Violence as a solution

This is something that has been on my mind a lot lately. Here in America (I'm not sure if this is true in other countries) we're raised to believe "violence doesn't solve anything, it only creates more problems."

But does it really?

Take, for example, the following situation: You know a guy at school who has psychopathic tendencies. You know the kind—he coerces his friends, threatens his enemies, and everyone knows he raped his girlfriend but everyone's afraid to talk.

Let's say this person starts showing a special interest in you. No reason—he just does. So he starts stalking you, leaving threatening messages. He even follows you home from school so he'll know where you live, and tells you to your face he's gonna do a drive-by on your house.

At this point, most people would tell you to call an authority, but in that instance it turns into your word against his, and he's got legions of frightened yes-men who will agree with him. Obviously, the system will fail.

All right, let's say for some reason it doesn't. Maybe you're not the only one with a complaint, or one of his perceived followers turns stool-pigeon, or perhaps you (or someone else) has the foresight to record some of your encounters via cell phones or whatever. The guy could get put in the psychiatric ward or just go straight to jail. But then there's the thing: he could get out. Maybe he comes up with a genius escape plan, or else his lawyer gets him off, or maybe he's used as a Clockwork Orange-style experiment in behavioral control and is released back into society as "safe."

Whatever, the point is: He's alive. He could come back into your life at any time. Even if he's not bothering you, he could be out hurting somebody else, ruining somebody else's life, even killing people. Our society generally excuses this by saying he might wind up contributing something, or using some variation of "God's Plan" or "The Butterfly Effect," stating that its wrong to kill because his evil might bring about some greater good elsewhere. That seems like particularly flawed reasoning at best. Yes, he might influence somebody in a more positive direction, or he might himself change his ways and become a contributing member of society, but before he gets to that point he'll have ruined or killed countless people. It's like passing up hundreds of dollars for the promise of a penny.

Given this, wouldn't you say it's just better to kill the sucker?

Thoughts?

If you're so sure that the system failed, use your evidence to put him back in the mental hospital.

The problem is, you kill him, you'll be seen as just as mental as him.

The system won't work 100% of the time, the point is to make it as good as possible. And what's best 99% of the time is not responding with violence, for any number of reasons.

Sometimes Violence Really Is the Answer.

edited 27th Feb '11 12:21:57 AM by joeyjojo

The scenario seems rather too specific and contrived. How many psychos really have so many yes men?

"violence doesn't solve anything, it only creates more problems."

HA HA HA—No. The meme is that American culture is all about violence lawl. Harping on about the Second Amendment, action movies, "don't be a pussy" blah blah.

The scenario seems rather too specific and contrived. How many psychos really have so many yes men?

It's more likely than you think.

The problem is, you kill him, you'll be seen as just as mental as him.

First, that's not necessarily true.

Second, it doesn't matter. The guy is still gone at the end of the day.

The system won't work 100% of the time, the point is to make it as good as possible. And what's best 99% of the time is not responding with violence, for any number of reasons.

The thing about systems though, is that they inherently exist for themselves first and you second, whatever the P.R. office may say. It is not an exaggeration when people talk about those in power having a different outlook on life than those without, and for that reason, the system will always be fundamentally flawed.

The only way to balance it out is for people to be at least somewhat self-reliant. With faith in oneself, efficiency goes from 99% to 100%

The meme is that American culture is all about violence lawl.

Good thing not all of us see internet memes as representative of entire cultures.

This is OTC, not Yack Fest. Adjust your posts accordingly.

edited 27th Feb '11 12:50:26 AM by MoeDantes

^^ Are you linking the right to own firearms to the right to indiscriminately kill people?

Though your post serves to show how people have completely contradictory views on this subject.

edited 27th Feb '11 12:48:55 AM by Exploder

Just because, in some highly specific situations, violence might work when nothing else does it doesn't mean that "Violence is not the answer" is wrong or a bad moral to teach people.

I find your hypothetical situation very questionable, anyway.

Just because, in some highly specific situations, violence might work when nothing else does it doesn't mean that "Violence is not the answer" is wrong or a bad moral to teach people.

Except that it does, because now you have to modify it to "violence is not the answer, except in that particular situation." And the minute you make one exception, you've opened the door for more.

Any time there is an exception, then the core belief must be re-examined.

^^ Are you linking the right to own firearms to the right to indiscriminately kill people?

Nobody is arguing its okay to indescriminately kill people.

edited 27th Feb '11 1:09:42 AM by MoeDantes

~Ignoring hypothetical nothing personal~

Violence isn't the answer? I'd like to hear the question first.

My point: Depends on circumstances.

I'm not a fan of this saying for the same reasons I'm not a fan of the ten commandments, its dogma that aims to restrict options without considering the situation. No killing, stealing, all that jazz.

edited 27th Feb '11 1:13:28 AM by ViralLamb

My post is entirely on-topic, just in a more silly voice than usual. Unless statisticians are lying USA is a much more violent place than most "First World" countries. As far as I know most of Europe doesn't have a gun fixation and the death penalty.

There will be exceptions to everything if you look hard enough. All rules and moral principles are based around immensely simplifying complex situations so that people have a guideline to measure themselves against.

If you say that anything that has exceptions is worthless... there go most of our laws.

edited 27th Feb '11 1:19:33 AM by LoniJay

Violence isn't the answer; it's the QUESTION. To which the answer is fuck yeah.

You need not kill the fool; merely fuck him up to such a degree that he becomes terrified of you.

I'm not a fan of this saying for the same reasons I'm not a fan of the ten commandments, its dogma that aims to restrict options without considering the situation.

Exactly! That puts it better than I ever could.

Unless statisticians are lying USA is a much more violent place than most "First World" countries. As far as I know most of Europe doesn't have a gun fixation and the death penalty.

You do realize that nothing you've presented so far indicates America has a violent culture, right?

If you say that anything that has exceptions is worthless... there go most of our laws.

What I actually said was "if there's an exception, we need to re-examine the core belief." If said belief is so weak that re-examination becomes synonamous with trashing it, then it wasn't a very good core belief to begin with.

And yes, in fact, our legal system has been getting weaker because of how many loopholes and exceptions have crept into our lawbooks over the years. That proves my point.

The main reason people say that "violence resolves nothing" is nothing to do with the fact that it might or might not resolve a particular situation. It's because if you resolved with violence every situation that could be resolved with violence people would come to expect that, and prepare for it. Society would dissolve into some kind of permanent warfare. You might be justified in killing this particular guy, but, to be honest, letting you protect your life in this situation is less important than keeping the peace generally. This may sound really harsh, but of course you're not actually under some kind of imminent threat here. There's a risk, and given that this is a very contrived scenario that's very unlikely to arise, it's probably a fairly low risk in real life.

Violence isn't a solution, it's the solution.

Perchance it might be handy if someone who has to actually deal with violence on a regular basis, or has solved a problem with it, to weigh in, instead of farfetched scenarios that seem to smack of revenge fantasy.

@Insanity Addict - I couldn't agree more.

@Deboss - OK, that's a badass kind of response, but you can't operate that way in real life. If you were under threat of being made redundant from your job, would your response be to shoot the boss/bosses, probably resulting in you either being killed by the police or spending years in prison (or in Texas, even being executed)? There are people who do that kind of thing. They aren't generally seen as heroes.

edited 27th Feb '11 4:44:41 AM by Captainbrass

If I'm being made redundant by being replaced a machine, we can throw a party because we've officially achieved a post scarcity economy.

Besides which, it was a meme response. "_________ isn't a X, it's the X!" is a common gag.

Violence is a poor solution. A more often than not self defeating solution that costs more than more peaceful options. But in the end it is the final arbiter. The destructive power of violence is the bedrock on which any form of civil and peaceable solution can be found. If you aren't willing to ruin someones life forever then there will never be a peaceful solution.

edit: insanity addict, Having the option to resort to lethal violence and showing that you are willing to has kept a lot of bad situations from turning worse. But starting from that point starts more problems than it fixes. People that go to violence first end up in the SICU breathing through a tube.

edited 27th Feb '11 5:51:04 AM by Shrimpus

Here in America (I'm not sure if this is true in other countries) we're raised to believe "violence doesn't solve anything, it only creates more problems."

Yeah, about that...violence actually solves a lot of problems. That being said, if this guy isn't threatening you, or putting your life in danger, you don't have grounds for violence. Call the police and use your evidence to try to get him locked up; don't play vigilante.

Violence is a specific tool, just like talking and debating or throwing dices.
Violence as a tool is the tool we are suppose to use when the other tools fails, it is our version of a failsafe mechanism in general life.
Of course, using violence first instead of being reasonable is when using violence is a bad solution.
But when being reasonable do not solve the situation, violence is a excellent problem solver.

Now the problem is that a lot of people do not want to be reasonable, nor do they recognize what being reasonable is. They hump to a tool not intended for the job in the first place, and from there on we get the idea that violence is a bad solution.
Image a world where humanity is not humanity, but some obscene creature that is willing to be reasonable, willing to stay on for its ideals, and willing to admit defeat. In a such a world violence would be excellent problem solver, because people would use it for when its appropiate.

Sorry, I took the gag at face value. However, I stand by what I said about it made as a serious argument.

"violence doesn't solve anything, it only creates more problems."

Depends on the household. I was taught that some problems involving people of a certain mindset and situation can only be efficiently solved with a bit of violence.