Violence

[Allama]

I, for one, heartily believe the world would be a better place if violence were to disappear.  We do, of course, come to the immediate realization that it is unlikely if not impossible to eliminate it in its entirety (as voiced by Pragmia & Talmann).

I agree with Castavithius that human beings should attempt to curb our violent urges at the very least, if not squash them completely, as we are not mere animals incapable of denying our base instincts.  Taking a vow of non-violence is an excellent way to begin, I think.  As Ghandi says, "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

what would happen if there wasn't any violence?

there would be too many people, nothing interesting would happen and we wouldn't have any events at all. that's why violence is needed but killing people is a bit out of order. Nothing wrong with the Die Hard films though!! New Die Hard out in July

You mean to say nothing is interesting that doesn't involve violence?  Movies, books, music, painting, sculpture, theater, any of art's many forms... all boring, eh?  Social interaction, contemplation, self discovery, family raising: worthless ways to spend your time?  Inventions, historical milestones, great scientific discoveries, diplomatic conventions: not "events" worth mentioning?

Who tends to be more respected in just about any country: A soldier or a hippie who throws rocks at soldiers?

Secondly, let's assume that Earth had no violence. Because it would have no violence, what if you get attacked in the woods by a bear? What would you do?

I made the assumption that the question presumes human vs. human violence, but I could easily be incorrect.  I've obviously no idea how Solnath intends it to be read.

[Romanar]

I think the same drive that makes us violent, can also drive us to greatness.  Would we have gone to the moon if we hadn't been trying to beat the Soviets?  Plus, a lot of civilian technology originated with the military.

[Allama]

I think the same drive that makes us violent, can also drive us to greatness.  Would we have gone to the moon if we hadn't been trying to beat the Soviets?  Plus, a lot of civilian technology originated with the military.

In an odd way, I agree with you.  There is no doubt the military and militaristic goals have led to a number of the biggest jumps in human science in the past.  We can move beyond that, however.  I just think we should harness our aggressive drive in a more constructive manner.  Instead of doing great things to defeat someone else, do great things because you want to help people, advance the human race, learn, etc.  There are so many reasons to pursue technological goals that don't involve hurting people or gaining dominance over them.

[Solnath]

Secondly, let's assume that Earth had no violence. Because it would have no violence, what if you get attacked in the woods by a bear? What would you do?

The bear wouldn't attack you, because he wouldn't be able/willing to use violence either.

[Ryazania]

Gandhi is phull of phail.

[Zimmerwald]

Ghandi is overrated.  He was only able to succeed only because two world wars had so weakened British military capacity that they were unable to respond with violence.  Let's be honest; if the British hadn't been worn down by Hitler, Ghandi and his followers would have been mown down in the streets.

That said, I am against most types of violence.

Allama, I am against nation v. nation war because its function is to divide the working class.  I am against person v. person violence because it is petty and ineffective in achieving the aims of the working class.  I am against state v. person violence because its function is to intimidate the working class.

However, class warfare drives our society, and I am in full support of it.  Its function is to increase class consciousness, and its end is the elimination of national violence, personal violence, and political repression.  Without class on class violence, there would be no progress.  National war is regresive; class war is sometimes progressive.

[Myroria-Hanso Corporation]

If the bear can't use violence, how can it eat? Killing plants is violence, on the smallest level. How are lions supposed to eat? If violence was to disappear, all order would fall apart. From the very discovery of fire we made it to scare off animals that were using violence against us. No violence = no humanity.

And yes, Gandhi is phull of phail. Men take what they want, not march on salt mines.

[The Empire]

Seriously, Garth, I find your statements barbaric to say the least...

[Solnath]

If the bear can't use violence, how can it eat? Killing plants is violence, on the smallest level. How are lions supposed to eat? If violence was to disappear, all order would fall apart. From the very discovery of fire we made it to scare off animals that were using violence against us. No violence = no humanity.

No violence = extinction of all species that rely on the consumption of others. Go green plants.

[Zimmerwald]

And certain protists and bacteria.

[Ryazania]

I see a clear distinction in those who voted and their differing outlooks on life. Interesting.

[Myroria]

What do you mean specifically?

[Ryazania]

The ones who are in favor of violence are decidedly right-wing, while the opposite holds true for the non-violent.

[Zimmerwald]

This poll is badly worded.  It's ambiguous, and it exercises in aboslutes.

For example, I would have to vote "no" in this poll because it includes all types of violence, and I support class warfare.  However, Solnath might well mean person v. person violence, or state v. person violence, or state v. state violence, or a combination of all of them.  We just don't know.

Which is why I haven't actually voted; I want Solnath to clarify what is meant by "violence."

A mantra of mine: when you don't know the answer, attack the question.

[Algerianbania]

I agree. I would also have to vote no since war is a semi-good thing. Hitler got into power without violence, yet it was violence that brought him down.