NationStates Jolt Archive

here's a novel idea: why don't we all see if we can collectively and constructively discuss a topic? and hopefully come to an actual conclusion even?

so anyway, here's my questiom/topic. under what conditions is it acceptable to use violence? who can kill and who and when? Is there a general principle that covers all the circumstances or do we have to use several criteria to judge things on a case by case basis? and do some institutions by their very nature have a more rightfull claim on legitimately using violence than others?

Self defence, but that ofc means the other person isn't following the rules.

2 or more consenting people can use violence on each other. A bit of a scrap between 2 willing parties is ok.

Violence is acceptable when used by CIA "jackals" to further American and corporate hegemony.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372402

Self defence

ah, but what are the rules governing what counts as legitimate self defense - what can you defend against, and how much? also, is self defense the only acceptable use of violence? and why on both counts.

this cwould have made such a good thread, but somebody had to make it ino a political debate

*walks out of thread carrying baseball bat*

Violence is acceptable when all the participants are enjoying it. :)

Ah, finally...my two favorite topics in the world.

this cwould have made such a good thread, but somebody had to make it ino a political debate

*walks out of thread carrying baseball bat*

Thirty-one hundred posts and still no recognition of sarcasm? Perhaps you should post less and read more. ;)

ah, but what are the rules governing what counts as legitimate self defense - what can you defend against, and how much? also, is self defense the only acceptable use of violence? and why on both counts.

Anything that violates your person or property.

Only as much as calm reason dictates for the purposes of deterrence and punishment.

Straight out of Locke.

is it ever justified to use violence to "defend your honor"?

Anything that violates your person or property.

Only as much as calm reason dictates for the purposes of deterrence and punishment.

Straight out of Locke.

well, it's a start. but define "violates" and "your property".

well, it's a start. but define "violates" and "your property".

Causes injury to or impairs maximal use of

Anything that you put effort into in order to make useful.

Again, pretty much straight out of Locke.

Causes injury to or impairs maximal use of

so is you is or is you ain't allowed to shoot those damn kids if you catch them walking on your lawn?

Anything that you put effort into in order to make useful.

and thus do i own the place that i work at.

It's acceptable to use violence in self-defense of either your body, or your property. The amount of violence used must be in proportion to the amount of violence being used against your body or your property, otherwise it is no longer self-defense, but offense.

I propose you all battle my dragon with your broadswords. Then, under the cover of night, I will slip away into the forest, leaving you to an endless battle that will never end (which makes it endless, foo), for I placed a spell on each and everyone of you. MEEEEHEEehe

what about defense of a third party? or defense of an organization/institution/class/other non-individual entity? what about revolutions and rebellions? what about wars? what about soldiers in unjust wars?

there is a lot more to violence than just defending your property and body. and that's where it gets interesting.

what about defense of a third party? or defense of an organization/institution/class/other non-individual entity? what about revolutions and rebellions? what about wars? what about soldiers in unjust wars?

there is a lot more to violence than just defending your property and body. and that's where it gets interesting.
In defense of a third party is acceptable, again, provided that the violence used in defense is proportional to the violence used by the person you're defending against. However, the rest aren't, as it's unacceptable to use violence against an intangible.
Revolutions and rebellions are acceptable if they are a proportionate response to the violence used against the people revolting/rebelling. If the rebels start with violence first, then it is unacceptable.

it's unacceptable to use violence against an intangible

why? and what about using violence in defense of one?

why? and what about using violence in defense of one?
Because of the nature of an intangible an act of "violence" against it cannot be proven to be harmful to it. If someone shoots you, you are tangible, and therefore we can see just how the bullet harms you. This doesn't apply to an intangible. However, often in using violence against an intangible, such as an organization, it becomes a case of using violence against the individual members of the organization, and therefore a proportioned response in self-defense is perfect justified.

A bit of a scrap between 2 willing parties is ok.

You mean like a pub brawl? or a Judo class?

When you can get away with it. This covers self-defence, as it's a court-acceptable excuse.

is it ever justified to use violence to "defend your honor"?

depends how you define honour. i mean, codes of honour vary between countries, peoples, ethnic groups etc etc. One person may act on what they see as honour whereas another sees it as pointless violence.

That said honour in my opinion is a very hollow word, just like patriotism, faith, beliefs, it can be moulded to anyones purpose.

depends how you define honour. i mean, codes of honour vary between countries, peoples, ethnic groups etc etc. One person may act on what they see as honour whereas another sees it as pointless violence.

exactly my point. what is allowed in terms of violence varies from place to place. but what ought be allowed?

and for another question, should the state have special priviledge over the use of violence?

That said honour in my opinion is a very hollow word, just like patriotism, faith, beliefs, it can be moulded to anyones purpose.
I agree, which is another reason that I said intangibles aren't acceptable to use violence to defend.

If the rebels start with violence first, then it is unacceptable.

what if the rebellion is started in response to violence that is deemed to be legitimate by the authorities, who were merely enforcing the laws of the land?

It's acceptable to use violence in self-defense of either your body, or your property. The amount of violence used must be in proportion to the amount of violence being used against your body or your property, otherwise it is no longer self-defense, but offense.

I learned while I was in Texas that it is permissible to use deadly force to protect your neighbor's property. I knew a fellow there that had attended the Police Academy. His report to me was that it was perfectly legal for him to shoot someone that was trying to steal my car or break into my house, even if they posed no direct threat to himself or his family. Presumably this was for a number of reasons that seemed good at the time.

So how about it, world leaders? Any thoughts?

exactly my point. what is allowed in terms of violence varies from place to place. but what ought be allowed?

and for another question, should the state have special priviledge over the use of violence?

Allowed? Non, if i have to choose, but its an impossible task to manage.

The state should be answerable in the same way its citizens are answerable to their actions, but soverign governments would never agree to it. There has be be law that governs both state and citizen, but as i said before, soverign governments would never allow their 'ultimate' power to be curtailed.

what if the rebellion is started in response to violence that is deemed to be legitimate by the authorities, who were merely enforcing the laws of the land?If the amount of violence used by the authorities is proportionate to the amount of violence used by people who were breaking the laws of the land, then the rebellion isn't acceptable. If the authorities use more violence, then the rebellion is.

I learned while I was in Texas that it is permissible to use deadly force to protect your neighbor's property. I knew a fellow there that had attended the Police Academy. His report to me was that it was perfectly legal for him to shoot someone that was trying to steal my car or break into my house, even if they posed no direct threat to himself or his family. Presumably this was for a number of reasons that seemed good at the time.

So how about it, world leaders? Any thoughts?
Your neighbor's use of force would be disproportionate to the amount of violence used by the potential car thief, and therefore unacceptable, whether or not it is legal.

here's a novel idea: why don't we all see if we can collectively and constructively discuss a topic? and hopefully come to an actual conclusion even?

so anyway, here's my questiom/topic. under what conditions is it acceptable to use violence? who can kill and who and when? Is there a general principle that covers all the circumstances or do we have to use several criteria to judge things on a case by case basis? and do some institutions by their very nature have a more rightfull claim on legitimately using violence than others?

"Eh, a little brute force never hurt anybody."
-Unknown

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm opposed to violence. Period. Isaac Asimov'd back me up by quoting Salvor Hardin. I'm not going to bother myself.

Thirty-one hundred posts and still no recognition of sarcasm? Perhaps you should post less and read more. ;)
im used to taking threads at face value. And there was no mention of throwing people into a furnace, therefore this thread = not fun

Self defence is the only time when violence is acceptable. By self-defence I mean when another person has made an obviously violent approach to dealing with you our members of your family. You do not punch them out if they are insulting your family, you punch them out when that have made a direct and obvious approach to hurting you or your family (such as pulling a fist back, holding a weapon with intention to use it against you or your family or even a serious fighting stance taken up by the other person). However it is acceptable to defend others against violence such as when a terrorist is on a plane, you tackle the fucker so the other passengers are not at risk.

I'm not sure if violence is ever "acceptable". This would tend to be a hindsight assessment. I do think that there are times in life when violence is justified in the moment, and that there are certainly times when violence is deemed necessary. In this last case, it would likely give some pause to action if the judge, politician, general, or whomever were obligated to directly participate in the violence rather than simply directing it.

Too, violence is subjective. I go deer hunting and I kill and eat them. That's considered violent by many people who eat slaughtered cows.

I do not believe that violence is ever acceptable. Ever. Not even in self-defense.


Main Entry: vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-
Function: noun
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse

Generally, violence justified by 'self-defense' goes beyond just protecting oneself..it becomes a retaliatory act. So self-defense, in that sense follows the definition of violence. I don't support that.


Main Entry: de·fense
Pronunciation: di-'fen(t)s;
2 a : capability of resisting attack

Self-defense, without using violence, means simply resisting attack. Force may be used, but that force is not meant to injure or abuse, it is meant solely to RESIST attack. So if someone comes at you with a knife, you stop them, without using extra force to hurt them. If that doesn't stop them, and they still come after you, you resist their agression in a manner that keeps you safe. That means leaving them alive, and as unhurt as possible.

Violence begets violence. Turn the other cheek. Cliches, that people have gotten sick of hearing. To bad they couldn't listen to that advice instead.

Unrestricted violence except with a general frowning upon the use of violence. That’s the only way to truly be free.

Well either that or don't wear underwear.