Before I get Banned for opening my mouth...

Originally posted by crazydaisy
Violence is not acceptable in any circumstance except for defense! .

LOL, your government, as well as most governments, will threaten you with violence if you refuse to pay and play their enslaving games. Suppose it's against your moral beliefs to support violence and you want to stop funding your governments war(s), stop paying all or part of your taxes, what will happen when you resist? See if they don't come to teach you a lesson and make a public example of you for all to see.

These governments, gangs, around the world derive their powers from and control of it's slaves through the use of THREATS OF VIOLENCE. If you don't obey and do as they say, they will threaten you, and if you continue to resist they will kill you next. Governments wouldn't exist if THEY dispensed with violence, just as any gang would loose power over their prisoners .. err, I mean subjects. Governments are merely large well established gangs still run by gangsters and everyone else are the slaves .. err, I mean little people.

So anyhow, if we refuse to do as our government orders us to do, because it goes against our moral beliefs, and when they threaten us with violence because we refuse to surrendure and come out with our hands up, is it then okay to defend ourselves? Is a threat enough, or do we need to wait until they shoot first before we open a can of kick-ass?

reply to post by Shamanistical

I suppose I could talk to myself, lol. While we're on this subject of violence, let me ask this? What did you or I ever do that set these Muslims off and caused them to want to kill us? Is it something I said or did? Was it something any of you said or did that has put all our lives at risk? OR WAS IT OUR G.D. GOVERNMENT and what these gangsters are doing around the world that has put all our lives at risk?

Seriously, who should we REALLY be defending ourselves from, the rest of the world, or our own government? If we ever get nuked some day by some foreign government or any of their terrorist citizens, I can promise you it wasn't because of anything I did to deserve that.

I fear our own government now and I fear they will get us all killed in some retaliatory terrorist strike one day. But, how can we change this potential scenario, avoid it, make sure that our government never again pisses off some foreign entity and puts all our lives at risk? How do you oppose a violent government that is risking your life and limb without having to get violent too? How do you fight violence without violence?

Originally posted by ripcontrol
When is violence appropriate?

In revolutionary times, think the American revolution, or any revolution for that matter ...

Originally posted by ripcontrol
-Levels????

Pretty much uncontrollable ... it's a mob mentality, once put in motion, very little can stop it ...

Originally posted by ripcontrol
Who can use violence?

"We, the people ..."

Originally posted by ripcontrol
Who decides?

"We, the people ..." I hope this helps with your questions. Do I think that we live in revolutionary times and that violence is warranted? Not quite there here in Greece, but with the current economic and political status quo we are pretty close ... We shall see!

I see your point. We have politicians speaking out against violence. Yet we live in a militaristic society of perpetual warfare.
I personally despise all forms of abuse and have a wonderful life that is seriously lacking in negative behaviors. Violenece is not the answer and never will be. Unfortunately there is some serious indoctrination into a society of adolescence. Through entertainment and media we are not only being "dumbed down" but also this adolescent like behavior is becoming a norm. If you have watched any sort of reality TV, sitcoms or dramas recently you will see this type of behavior and society as a whole is emulating it.

How can we stop the violence though? We can all do our little part but as long as there is a strong military presence we will never overcome it. There is also the issue of pride and ego. As long as these exist there is no end to it.
Lastly, to the question at hand, has human violence ever accomplished anything worthwhile? No.

Originally posted by mutantgenius
Lastly, to the question at hand, has human violence ever accomplished anything worthwhile? No.

Yes? Some will say the civil war was necessary.

It is my opinion that the only way you can get an authoritarian to back down and leave you alone IS to remind those that wish to put a rope around your neck that if they try, they will get bitten. Take this socialist junk for example. Humans are animals and they will guard THEIR food dish with just as much and even more violence than a common dog. If someone sticks their hands into my food dish uninvited, I'll bite their nasty little thieving fingers off before anyone can SAY violence, ha. WOOF WOOF! GROWL !!! Violence should only become necessary when PLEASE does not work, ha. PLEASE leave me alone .. or else .. that's the only time I think violence is okay, when THEY just won't leave you the hell alone!!!

I guess that if you only look at half of the result of violence, then you might think it does trump everything.

If some idiot were to off me, I'd be right there - right where the tunnel opens up to the next world - when that jerk shows up to meet his personal Jesus. heh heh

I'd have the rumpus room all set up and ready for him.

If you think that when we leave this rock that all is forgotten and forgiven....well, you just go ahead and take your chances on that.

""Does Violence solve things? ""

It's the last resort.

For example, how many Americans were ever compensated by Veterans Affairs or military hospitals when they committed Medical Malpractice and killed or maimed someone?

ZERO.

No one has ever been compensated. Sure there were a few cases they allowed the first judge to approve...to get the population to have faith...but the Government appealed the ruling and got it overturned in appeals.

The Justice System is rigged. The Government is rigged. You have no rights.

Your only option then would to be to take out the people at the trough putting money in their pockets....and allowing Americans to be maimed and killed.

Sometimes violence is the only answer.....especially in this mafia world. We are no longer a Nation of Laws. If you haven't figured that out by now, yer pretty naive.

reply to post by WWJFKD


Nope.... I will leave the jokes here alone....



lol

Your comment has moved a thread idea further along the road....

Suffice it to say that the results of AZ, is not Palin's fault... Alone... both parties throughout the nation have blood on their hands... Whats worse is that it is domestic blood... The sheriff in az county should be arrested for incompetence... Fraud in wasting the tax payers money...

I lay my money on my prediction of guilty parties hiding their involvement...

back to subject....

you do not reap what you sow...

its an equation... it is about how you make decisions and what goes into them... You can be quite an effective person and be quite evil... People add their own interpretation....

reaping implies all the efforts added together, then you sow...

on a closing note... with the word violence in mind (this thread)

Originally posted by authortobe
The Use of Force Continium, just fyi:

1 .Physical Presence
2 .Verbal Directives/De-Escalation
3. Physical Restraint
4. Less than Lethal Interventions
5. Lethal Force

# 2 can be the most useful with the proper temperament and training, have prevented a great deal of violence with # 2.

It is the part of command and control ability....

I would be interested in reading the proper use of de-esculation techniques... Most of the examples from officers is merely distraction before they resort to violence...

Originally posted by anumohi
our governments, our law enforcement, they all use violence to get their point across. then why the hell shouldn't the people that give them these powers use the same tactics of persuasion?...are they better than us? do they know whats best for us? who the hell do they think they are?

we have just as much right as any other. threats and violence definitely has its place in humanity and without it we would all be mindless victim sheeple

At this point I want to add a few historical references to what he might be refering to...

Kent State

The Kent State shootings – also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre – [2][3][4] occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]

and...

Bonus Army

Bonus Army Conflict

Shacks, put up by the Bonus Army on the Anacostia flats, Washington, DC, burning after the battle with the military, 1932. The Capitol building can be seen in the background.
Date July 28, 1932
Location Washington D.C., United States of America
Result Bonus Army dispersed, demands rejected

Belligerents
Bonus Army United States Army
Commanders and leaders
Walter W. Waters
William Hushka †
Eric Carlson † Herbert Hoover
Douglas MacArthur
Dwight D. Eisenhower
George S. Patton
Strength
17,000 2 regiments
Casualties and losses
4 dead; 1,017 injured At least 69 police injured

The self-named Bonus Expeditionary Force was an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who protested in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932. Called the Bonus March by the news media, the Bonus Marchers were more popularly known as the Bonus Army. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant. The veterans were encouraged in their demand for immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates by retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time.

and

LA Riots

The 1992 Los Angeles Riots, also known as the 1992 Los Angeles Civil Unrest[1][2][3] and Rodney King Uprising,[4] were sparked on April 29, 1992, when a jury acquitted four white Los Angeles Police Department officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King following a high-speed pursuit. Thousands of people in the Los Angeles area rioted over the six days following the verdict. At that time, similar, smaller riots and anti-police actions took place in other locations in the United States and Canada.[5] Widespread looting, assault, arson and murder occurred, and property damages topped roughly US$1 billion. In all, 53 people died during the riots and thousands more were injured.[6]

a good list

good list wikipedia


The US government responds with direct straight out brute leathal force....

Originally posted by CitizenAlpha
most of the Sheeple in this Country would never even think to question the Government's action's, and how sad is that really? Our Nation was founded bye a group of men who questioned there Governments Actions.

And dont get me wrong i agree with Almost Every Law on the books, we cant have people just walking around Killing those who look at them funny,

Bye the People, For the People, This Country was built on the broken backs of our Mothers and Fathers, Daughters and Sons.

I love My country and would never want to live anywhere else, But why doesnt our Government take care of its own, but will send thousands to their deaths for another Countries problems that do not concern us, As long as they present a global risk like Hitlers crazy ass, why bother? focus on the United States Of America.
Make sure every one that pays taxes and gives back to the country is provided for in the form of free heathcare, free education, free housing, free food, and Our Government would be the strongest Nation of all time with Citizens willing to Die without a thought for their Country, i would almost bet on it......

These are good questions... Its one of the ones I would like to take a moment to answer...

I think our racial conscious as a nation is still dealing with WWII... We attempt to prevent the same situation from occuring from our earlier none involvement...

Since a lot of deaths occured, I think we realized we must do something... the problem we still suffer from is a lack of visionary leadership...

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by ripcontrol

 

I have no religion. I'm an anti-theist and I'm nonreligious, but I'm also anti-religious.

I am curious about your experiences that caused this belief....

The anti-religious I understand..... the anti theist I am hoping you explain...

Just wanting to see if it matches most violent encounter with religion or the hypocrysy that almost drives to it...

Originally posted by Cygnis
I will add at this point, I concur, Violence has a place, but is only acceptable when NO OTHER alternative has worked. Only as the last option, at the end of the playbook.

However, to continue from my earlier post. VIOLENCE and PASSION are close brothers, just with different intent. All based on EMOTION.

Some would say we must control our emotions.. This is easy for some, impossible for others.

De-escalation is always my choice, cold logical reasoning has helped in a lot of situations. From my wife trying to instigate an argument, to the moron down the street who decided my kid was a problem and wanted to duke it out on the front lawn.. People are PASSIONATE in their beliefs, thoughts, reasons and motives. But the problem here in lies, right or wrong, people's PASSIONS will drive them, for good or for ill.

As society is weighed down more and more with current events, and a continues destruction of the economy and such, people's "passions" will rise more and more. And De-evolving to our basic Passions will continue, and it will get ugly.

It is a vast, and complex system, emotions are based on a long list of things, from the home, to work, to religion, to relationships with significant others, provisions, money, Truth, Lies, Ethnicity.. You name it..

Tho, in the end, ultimate violence(Offense) can only be met with Violence(defense).

May we all never be faced with such a scenario. Peace, and vigilance.

So you think it is hopeless....

due to the stupidity of those at the bottom not controling their passions...

or is the the stupidity of those at the top???

reply to post by Shamanistical


If one truly believes in non-violence, then the threat of violence is not enough and does not equate to self defense. This would be a preeminent strike. Even having your freedom taken away is not good enough. A true believer in non-violence would only become violent themselves if they or another is in immediate danger of having bodily harm or murder committed against them.

For example, if my neighbor constantly threatens to kick my butt and acts like a crazy person, imo, I would not be justified to then go over to his house and beat him up first simply because he said he was going to do it to me. However, if said neighbor comes over to me and puts his fist up then, yeah, you bet it would be okay to commence with the butt-kicking.

Originally posted by ripcontrol



The US government responds with direct straight out brute leathal force....

I am of the mind that, while those instances you pointed out were tragic for the American people and demented on behalf of the government--not to mention despicable, brutal, and unnecessary--it would not have been okay for the citizenry to then react violently against them...after the fact. OF COURSE, they had every right to defend themselves against such brutality while it was happening. My reasoning is that if you resort to such violence after the fact, it is nothing more than retaliation, i.e. vengeance. Not to mention it makes us no better than them.

This is all my opinion, of course. I do realize that not everyone sees it this way.

Originally posted by kwakakev
I know you asked for an American perspective, I am in Australia and it do feels like the 53 state at times.

Lethal Force - Only justified in an immediate life threatening situation in defence of yourself or others. Some considerations are made depending on age, mental history and the situation. If you shoot someone in the back who is walking away with your tv you are in big trouble.

Lesser levels of force - You can only go up to the level of force you are confronted with. So you cannot take a gun to a knife fight. Considerations are made depending on the situation and available options.

That is also part of why I asked....

In Texas and Florida, if someone is walking out of your house with your tv you can gun them down....

This where you get into a question not of violence but what the socialist is doing redistributin... It is a catch twenty two... his rights to steal from you versus your right to defend your family and home....

I am confused how is shooting a man in the back any different then say the face or kneecaps.....

Also why is bringing a gun to a knife fight wrong... I would think it a matter of brains vs brawns

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter

This is how all conflicts should be handled, this is the only acceptable way for the populace to be armed.

If you don not use your pillow correctly this is how you will be dealt with.

NUFF SAID

I had a great plan to save the world...



@ mods it is a legitmate plan to end violence = to the I luv boobs campaign

I was thinking of naminng Hugh Hefner As the UN Ambassador to the UN... Have him invite all of the UN ambassadors to the playboy mansion....

Name Jenna Jamison as his his assisstant... Have host all the female (wives and ambassadors) at chip and dales or la bears (in vegas)...

Im pretty sure world peace could be accomplished.... and then some....

(PS I would keep the cameras rolling for insurance)

reply to post by ripcontrol


Generally, shooting someone in the back implies that person was trying to leave, ergo you were not in any direct harm that would have justified taking someone else's life. While it is perfectly legal in this country to shoot someone who comes into your home, I do not believe this warrants the ending of their life.

My boyfriend recently bought a gun. We spoke about when we each believed it would be okay to use it against someone. I told him I do not think that it would be okay for us to use it if someone comes into our house in the middle of the night most likely to make off with a laptop or tv it would not be okay for us to then shoot said person. He agreed, but said that if we warned this person that we had a gun and that did not deter him or her, it would then be okay to use it. I still do not think it is. A tv or even your piece of mind is not worth another person's life, imo.