being multiple murders, multiple rapes, major arson, major theft etc. First time would be a beating, until they are within an inch of death with public beatings, then a prison sentence. If they live to be released, chances are they will never reoffend in the first place and the example of them will scare away others.

Yes but then there is speculation that perhaps it was never done, that it is just another government scam. It's better capital punishment be carried out in public, with beatings. Capital Punishment itself would also be rare, reserved only for very serious cases or reoffending of serious cases. Serious cases being murder, rape, large arson, large theft, vicious hate crimes etc. Very serious crimes being multiple murders, multiple rapes, major arson, major theft etc. First time would be a beating, until they are within an inch of death with public beatings, then a prison sentence. If they live to be released, chances are they will never reoffend in the first place and the example of them will scare away others.


Do you know the difference between capital punishment and corporal punishment? You appear to be conflating the two here, and it still appears that you are arguing that the sole reason for capital punishment is to discourage others from commiting crimes, rather than to remove a particularly troublesome individual from society or to punish them. Thus my point stands - the public at large would have no particular reason to doubt that capital punishment was taking place if the state just decided to start staging mock executions instead of real executions, indeed for all we know this might be happening right now...

Sometimes the only way violence can be ended is with violence.

Its not so much the behaviour that is the problem, more on what people are

using it, and for what motives.

When someone attacks you and you kill them, the immediate problem is solved. Does this solve all the world's problems? No.
Are you still around to help solve them? Yes. Duh !

Stupid people use violence cause there too stupid to think of a better way.

Violence doesn't solve much, and I'd be hard-pressed to find an instance where it was the best option, but it is a reasonable option under very limited circumstances.

Violence doesn't solve much, and I'd be hard-pressed to find an instance where it was the best option, but it is a reasonable option under very limited circumstances.
Stopping Hitler and his Nazi empire?

Violence never solves anything.

And if so, what reason(s) do you give to back it up.

Violence solves lots of things. The problem is that it also starts a lot of things that need solving.

Violence, like diplomacy, is a tool. There are problems that diplomacy cannot solve, but violence can, and vice-versa. All moral qualms about violence stem from the common mis-application of this tool. Diplomats can wreak just as much havoc with policy as a General can with violence, but the Diplomats rarely are blamed, because the effects of their work are far more subtle.

After WWI, diplomats wrote the Treaty of Versailles and cruelly forced Germany into a state of poverty and suffering. The end result was that a violent (and evil) man came to power, and by wielding both violence and diplomacy, he conquered a good chunk of Europe. Violence (in the name of good) was used in response, and Nazi Germany was defeated. They then ended up being divided into two separate nations. Once again, the work of diplomats. While violence acted as force and counter-force during the war, diplomacy served to screw up life in Germany after both World Wars.

Stupid people use violence cause there too stupid to think of a better way.

A truly stupid statement.

What do you do to stop it, ignore it?

When someone attacks you and you kill them, the immediate problem is solved. Does this solve all the world's problems? No.
Are you still around to help solve them? Yes. Duh !

Are all the worlds problems about violence?

Duh!

A truly stupid statement.

What do you do to stop it, ignore it?

Whats that biblical phrase, an eye for an eye until the whole world is blind, or when your brother hits your right cheek turn and show him your left. Bush says: Jesus is weak on crime!

Yes I ignore it, I defend myself with DEFENSIVE moves like blocking, not shooting, I run as fast as I can. I hold myself above idiots who find entertainment in bashing there heads together,

POST 777

A truly stupid statement.

What do you do to stop it, ignore it?

Stopping Hitler and his Nazi empire?Yeah, that'd be one of them. :D

POST 777

Wow what a smart and intelligent post, what could possibly come next? 778...maybe even 779, I'm so glad you have shown me the ways of witty valid posts.

Wow what a smart and intelligent post, what could possibly come next? 778...maybe even 779, I'm so glad you have shown me the ways of witty valid posts.

Glad to help, you sound like you could do with a bit of humour.

lol

There is no problem that cannot be solved with violence.
If violence did not solve a problem, you simply did not use enough of it.

Whats that biblical phrase, an eye for an eye until the whole world is blind, or when your brother hits your right cheek turn and show him your left. Bush says: Jesus is weak on crime!

Yes I ignore it, I defend myself with DEFENSIVE moves like blocking, not shooting, I run as fast as I can. I hold myself above idiots who find entertainment in bashing there heads together,

Jesus was talking more about the healing power of forgiveness.

You ignore it, very cowardly of you.

What if its a friend being attacked, or someone in your family even, do you

still ignore it?

Do you care about anything except your own skin?

There is no problem that cannot be solved with violence.
If violence did not solve a problem, you simply did not use enough of it.

Or were beaten by superior odds.

Jesus was talking more about the healing power of forgiveness.

You ignore it, very cowardly of you.

What if its a friend being attacked, or someone in your family even, do you

still ignore it?

Do you care about anything except your own skin?

You didn't specify that, don't make me look like the egotist when clearly your the violent bigot. If my friend was being attacked I would defend him. I don't live in a violent country so have never had to worry, I am quite prepared to defend me or any of my friends, Step 1) Throw them off friend Step 2) Run or continue defending. Your a manipulating prick.

Or were beaten by superior odds.

In other words, not enough violence.

Violence never solves anything.

And if so, what reason(s) do you give to back it up.
Violence solves many things, however there are many situations where something OTHER than violence would be best.

If a sociopath goes on a killing spree, you're not going to solve the problem with anything BUT violence.

If someone atacks you, you don't try to talk to them, the only way to solve it is with violence... whether by you or by people you delegate that responsibility to 9police, military, hitmen :P)

Violence never solves anything.

And if so, what reason(s) do you give to back it up.


most of the time violence doesn't solve anything. i could not completely rule out that sentance's credibility though. sometimes an ass kicking isn't the only, or best way to solve somthing, but it works and doesn't hurt anyone too bad. but when death and serious injury are involved, it just isnt worth it. that is my way of looking at it. im not saying that violence should be used ever. it shouldn't, but im just answering the aspect of whether it solves anything. and unfortunately yes, sometimes problems have been resolved by just whompin on someone. im not saying it is right and is the only way to solve a problem, im just simply stating that even though it isnt the best option or only option, it works sometimes.

Before my words were well twisted I meant, violence solves nothing that words couldn't. If someone is attacking you that person is a low life. If you attack anyone because they shoot there mouth off, you need to grow up. I've been hit with all stuff like "Your a f-ing Fag" "Your going to hell" I was told by someone to "Get Aids and die" yet I manage to prosper above it knowing those people must be pretty pathetic to be so obsessed with attempting to make me miserable.

Before my words were well twisted I meant, violence solves nothing that words couldn't. If someone is attacking you that person is a low life. If you attack anyone because they shoot there mouth off, you need to grow up. I've been hit with all stuff like "Your a f-ing Fag" "Your going to hell" I was told by someone to "Get Aids and die" yet I manage to prosper above it knowing those people must be pretty pathetic to be so obsessed with attempting to make me miserable.Just don't confuse those assholes with christians... please.

The Nazi conquest of Europe

The issue of Slavery in North America

The sniper Charles Whiteman who gunned down dozens of people on the University of Texas campus in 1965

Hunger when our ancestors ran around with spears looking for mammoth meat steaks

Now some of these problems might not have been problems if dealt with sooner, but in the end, thats what it took (although frankly, I prefer steak to berries)

Violence is not the answer, Violence is the question.

You didn't specify that, don't make me look like the egotist when clearly your the violent bigot.
If my friend was being attacked I would defend him. I don't live in a violent country so have never had to worry, I am quite prepared to defend me or any of my friends, Step 1) Throw them off friend Step 2) Run or continue defending. Your a manipulating prick.

I didnt have much to go on from your answer but did I, and I am not a violent

bigot sorry.

As for not living in a violent country, what are you comparing running away

from violence too, the Middle East?

As for your steps unless your good at Judo dont rely to much on them, you

will be worn out from wrestling people, and then your anyones, learn to

punch, use your knees and elbows and headbutt.

And I really dont know why you called me that filthy name at the end.

In other words, not enough violence.

No, not enough numbers.

A greater number of people have as just as much chance, of being as violent

as you want to be, unless you and your mates are seasoned street fighters,

your going to be in trouble.

I agree more with this quotation:

In order to achieve peace, we must prepare for war.

Sadly, one of the loudest adherents of this aphorism by the Roman general Vegetius ("si vis pacem, para bellum") was Kaiser Wilhelm II, who used it as a justification for the massive arms-race he participated in at the start of the 20th century -- which led directly to World War I. A demonstrable failure of that hypothesis.

I suppose the answer to this issue depends on what you mean by "solve". People tend to think on very short timescales: a year or two, or a decade, or a generation at best, and ignore the fact that time doesn't stop. There is no point at which you can say, "OK, this series of events is now OVER. Anything that follows is utterly unrelated to anything that came before." So what looks like a perfect "solution" in the short term can actually be the seed-bed of a whole series of larger and even worse problems in the future.

World War I is a good example. Nothing about WWI couldn't have been solved by protracted negotiation. Instead, though, we got 4 years of largely static industrialised slaughter, followed by a punitive peace treaty imposeed on Germany. The Treaty of Versailles probably seemed a great idea to France, Britain, America and the other allies in 1918, but it was a significant contributing factor in the rise of Hitler and the outbreak of WWII.

American support for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the 1970s and 1980s probably seemed like a great idea at the time, given the USSR's involvement in the area and the fractious nature of the Soviet Union's Muslim population -- but we are living with the consequences now. The invasion of Iraq seemed like a good idea to George W's neo-con handlers: it remains to be seen how far the fallout of this little adventure will spread, but no doubt we'll be living with this for a long time too.

In all but the most specialised and individual of circumstances, violence only seems to provide a short-term "solution" for those with no sense of history and no imagination.

Violence never solves anything.

And if so, what reason(s) do you give to back it up.

The statement is true, as far as it goes. Violence is sometimes a necessary evil to REsolve things, but is hardly ever a good first option. Most violence simply begets more violence, but to say that ALL violence is wrong under ANY circumstances only serves to disarm you in the face of those who resort to violence as a first option.

There is no problem that cannot be solved with violence.
If violence did not solve a problem, you simply did not use enough of it.

I would agree that violence can solve most problems. In most cases the violent solution is not satisfactory. For example you can solve some of the problems suggested above (world hunger, what color to paint the house, or which school to send your children to) through violence (including the use of large amounts of explosives ;)). Usually a non-violent solution would presumably be much more acceptable.

However, can you explain how to solve BWO's suggested problem with an application of violence?

Goldbach's conjecture - every even number greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes?