- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Violence serves no purpose, rather than to prove a lack of moral judgement.
Violence is at the expense of reason. (expandable, but inferrable)
Violence is the inability to cope with fear and ability to resort to injustice.
I'm more than sure there are others, an at better approaches. And I already had partaken in that debate. Check your original post.
Demoting violence is a great way to start. However, validating the claim 'violence is never justified' may be hard to do. A great number of people are willing to kill for their beliefs, however oxymoronic that may be. A good example of this would be military-religion social complex in America. Investigating in the matter may prove vital in solidifying your claim.
Exactly! You get it! Is an accident which causes harm not violent? Is harm not relative to that which is harmed? It is my belief that violence needs no premeditation, but it may.
For an example, it is true that we all die in time. One could state that hereby the nature of life is violent, because it causes harm that initially is psycological and terminally is physical. It thereby has no antagonist, and is only subjective to it's own nature; as in, that which is being harmed is what is harming itself.
Understand that nothing I, or anyone else says, is final. All perspectives can change.
Unlike most, you've willingly considered someone's thoughts. I only wish the governments would as well...
Anyway, I am seeing a pattern on this debate, that is the inability to differentiate acts of violence from violent acts. To act voilenly does not entitle violence, it merely provokes the imagery of being sparatic and overdone. Acts of violence are...
And so in attempting to explain acts of volence, I have come across in my train of thought a definition for violence I find solid:
Violence is that which causes harm.
I feel I should apologize, though I know not why. I did not harm you. Is it that I am concious of the actions of humanity collectively? I do not know. I simply cannot compare my simple day-to-day life to all the other lives of recurring hardship and constant dissonance. It makes me sick that I can, and do, just sit by while life goes on this way. I just don't know what I could do.
These things should never occur, yet they do. I have come to the conclusion that everyone knows in their own eyes what violence is, everyone knows that it is occuring, yet everyone feels powerless to stop it, possibly because they are as foolish as myself. Well, I would try and say "Lets end all the violence once and for all!", but if it didnt work in the 70's, why should it now when we are even more divided?
So you've been there, where the apex at the heart of this debate is. And you came to the conclusion you would do anything for your kids. Interesting, yet easily understood.
This is my character flaw, the story you've entailed holds it. I wouldn't know what to do in the situation, but I do feel this drive to protect my kin, as you do. This drive is very prlimal, as you would know. Need I sacrifice my own standards of humanity to protect what I love? Is that not an irony of great vexation?
Considerations to account for, if you will:
1) The lack of uniform boundaries, due to social development, or personal belief.
2) Whether an inital breach of common codes or boundaries, in disregard, affects the moral standards of both parties or just the antagonist.
3) The classic "means justifying ends" debate.
I agree that violence is never justified, but I do not agree that retaliation to injustice to the degree of mortality is justified. It's a great irony in my personality, but it hearts from reason.