SnV Forums

[Chazaq]

[dodger]

I condone violence under certain circumstances. The morality of violence is murky (at best), but it is undeniably the foremost (and sometimes most effective) problem-solving tool that humans have ever used.

I condone violence against children. You can spout all the creative parenting tips you want, but a swat on the ass is an effective negative reinforcement. Children need boundaries and a strong punishment / reward system. Before they reach adolescence and the age of reason, kids lack the knowledge base and emotional maturity to understand the consequences of their actions.

"Don't call Kelly names because it hurts her feelings." is not always a good enough reason for a child to behave. "Don't call Kelly names, or I'll put you in time-out." is ineffective to a child with an established cruel streak. "Don't call Kelly names and I'll get you some gum." is backward reinforcement.

"Don't call Kelly names or I'll spank you." is simple and effective. I'm not saying we should beat children bloody when they step out of line. A light spank it usually sufficient. It is the act of violence, however painless it may be, that children understand and respect.

I find Chazaq's idea that he would allow himself be murdered rather than utilise violence naive at best, morally repulsive at worst. In a worst-case situation, and one member of a struggle must die, whose survival benefits the whole? The murderer or the innocent? In a life-and-death struggle, allowing a criminal to take your life rather than fight back is a senseless waste of human life.

If your goal is only to end violence, and not to preserve life, then your efforts are not just naive and idealistic, they're irresponsible. I don't mean any offense at all, or to talk down to anyone. This is a serious topic of discussion, and I think it's best if everyone speaks frankly.

Oh, by the way. I'm back on the boards.

[Its_The_Sneak!!!]

[Chazaq]

"Don't call Kelly names or I'll spank you." is simple and effective. I'm not saying we should beat children bloody when they step out of line. A light spank it usually sufficient. It is the act of violence, however painless it may be, that children understand and respect.

But doesn't this give the message to the child that violence with a positive outcome is honorable? Although, the child response to this is very individual. I was spanked when I was a child, and I grew to think a different way.



I find Chazaq's idea that he would allow himself be murdered rather than utilise violence naive at best, morally repulsive at worst. In a worst-case situation, and one member of a struggle must die, whose survival benefits the whole? The murderer or the innocent? In a life-and-death struggle, allowing a criminal to take your life rather than fight back is a senseless waste of human life.


For me, it's a question of who has the more the value? The victim or the attacker? I have absolutely no moral ground to decide who's is more important, who deserves to live? It's such a terrible situation, and which both available options, kill or die, there is a equal loss of human life.


If your goal is only to end violence, and not to preserve life, then your efforts are not just naive and idealistic, they're irresponsible. I don't mean any offense at all, or to talk down to anyone. This is a serious topic of discussion, and I think it's best if everyone speaks frankly.

I understand, and I take no offense. I guess what I believe have some paradoxical elements in it. I believe in the utmost value in human life and the individual, but I will only ever allow my own life to be a sacrifice. I can never make the choice for someone else when to die. Not to say that I have some sort of death wish, if anything, I wish to live as old as I can, and help as many people in the world.




I can just say now, I respect what you say, and I can understand the flaws in what I think. Everything I say could be complete teenage bullshit. But through time I hope to grow and maybe refine of what I believe in. Because a lot of it is in the air.

PS: Welcome back!

[the bunk]

[Hooooomsar]

[Rocky Sullivan]

dodger just owned this thread by posting in it
_________________

[Its_The_Sneak!!!]

[dodger]

I only have one other thing to contribute: violence is a natural phenomenon. All life on this planet has pushed up and and used violence to survive. All mammals fight to defend their young. Why should the hairless ape be any different? All morals which do not jive with animal natures are flawed.

For instance, the Puritans believed that all sexual relations were sinful and wrong, even if they were within wedlock and produced children. As we all know, the urge to procreate is strong in the human race. In this case, the Puritan's morals act against their biology.

Do we ask a bear to repent for shitting in the woods? Why do we then call our natural behaviors immoral? The debate over whether eating meat is right or wrong continues to rage, because of the very uncertainty in the human animal: are humans as a species naturally supposed to eat meat?

Your attitude towards violence seems to be at odds with human nature. It is natural for any animal to defend itself from attack. Is it wrong for a raccoon to fight back when attacked by a dog?

If no, then why is it wrong for you? And don't try to tell me that human beings are more than just animals, or that we need to rise above our instincts. All of that is total BS. Just because we have wall-to-wall carpet and iPods doesn't make us any less animals. To pretend otherwise is the worst kind of self-delusion.

[Hooooomsar]

Also, where would music be without violence?
_________________
I'M A TARD

[Its_The_Sneak!!!]

[Sharp]

Boxing.

[Der]

[Its_The_Sneak!!!]

[Der]