violence is never the answer

Do you agree with a blanket statement like that?
I'm not sure I do, although at the moment I can't think of an instance where violence would be a viable solution.


A fight between two people broke out today and in passing I heard someone say that violence is never the answer.
I've never been in a fight, and I doubt that I never will be, but it seems that so many people, particularly young people, take to violence as the immediate response to anything that they feel threatens their integrity or reputation among their peers. Now, obviously that is not good, but does that mean that violence is never a solution?
I don't think so


what do you think

 

I' m ok with violence in self-defense. Not to defend your honor or any such crap, to protect yourself from physical harm. I' m not saying it' s necessarily the best approach to solve the problem (see Ghandi and Martin Luther King), just that in that case I don' t condone it.

On a side-note, Ghandi and Martin Luther King were more Christian than all the Christians I ever met combined. They actually followed Jesus' words, they weren' t just fans clicking a like button on his Face-book page every Sunday.

 

Both those examples are.... strange to use in the context of saying violence is needed.
The Revolutionary War was the instigation of British colonists to rebel caused by the French, Spanish and Dutch, it allowed a greater slave trade of African people, a Christian centred society that rejected other religions (not openly, but in practice) to name a few things.
The Cold War was a stalemate of all violence, with probably being the least amount of deaths in a war of the proportion of the war's duration, only really Korea and Vietnam receiving any major violence.

Violence is never the FIRST answer. It should be the least avoided, sometimes it can not, sometimes when the time is right it is best use it rather than anything else. But before all, diplomacy is the best, peace is prized above war. War is only needed in the most dire of circumstances.

This pretty much explains everything I believe (look at me for once using a vid):

Spoiler

 

This reminds me of a Digimon Adventure 02 episode where two of the original Digidestined (Matt and Tai) got into a physical altercation and the new protagonist (Davis) freaked out, but it turns out that the fight improved Matt's and Tai's friendship and it worked out because the two were already good friends. I had experiences like that. In Junior High, I got into my own share of physical fights and lost more than I won. The majority of those, however, resulted in me being better friends with my "opponents." In some instances, especially for younger people, it's simply a way of working things out. Are there better ways? Yeah, probably. But it still doesn't stop it from working out. In my opinion, everyone needs their ass kicked at least once.
However, that applies mostly, if not only, to small and not-so-violent altercations. I would prefer people use fists instead of guns and knives, which seems to be happening more frequently. (To quote Friday, "you win some. You lose some. But you live to fight another day.")

Other situations, if not most situations, then I agree that violence isn't the answer.

 

Actually that's a very good point to make. I don't know why but I've physically had some fights with my friends before (nothing over the top or violent really) but it kind of resulted in us becoming better friends?
I believe it's some kind of respect, that two people need to let off some stress that's building up and they direct it at their friends because they know they'll accept it, and vice versa.
Sometimes I can see when one friend just needs to punch the other one.

One time these two friends of mine - say K and Z - who go way back both liked this girl, she dated K for 7 months or so before finding out that she had cheated on him Z. To say the least, tense. They kind off argued and shouted for a week or so at each other, looking like barking dogs I swear. In the end, K started another argument with Z, and mid conversation punched Z in the head and pushed him to the ground. Few moments of silence, and them looking at each other, K puts out his hand and helps Z up. They don't say anything more but continue as normal.

IT can help, I don't know how, but like Bueno said, this is a minor instance of violence, it's not applicable wholly to anything much greater.

 

Without war, everything would get out of hand. Say that this world is Yin and Yang. One needs the other to sustain. And to answer your question--I also agree that violence doesn't have to be the answer for everything.

 

"Violence is never the answer" sounds like something i'd hear from someone holding their nose too close to the sky. I would like to say that there is always another option than physical altercations, however that is not the case. Let's say your little sister/brother is getting picked on, and the other parties are physically abusing said sister/brother, would you wait to tell someone about it. It doesn't even have to be as a kid. What if it was happening as you're both older and hanging out, would you tell someone even older? The truth is there is always an option to use violence as a solution, and a lot of the times it would be the wrong one. However, saying that "violence is never the answer" isn't true. People who think this way have, in my opinion, more than likely been sheltered and have never been put in a situation like that. I for one won't hesitate to throw a punch when it comes to family/friends. Is that one of my flaws, perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that sometimes you just have to knock some sense into people.

In this statement though, are people the only one's included? "Violence is never the answer" Is that solely meant for humans, or does that include animals too? If someone you know is being attacked by a rabid dog, would you try to talk things over with the dog? No, you'd put the dog down. Violence is never the answer for almost every given situation . . . I prefer that wording a lot better.

 

I think I'm going against the flow on this, but whoever first said that "Violence is not the answer" was a man/woman who could not fight to defend himself and had to resort to his words. I'm not saying that we should solve all our problems with violence, but we shouldn't be slow to resort to it. If look back over time yeah, we have had lots of wars, lots of people died, but i firmly believe that those wars did fix things and resolve things. This is just my personal belief so don't hurt me for it. I try not to resort to violence in altercations, but if the guy is being a dumba** then I have no problem bowing up on him and if wants a fight, he is gonna get one. I have no problems with hurting people, and I intended to be the guy that walks away the victor. You can call me heartless if you want, but I'm not gonna let some dumba** go to town on me because I wanted to use words rather than fist.

 

Lol. What if my personal belief is that yours needs to be fixed (or the other way around) ?

French privateer Robert Surcouf allegedly retorted to an Englishman who said that, while the French fought for money, the English fought for honour, "Everyone fights for what they lack the most."

 

Then were going to be in a stalemate because that is my personal belief and opinion on the matter and no one can change that....

 

Never say never.
I can kinda see where you' re coming from though. As much as we like to deny it nowadays, to live is to compete.

"The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state; the natural state is one of war. This does not always mean open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established, for in order to be secured against hostility it is not sufficient that hostilities simply be not committed; and, unless this security is pledged to each by his neighbor (a thing that can occur only in a civil state), each may treat his neighbor, from whom he demands this security, as an enemy."
~ Immanuel Kant

However words or fists is a false dichotomy, there are other sources of power (money comes to mind) and other ways to teach someone a lesson. I' m no genius, but I definitely view intelligence as my strong point. Also, overall I care more about how I view myself than about how others view me. I get that it' s not the case for everyone though.

 

wat

Sure there was the Vietnam War and etc, but when people say the Cold War, they think USSR vs. USA, which was really non-violent. Sure, both nations had their hand in violent wars and pitted other nations against each other as avatars for themselves, but it wasn't really violence in the way this thread is discussing it.

 

Actually I think this thread is talking about the general does violence solve anything. We just normally talk about fights between two people because that is what we are use to around us. I believe the TC even said in "blanket statement" in his post.

 

But he wasn't talking about fights between two people, he was talking about the Cold War.

 

Yeah I get what your saying, but I think the point of what he was trying to make was taking the American Rev war, and comparing to how the cold war went. We were at war, but nothing happened.

 

I think you're missing the point...

 

What is a noun which has the definition of "a swift and intense force"?

Answer: Violence.

In all seriousness though, there is a time and a place for violence. perhaps not so much in everyday life, but in certain situations it is very necessary. For example, a person in hysterics is best calmed down by a swift slap or a douse of cold water. These can be considered "violent" acts, but were necessary to calm down the person enough to talk them through their panic.