Ok how about if we think about it in terms of rights. We probably both agree that in general people have a right not to be attacked. Now if someone attacks you, do you think that they (during their attack) retain that "right not to be attacked"? I would bet that you agree with me that they don't. Now is it strange for me to think of violence in terms of what is violated? According to my proposed definition a right must exist for violence to violate.
I guess I sympathize with your cynical sentiment but...
In what sense is the notion of justice laughable? It seems to me that matters of justice tend to be of a most serious nature. Those concerned with justice are about the business of defending rights are they not? Or is the notion of rights laughable too? Trust me if rights precious to you are violated you wont be laughing, you'll either go the cowardice route or you'll seek justice. To further refine my argument: The doing of justice never requires violence. much better than my initial debate title. :) Thanx for the prod.
You say that " i have done some rather horrible things in order to defend myself"
At those times you knew of better standards to adhere to? and you accredit your ability to defend yourself to applying standards that were "lower" or not as good? it doesn't make sense to me.
My impression is that your standards as a result of your hard knock lessons have risen higher than most
. Also that following each experience that you noticed you had acted less than admirably, you were able to use that lesson to reform your standards for the better. You appear now to focus heavily on your role as protector. I don't suspect that those grievous situations you found yourself in earlier in life were arrived at as a result of understanding that role like you do today.
I'm finding it difficult to understand what you're saying but I'll try.
I am not as artful in my presentation of ideas as I would prefer to be. Respect such as you offer is rare and I am thankful to have you as an opponent. How else can I refine my thoughts but by having them challenged?
The point about how not violating an agreement might cause violation of more fundamental agreements is well taken. You have convinced me here and now I disagree with the title of this debate because I can see also that it takes only one person to justify it [violence] and that's what justified means justified by whomever.
Violence is justified all the time....unfortunately
Violence is the last and most effective means to get a point across
You really believe that?
If I have completely missed the point I apologise and ask you to explain to me as simply as possible what you're trying to get.
I don't know to what extent you did or didn't miss my point. I think you compared mine to yours, or by responding at least allow for comparison which is cool..your welcome and thanks back.
Uncommon viewpoints there!! I strongly agree with the essence of what you typed.
I perhaps would only rephrase the "even if that means lowering your own standards" part.
Except that I (think I) understand what you are getting at. And I wouldn't be satisfied to simply remove that portion without carefully exposing the underlying point which i strongly suspect is valid.
I also appreciate how freely you blurt out what is on your mind. :)
Uncommon viewpoints there!! I strongly agree with the essence of what you typed.
I perhaps would only rephrase the "even if that means lowering your own standards" part.
Except that I (think I) understand what you are getting at. And I wouldn't be satisfied to simply remove that portion without carefully exposing the underlying point which i strongly suspect is valid.
I also appreciate how freely you blurt out what is on your mind. :)
i would do whatever it took to protect myself and my child , even if that resulted in the death of the other person
I would too. and I am arguing on the agree side. How can this be? Am I a hypocrite?
I would justify it to myself in that my intent was purely focused on protecting (if I was stronger I would have more options) and I was forced into the behavior
Thanx for the post
I appreciate your perspective. I agree that violating a channel of communication is a form of violence, and that violence takes many forms. I also agree that keeping channels of communication open is practically our only hope if we want our conflicts to become less and less violent. I don't however see how the female scientist/baby story demonstrates violation of a communication channel. The way I imagine it, the baby is learning how to deal with being ignored. Ignoring someone can be a violent act but it is not necessarily one.
so what you're saying is the killing of others is violent if you can somehow justify it...
That's not what I'm saying at all.
You will notice that a recurring theme with me is revisionism of this sort. It is understandably irritating to some. I appreciate your respect and criticism in any case.
I take the position that the popular definition could use some refining.
Do you agree that the meaning of violence is very very very closely related to the meaning of the word violate?
if so we might logically progress to:
What can be violated? A Law? nope, true laws cannot be violated. An agreement? Ding! Ding! Ding! agreements CAN be violated. care to offer another example of something that can be violated?
if you draw a blank there you might be soft minded enough to be persuaded that All violence is violation of an agreement. An integral and necessary component part of the philosophy of non-violence is to develop clearly understood agreements. If we are not working diligently on that, any commitment to non-violence we claim to have is in vain.
ramblings of a rambler known to trail off into nonsense at times :)
atypican
Beautiful, a response I will have to digest a bit in order to give a thoughtful reply. Thanx for that.
1) The lack of uniform boundaries, due to social development, or personal belief.
Lack of well understood boundaries, I agree acts as a strong catalyst as violence escalates and spirals out of control.
2) Whether an inital breach of common codes or boundaries, in disregard, affects the moral standards of both parties or just the antagonist.
It can, and all too often does, I think. But I don't think it necessarily does. One deeply committed to non-violence NEVER intends to harm anyone. They can (only through violent means) be forced to however. If I am forced against my will to harm someone, my moral standards need not change as a result, but they certainly could.
3) The classic "means justifying ends" debate.
That is the predominate angle of "disagree" posters to this debate. My aim is to promote the belief that the means we employ should be as pure as the ends we seek. In the face of dangerous violence, the primary goal of the non-violent activist is to stop the violence not upstage it.
I agree that violence is never justified
pleased to meet you!
but I do not agree that retaliation to injustice to the degree of mortality is justified.
I am strongly opposed to capital punishment as well.
It's a great irony in my personality, but it hearts from reason.
I would like to understood that better.
I am interested to see the validity of the following definition of violence challenged.
Violence = The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries
allegory example:
It is not considered respectful of rightful boundaries to shoot someone because of a verbal conflict. Now let's say they shoot at you and you shoot back in self defense. Were you the one who breached the boundary, or was it the person who set the precedent by shooting at you? I posit that once one person breaches a specific rightful boundary they demonstrate that (at least regarding interactions with them) that that specific, commonly accepted or rightful boundary is ok to disregard.
Not as simply expressed as I would have liked but oh well
atypican
i don't believe the ambiguity is violence
So then if you please, in your own words define violence.
I think it is what would be considered 'justified'. [that is ambiguous]
What justifies the use of dangerous force is indeed too ambiguous. I assert that this is partly due to our failure to come to terms about what violence is.
Question to ponder: What must violence violate in order to be considered violent?
example, when someone is likely to attack you
Ah the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike. A violence promoting doctrine methinks.
atypican
