Follow TV Tropes

Following

The nature of violence

Go To

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#1: Mar 9th 2013 at 4:42:21 AM

Here we talk about the value of violence, given that culturally speaking we seem to honor violence in a certain way, from seeing "fighting and dying for one's country" to "fighting in defence of others". At the same time, we seem to look down on physical confrontations, when other types of confrontation can potentially cause as much harm (I sue you until you go bankrupt and your life is ruined, or I deliberately spread rumors about you and ruin your reputation and your life).

I'll start up responding to this.

While violence may sometimes be necessary — for example, in self-defense — it is always distasteful. I mean, all right, if someone is attacking you with an axe, you cannot escape safely, and you have a gun then you have no option but to shoot them; but that's not awesome, it's tragic.

I find this kind of extreme example to be counter productive. Say someone is swinging an axe at your face and, being as well trained as you are, dodged and tackled him onto the ground, with enough control that neither you or your attacker actually get hurt. Alternatively, even if you have a gun and you're not well training in fighting, can't you at least just aim for the legs instead and try not to kill the person? I don't see why we have to end that by having somebody dying or even seriously hurt.

And that brings out my other point: the reason why I train myself in martial arts is to be skilled enough that I can have the option of not getting somebody killed when this kind of situation happens. I see that as my responsibility to be myself well trained enough so that no matter what happens, the likelyhood of somebody getting hurt in minimised at least. There has to be some good in the idea of "trying not to hurt the guy even when he's trying to kill you" isn't there?

Edit: why the heck are there two thread now?

edited 9th Mar '13 9:21:37 PM by IraTheSquire

Add Post

Total posts: 1
Top