NationStates Jolt Archive

What types of violence do you support?

Violence. It's a broad term. It refers not only to physical, but also verbal, emotional, and sometimes social actions. Now, people take different stands on violence, depending on what kind of violence they are dealing with. I want to look at those different forms, and discuss whether you consider them to be justified, or not. You do not have to abide by my categories, by any means...but when discussing this topic, please be specific about the TYPE of violence you're addressing. I'm only going to start with a few kinds of violence...you can help me flesh this out if you like, but in the interests of avoiding a voluminous first post, I'll start with just defensive violence.

Defensive violence

I believe there are two categories or definitions of defensive violence.

A: self-defense
Self-defense, to me, means that one may use violence only in reaction to aggression. But wait...if you're thinking of Iraq, you actually want B. Anyway. Violence used in self-defense should be limited to the minimum amount of violence necessary to protect oneself from an aggressive action that actually threatens your physical well being. The violence you use should not exceed the violence being used against you.

B: anticipatory self-defense

This one has come up recently, but is by no means limited to our time. It's the idea that you use violence first against someone who intends do use violence against you. It is not a reaction to aggression, but rather the reaction to the THREAT of aggression. For example, you know someone is going to come to your house and beat you up, so you go to their house and beat them up first. I don't categorise this as self-defense...because the word 'anticipatory' to me, suggests that the threat of violence is not necessarily immediate. For example, if you strike someone standing in front of you who is threatening to beat you, I consider that to be self-defense (though the violence given should not be excessive, and only enough to protect yourself from immediate physical harm), not anticipatory self-defense, though it is you who struck first. I also feel there is a VERY fine line between this kind of violence being categorised as defensive, or aggressive.

[U][B]Defensive violence

I believe there are two categories or definitions of defensive violence.

A: self-defense
Self-defense, to me, means that one may use violence only in reaction to aggression. But wait...if you're thinking of Iraq, you actually want B. Anyway. Violence used in self-defense should be limited to the minimum amount of violence necessary to protect oneself from an aggressive action that actually threatens your physical well being. The violence you use should not exceed the violence being used against you.

.

This one is interesting to me. I once took a State mandated class on basic "use of force" regulations as part of a course to qualify for a concealed carry permit. We were advised that we could use a level of force "equal to or slightly greater than" the amount of force being projected against us. I've always been a big believer in the value of avoidance and/or retreat in the face of violence, whenever possible.

How about "Recreational Violence"? I've been thinking about joining a boxing club at school, for the fitness. Sparring looks fun, and from what I'm told, the really talented guys/girls go easy on the noobs.

too much to read.

I support any violence I initiate or any violence that seems to suit me or my goals.
chasing, hair pulling, biting, ass smacking is all good. For consenting adults, of course.:p

Aggressive violence

There are MANY subsets to this one. I'll start, in no particular order with:

A: punitive violence
To me, this would be violence intended to punish (duh:)). Capital punishment falls into this category I think. Some could argue that so does imprisonment. I would confine this to punishments mandated by a society, rather than violence meant to be a form of revenge. However, the line can be rather thin, depending on the society, so I think revenge should be a subset of punitive violence.

A(i): Revengeful violence
When violence is used as a form of revenge.

Okay, for these two...do you think there is a difference between them? For example, capital punishment...the violence committed is intended to punish someone for their crime...could it also be society's revenge? And honour killings...they are a form of punishment and revenge...sometimes sanctioned by society, sometimes not. What are the differences (in your mind) between punitive and revengeful violence? Do you support either one?

How about "Recreational Violence"? I've been thinking about joining a boxing club at school, for the fitness. Sparring looks fun, and from what I'm told, the really talented guys/girls go easy on the noobs.
Recreational violence. It is voluntary on both sides, and neither truly defensive or aggressive...but how would you separate say...legal boxing from barroom brawls? How to narrow down this definition? And what do you think the purpose of this kind of violence is? I think it's a good category though!

too much to read.

I support any violence I initiate or any violence that seems to suit me or my goals.
chasing, hair pulling, biting, ass smacking is all good. For consenting adults, of course.:p
Hmmmm...would that be recreational violence too?

Perhaps there needs to be a category that includes "consensual violence"? (BDSM)

Barroom Brawls=Spontaneous Recreational Violence. :)

How about "Recreational Violence"? I've been thinking about joining a boxing club at school, for the fitness. Sparring looks fun, and from what I'm told, the really talented guys/girls go easy on the noobs.

Boxing is an excellent way to make you a better fighter.

Recreational violence. It is voluntary on both sides, and neither truly defensive or aggressive...but how would you separate say...legal boxing from barroom brawls? How to narrow down this definition? And what do you think the purpose of this kind of violence is? I think it's a good category though!

Well, let's say legal (or maybe, regulated/sanctioned?) boxing must be engaged in by sober, trained adults, in the presence of a ring doctor (for serious bouts), under the mediation of a trained referee, and using some mutually agree upon rules.

Barroom brawls would be less regulated, and instead of a bell, they'd start with the phrase "Did that guy just call me a homosexual?"

The purpose...good question. Outlet? Venting? When I studied Kendo (briefly) in Japan, the physical and mental discipline involved in the training was extraordinary, so I don't consider "self-development" to be out of line.

C: Criminal violence
I'd define this as violence used during the commission of a crime, but not central to the crime itself. For example...if your intent is to rob a store, the violence you use to do so is criminal violence, but the violence itself is not the central purpose. So a gangbanger shooting another gangbanger is more likely to be revengeful violence than criminal violence...since in that case the violence IS the purpose. I'd separate this also from sexual assault...which happens in law as well...where the level of violence used in the commission of a crime determines the level of the crime itself.

Boxing is an excellent way to make you a better fighter.
It's a great way to get you into shape too...which is why I'm considering getting back into it:) Forget expensive aerobics classes and gym fees...training for boxing is extreme conditioning.

I support defensive violence in the situation where their is an immeadiate or ongoing threat. However, I don't just think that it should be a physical or mental threat to you specifically; I believe that you should be able to defend your family/friends and property from harm. Within reason, obviously; I think it's taking the piss if you blow someone's head off for nicking your hosepipe or something.

I don't object to punitive violence such as imprisonment if it can come under than remit. On a theoretical level, I'm not even against things like the death penalty especially, though I do oppose them in practice.

I oppose supposed 'political' violence (such as the Troubles here), regardless of how noble the cause may be been. I oppose violence towards innocents in general. I oppose violence for the sake of violence (criminal violence, I suppose), or violence borne out of hate or a desire to control. As far as 'recreational violence' goes, I wouldn't say I was a big fan of the idea, but if two people are informed about the potential consequences and still acquiesce, that's their choice.

D: Non-consensual sexual violence
Not to be confused with the kind of violence Carnivorous was discussing:). Rape, sexual assault, whatever it's called.

Hmmm...I'm actually running out of subsets for aggressive violence...ok, we've got punitive, revengeful, criminal and non-consensual sexual violence...what are some of the other motivations for aggressive violence?

E: ideological violence?

Hmmm...I kind of think of this as violence free from the desire to punish, or to get revenge...violence based on a person's belief that their actions are serving an ideological purpose. It's still aggressive, and not defensive (unless of course the action IS defensive...tricky this). I don't think that killing someone because you hate what they stand for is necessarily ideological violence...that sounds like punishment or revenge...help me out here...I'm just thinking of motivations for aggressive violence, and this one kind of springs up.

I don't support any violence. I think all violence is wrong, but some has mitigating circumstances.

murder is wrong, murder in self defense is less wrong.

Don't remember who said it tho-

"If you think violence never solved anything, go ask the Spartans"

Look at me crosseyed and I'll shoot yer sorry azz! :D

I don't object to punitive violence such as imprisonment if it can come under than remit. On a theoretical level, I'm not even against things like the death penalty especially, though I do oppose them in practice.
No where would you draw the line with punitive violence? I was first going to define it as violence sanctioned by society as a form of punishment...but then I started thinking about beheadings and stonings and so on...would punitive violence be a relative term based on societal norms? Could it possibly be something more universal? I can't see how it could be...

Oh, and could you go into that a bit...how you oppose it in practice, but not in theory?

I know this is a UK based message board. The britts certainly have some odd ideas about self-defense. Almost seems like someone has to be halfway done killing you before you can do anything.

I'm a self-defense instructor out here in the wild west (alright, Pennsylvania) and am well trained on use-of-force here in the states. In the united states the test for self-defense is the amount of force a reasonable person would deem neccecary to prevent harm, not the minimum force neccecary. The test for deadly force, which is usually unavailable in other countries, if it is neccecary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or a third party. This is determined by articulating Ability, Opportunity and Intent of the assailing party.

What is anticipatory self defense? In my mind it can be perfectly reasonable. If a mugger pulls a knife and says "your money or your life" I can still articulate the he has the ability, opportunity and intent to cause me great bodily harm or death before he sticks me with it. I'm not going to use the minimum force neccecary, but the maximum force available. I consider myself a martial artist and there's a good possibility that i could defend myself from a layperson with a knife. That said, I carry a gun for self-defense and that would be by first choice. In the middle of a fight is not the time to find out your opponents kung fu is stronger.

I don't support any violence. I think all violence is wrong, but some has mitigating circumstances.

murder is wrong, murder in self defense is less wrong.
That statement: all violence is wrong...that's why I'm getting into it. Because there are forms of violence we seem to support...I'll get into that when I get around to passive or 'social' violence. I want people to define violence less broadly...because I think most people DO support some forms of violence. That doesn't necessarily make them violent...there are degrees to it. The term 'violence' is not absolute.

Violence - wrong term. The term itself breeds the thinking, of "wrong". The term we use is "use of force". There are two types of use of force - lawful and unlawful. Lawful include self defense, defense of a third person, (where the use of force would be permissable if the person using force were the one being assaulted), or force used by a law enforcement offcier, etc. Specific example - an officer in my unit used chemical agents to break up a fight between inmates on Thursday. Lawful use of force. Lots of paperwork, but lawful.
Unlawful use of force, murder, rape, aggravated assault, etc. Any use which is unlawful as determined by established law in general, and upheld in specific by a jury of the accused's peers.

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and -- thoroughly
immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to
conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington
and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence,
naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other
factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their
lives and their freedoms.

Robert Heinlein

I know this is a UK based message board. The britts certainly have some odd ideas about self-defense. Almost seems like someone has to be halfway done killing you before you can do anything.

I'm a self-defense instructor out here in the wild west (alright, Pennsylvania) and am well trained on use-of-force here in the states. In the united states the test for self-defense is the amount of force a reasonable person would deem neccecary to prevent harm, not the minimum force neccecary. The test for deadly force, which is usually unavailable in other countries, if it is neccecary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or a third party. This is determined by articulating Ability, Opportunity and Intent of the assailing party.

What is anticipatory self defense? In my mind it can be perfectly reasonable. If a mugger pulls a knife and says "your money or your life" I can still articulate the he has the ability, opportunity and intent to cause me great bodily harm or death before he sticks me with it. I'm not going to use the minimum force neccecary, but the maximum force available. I consider myself a martial artist and there's a good possibility that i could defend myself from a layperson with a knife. That said, I carry a gun for self-defense and that would be by first choice. In the middle of a fight is not the time to find out your opponents kung fu is stronger.
The reason I split up self-defense and anticipatory self-defense is because I do think they are different in terms of immediacy. Your example of a mugger...I believe your actions would be self-defense (and I'll leave the question of degree of force alone for a bit), because the violence has immediacy. However, if you decided that you were probably going to be mugged one day by this notorious mugger, went to his house and beat the crap out of him...I'd say that would be anticipatory self-defense (and no, I wouldn't support it). A preemptive strike on the mugger:)

Violence, even extreme violence, is an occasional necessity.

Reasonable people can be spoken to, predators only understand violence. I guess i'm bilingual.

I think you meant preemptive violence, not anticipatory self-defense. Certain politicians in the US confuse the two often.

A preemptive strike on the mugger:)
Sounds good to me! :D

Violence - wrong term. The term itself breeds the thinking, of "wrong". The term we use is "use of force". There are two types of use of force - lawful and unlawful. Lawful include self defense, defense of a third person, (where the use of force would be permissable if the person using force were the one being assaulted), or force used by a law enforcement offcier, etc. Specific example - an officer in my unit used chemical agents to break up a fight between inmates on Thursday. Lawful use of force. Lots of paperwork, but lawful.
Unlawful use of force, murder, rape, aggravated assault, etc. Any use which is unlawful as determined by established law in general, and upheld in specific by a jury of the accused's peers.
The reason I don't approach it as lawful or unlawful force is because laws and social norms vary from country to country....and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I don't want to get into a pissing match over the differences in laws. And use of force is, in my mind, still violence, no matter whether it's justified or not. I don't mean for violence in this case to have a negative connotation, though I realise it's almost impossible to avoid. But rather than talk about violence in it's very broadest definition, I want to break it down so that we can see which forms you support. For example, you could argue that killing an animal is violence. If it is done to provide humans with a source of food, I support that kind of violence. If it is done to punish an animal, the degrees of that punishment matter...if it is done for joy...well...ick...

That statement: all violence is wrong...that's why I'm getting into it. Because there are forms of violence we seem to support...I'll get into that when I get around to passive or 'social' violence. I want people to define violence less broadly...because I think most people DO support some forms of violence. That doesn't necessarily make them violent...there are degrees to it. The term 'violence' is not absolute.
yeah, I understand what you are trying to get at, but you are going to have to get a lot more specific with me today to get a coherent response. :p

I'm a self-defense instructor out here in the wild west (alright, Pennsylvania) and am well trained on use-of-force here in the states. In the united states the test for self-defense is the amount of force a reasonable person would deem neccecary to prevent harm, not the minimum force neccecary. The test for deadly force, which is usually unavailable in other countries, if it is neccecary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or a third party. This is determined by articulating Ability, Opportunity and Intent of the assailing party.


This is off-topic, but the mention of Penssylvania made me picture Amish people with a highly developed system of unarmed combat, and fighters from across the globe travel there to learn the deadly techniques of the Pennsylvania Dutch...

That said, is use-of-force determined only Federally? In Colorado, we were introduced to a number of State specific laws, particularly the Homeowner's Rights Act (or something close to that), detailing 4 or 5 criteria under which you could shoot and expect protection from civil liability or criminal prosecution. Is there common law, precedent and the like, that covers all the States?

The "reasonable person" thing seems like a way to just say "well, do what you need to do, and the grand jury will decide if it was cool on a case-by-case basis (as everything is, I guess).

EDIT: Oops, just saw Sinuhue's post on not turning this into a legal thing. Please disregard, my bad.

I think you meant preemptive violence, not anticipatory.
What is the difference? I deliberately avoided the word 'preemptive' because of it's current connotations.

There's also the threat of violence, which is used far more often than violence itself. As a means of coercion, it's hard to beat.

There are good and bad forms of this as well. Threatening to beat your wife because she won't cook dinner is bad - but drawing a pistol and ordering a rapist to stop raping the woman he's on top of is good.

Maybe what Sinuhue is worried about is the definition of right and wrong in various contexts. And who defines right and wrong?

This is off-topic, but the mention of Penssylvania made me picture Amish people with a highly developed system of unarmed combat, and fighters from across the globe travel there to learn the deadly techniques of the Pennsylvania Dutch...

That said, is use-of-force determined only Federally? In Colorado, we were introduced to a number of State specific laws, particularly the Homeowner's Rights Act (or something close to that), detailing 4 or 5 criteria under which you could shoot and expect protection from civil liability or criminal prosecution. Is there common law, precedent and the like, that covers all the States?

The "reasonable person" thing seems like a way to just say "well, do what you need to do, and the grand jury will decide if it was cool on a case-by-case basis (as everything is, I guess).

There are lots of Amish and Quakers in central PA, never met one in philly. They are very dedicated to an ideal of non-violence. Though the University of Pennsylvania's football team is the "fighting Quakers" ironically enough.

State laws vary, my comments are pretty much universal in the united states.

"Reasonable person" is legalese for pretty much that. THat's the beauty of the american justice system. everything is on a case by case basis. It's up to a jury to decide if your actions were reasonable.

A useful web page on the use of force in the US
http://www.spw-duf.info/force.html

It's got some ass-covering doublespeak in there (as it should, since there will be minor variations within the US by jurisdiction). But it's got the general tone.

violence is crime - not more
:sniper:

violence is crime - not more
:sniper:

If a man is beating his wife to death with a tire iron, and I have a gun, is it a crime if I point it at him and ask him to stop? And if he does not stop, is it a crime if I save her life by shooting him?

If a man is beating his wife to death with a tire iron, and I have a gun, is it a crime if I point it at him and ask him to stop? And if he does not stop, is it a crime if I save her life by shooting him?
Only in California. :D

Violence is justified only in self-defense, and should only be used as a last resort. However, if someone does use violence, they should not hold back. They should really let the other son of a bitch have it.

violence is crime - not more
:sniper:

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

If a man is beating his wife to death with a tire iron, and I have a gun, is it a crime if I point it at him and ask him to stop? And if he does not stop, is it a crime if I save her life by shooting him?

I know that if I saw a man doing that, I'd blow his fucking head off.

Maybe what Sinuhue is worried about is the definition of right and wrong in various contexts. And who defines right and wrong?
I'm actually less interested in defining absolutes as I am in getting people to think about what forms of violence they actually support. Part of this is an exercise for myself...because I am pacifistic, I've had to really think about my beliefs, and the realities in terms of my relationship with violence. It's something that most people think about on some level, but I want to expand that. Just because I'm a pacifist does not mean I support NO violence. (often tossed in my face when people say, "oh, you're a pacifist...so you must be a vegan. No? HYPOCRITE:rolleyes: )

Only in California. :D

No, In California, you have to be a police officer...and make sure you accidentally kill the victim too. *nod*


P.S. I love Ron White's comedy routine about what bad shots the police are. :)

I support self defence in almost all situations and anticipatory self defence only where the threat of violence is immediate... same as the mugger example really :)
Theoretically I disagree with violence for revenge, but in practice I think it depends on the particular case as to whether it is acceptable.
I also support corporal and capital punishment, but only where evidence is so strong that it cannot be denied. The problem with that is corrupt legal systems, or something along the lines of a person admitting to a murder they did not commit because they saw it on TV (there's a medical condition that makes people do that isn't there? Can't remember what it's called though).
Violence in terms of sparring is good, and anything genuinely consensual and not in any way coerced is pretty much fine. Unless the person consenting is off their head or something.

Everything is really on a case by case basis :p

The violence I don't agree with is any form of violence that is intended simply to harm another person, is irrational, is not 'asked for' by the victim and is generally, well, violent. Things like rape, attacking someone for an aspect of their personality eg sexuality, or how they dress, attacking someone for money or for pleasure, taking out your rage on another person.
Not even so much as I think they are morally wrong (don't believe in absolute morality at all) but that I would want to hurt them back for it ;)

Violence such as this :headbang: is also a bad plan :)

Would another section be something along the lines of 'commanded violence'- a soldier killing under orders, for example. It's not really lawful, it doesn't only use required force. I suppose it could be classed as preemptive though.

I'm actually less interested in defining absolutes as I am in getting people to think about what forms of violence they actually support. Part of this is an exercise for myself...because I am pacifistic, I've had to really think about my beliefs, and the realities in terms of my relationship with violence. It's something that most people think about on some level, but I want to expand that. Just because I'm a pacifist does not mean I support NO violence. (often tossed in my face when people say, "oh, you're a pacifist...so you must be a vegan. No? HYPOCRITE:rolleyes: )

A true pacifist opposes war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. Ergo, you are not a true pacifist. Pacifism like most other -ism's only works if you have universal like-mindedness in a society. There will always be predators, therefore pacifism in its truest form doesn't really work.

Since violence is inevitable, it is what you fight for that is the measure of your personal goodness.

Where does you ideal of pacifism come from? Is it religious in nature?

A true pacifist opposes war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. Ergo, you are not a true pacifist.

How's that? Since when have I supported war or violence as a means of resolving disputes?

I'm actually less interested in defining absolutes as I am in getting people to think about what forms of violence they actually support. Part of this is an exercise for myself...because I am pacifistic, I've had to really think about my beliefs, and the realities in terms of my relationship with violence. It's something that most people think about on some level, but I want to expand that. Just because I'm a pacifist does not mean I support NO violence. (often tossed in my face when people say, "oh, you're a pacifist...so you must be a vegan. No? HYPOCRITE:rolleyes: )

There's also "what's legal" vs. "what's right".

From spwenger's web site:
The Golden Rule of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

* In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents.
* Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.
* Grave bodily harm generally refers to crippling injuries. In some jurisdictions it is also known as great bodily injury.
* When someone says, "Your presence offends me, I'm going home to go get my gun to shoot you," the threat is not immediate.
* When someone says, "Your presence offends me, if you return here tomorrow, I will be waiting with my gun to shoot you," the threat is not otherwise unavoidable. Even if you must return to that location, you have ample time to contact law enforcement.
* The other definitions require a little more explanation.

http://www.spw-duf.info/force.html

I don't view most wrestling or rough play (as long as it's mutually agreed upon) as violence.

Hunting for food is violence. I don't hunt for fun.

I don't get into fights nowadays like I did when I was younger, thinking, "I'll kick his ass and teach him to shut up." Good way to get hurt or in trouble.

Nowadays, I don't offer anything short of deadly force if I offer any force at all. And I follow the rules above.

Before the use of deadly force, I will threaten the use of it, if the situation and time allows.

Passive Violence
Sounds like a contradiction, doesn't it? Maybe it should be...indirect violence? What I'm referring to here is social violence, or systemic violence in which only a few key players are actually directly responsible for it, but many are also indirectly responsible for it. For example, sweat shops. The person actually forcing others (often with violence, or the threat of violence) to work in sweat-shops are DIRECTLY responsible...but the people supporting these systems by buying the products (either knowingly or not) are also indirectly responsible for the violence.

How's that? Since when have I supported war or violence as a means of resolving disputes?

Self-defense is using violence to resolve a dispute. People who don't loose their golden ideal of pacifism quickly when confronted with violent attack seldom live long enough to pass on their golden ideal.

Pacifism is an ideal. The question is always "to what end?"

Hunting for food is violence. I don't hunt for fun.

I'm using the incredibly broad definition of violence as 'causing harm'. Not to be ridiculous, but to delve into the degrees of 'causing harm' and decide which ones I support. Taking the life of an animal certainly causes harm to it...the degrees in this case come from the purpose of the harm. If it's to feed oneself, or others, I personally see it as justified. Others don't. If it's done to protect oneself or others (hunting down a nuisance bear, or a rabid animal), I see it as justified. If it's done for sport, and no one uses the meat, I see it as wrong. Others don't.

What types of violence do you support? Genocide with black uniforms, gothic armour, massive tanks, doomsday cults, vicious mutant killer animals, and plasma bombs.

I'm using the incredibly broad definition of violence as 'causing harm'. Not to be ridiculous, but to delve into the degrees of 'causing harm' and decide which ones I support. Taking the life of an animal certainly causes harm to it...the degrees in this case come from the purpose of the harm. If it's to feed oneself, or others, I personally see it as justified. Others don't. If it's done to protect oneself or others (hunting down a nuisance bear, or a rabid animal), I see it as justified. If it's done for sport, and no one uses the meat, I see it as wrong. Others don't.

I see no moral difference between shooting a deer and eating its meat, or going to the store and buying deer meat taken from a deer who was bludgeoned to death by someone else.

I don't kill animals unless I plan on eating them.

I would kill any animal that was trying to kill me, or posed an immediate lethal threat (same as the self-defense rules I follow with people).

Self-defense is using violence to resolve a dispute. People who don't loose their golden ideal of pacifism quickly when confronted with violent attack seldom live long enough to pass on their golden ideal.

Pacifism is an ideal. The question is always "to what end?"
That is YOUR definition of self-defense. The one that doesn't include 'minimal force necessary'. My definition of self-defense fits quite well with this definition of pacifism (an ideal which is NOT universally agreed upon, by the way):

Main Entry: pac·i·fism

1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

Main Entry: non·re·sis·tance

: the principles or practice of passive submission to constituted authority even when unjust or oppressive; also : the principle or practice of not resisting violence by force


Main Entry: force
1 a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power
Pacifism does not necessarly mean taking a beating...but your violence must not be the active force or power...you must not initiate the violence, and your violence must be the absolute minimum necessary to keep yourself from immediate physical harm. And that harm has to be weighed...perhaps you can take the beating if a point is being made (for example, you step in front of the intended victim of violence as a form of resistance to violence...and receive the violence yourself)...perhaps you need to flee the situation rather than react with violence. But resisting violence is not always a breach of pacifism.

I see no moral difference between shooting a deer and eating its meat, or going to the store and buying deer meat taken from a deer who was bludgeoned to death by someone else. Nor do I. For me, the difference is cultural. I strongly feel that you should not be willing to eat that which you are not willing to kill (which does not mean you have to kill ALL your food:)). But that's another issue...

Pacifism is an ideal. The question is always "to what end?"
Oh, and I didn't answer this. To me, the purpose of pacifism is to resist injustice and violence in a much more powerful and less contradictory way than using violence to resist injustice and violence.

No where would you draw the line with punitive violence? I was first going to define it as violence sanctioned by society as a form of punishment...but then I started thinking about beheadings and stonings and so on...would punitive violence be a relative term based on societal norms? Could it possibly be something more universal? I can't see how it could be...I doubt it could, no. I think things like beheadings/stonings et al are degrading of the highest order - if one does believe in the death penalty, carrying it out via lethal injection/electric chair does not, to me, carry the same level of unnecessary humiliation that those kinds of acts do. However, the kinds of countries that do carry out these forms of punishment probably think that many of our western practices are humilitating or degrading to some people, even if in different ways. In short, punishment - like the majority of other things so far as I can tell - is relative to the society/culture in which you reside. Few things are truly objective.

Oh, and could you go into that a bit...how you oppose it in practice, but not in theory?Sure. In theory, I think that corporal and/or capital punishment can be suitable punishments for the worst types of crime. However, since even the most advanced forensic techniques are rarely 100% accurate (even if they are 99.999999999 ad infinitum % accurate), I don't support such acts in practice due to the risk of miscarriage of justice. It's bad if you spend x years in jail for something you didn't do; it's a lot worse if you're gone through physical and mental torture or are dead.

Personally, most violence is a sign of a great failure on someone's part (the exception is recreational violence, which is a sign of great boredom on everyone's part). When I have to resort to abuse or killing, I have lost something. If the man I assault survives, he will remember and almost certainly seek revenge at a later date (maybe if I'm luck he'll just be insolent and unhelpful to me). If the man dies, the situation is even worse. His family/friends and the police will be out searching for me at that point, and even if I get away with what I've done, that is one less person whom I can use.
In short, It's better to be creative in your manipulations then to try and brute force someone.

In short, It's better to be creative in your manipulations then to try and brute force someone.
I like this philosophy....:D