Nonviolence an answer? Or just enabling?

[deaconblues]

Originally posted in the "Slain Police Officer" thread in General:

I'm not tryin to be a dick or anything, but all my posts are Pro Life. Every human in my opinion has a shot at putting out some good. The bad techniques they use is because of bad parents, and bad friends, or society around them in general. You really think violence solves something? Sure it'll feel good to kill the killer of the cop, sure it'll feel good to "hurt" the person who keyed your car or knocked down your bike, but what good comes out from it?

You get sued, go to the hospital with busted knuckles? Look at the big picture people. Every life you influence or save whether it be an adult or child is what are the same. Being on a bike and attacking someone in a car or otherwise only makes us look bad, and has us riders tagged to be some hoodlum whether on a chopper or a sports bike.

It's like fighting in high school, you get suspended, you get expelled. Except the punishment in the real world is jail time and death. I agree with the well written post by s1ck, but I really don't understand how violence solves a problem?

Is it religious? I've heard of things about "getting rid of the bad" to get to the good, but how many good people die with the bad? It'll always go back and forth. Street Crime vs Law enforcement. So in a sense there has been an internal war going since the beginning of time. So how much violence do we have to keep putting on? How many people have to die? You people think violence is the key? Why aren't you serving in the army? I'm sure Bush cares about your life just as the thousands who have already died for the fight against "Terrorism".

But again these are simply my opinions, and I am pro life. If there is a way to keep people alive, then why not? Do you have the right take life? Are you god?

OK, first off, mankind is NOT by nature pacifistic. We are territorial. This means that we WILL fight with one another. Granted, we are sentient, semi-intelligent (in the aggregate) so we CAn 'reason' disputes out, but when it comes down to it, we still have the ability and the drive to administer a good old-fashioned Cro-Magnon beatdown when someone else invades our turf.

Now, in a civilized society, we can't have that sort of thing going on. So, what has to happen is, ANY example of senseless unsanctioned violence has to be punished, and an EXAMPLE SET. If you sucker-punch every 3rd stranger on the street, expect to spend a lot of time in jail, perhaps beaten a few times yourself. If you shoot a cop in cold blood, expect death by injection. It's not nice, it's not all lovey-dovey, but in order to maintain a stable society, SOMEONE must enforce the rules. We cannot afford to turn our backs and chalk it all up to 'a crappy upbringing' because that will then become the excuse of everyone else who does the same thing. And our civilized polite society will collapse.

If you wish to be a pacifist, go right ahead. However, you need to recognize that, if you refuse to fight for your space, to challenge interlopers on your territory, your property, your family, then you by default either A) allow anyone that wants to to take what it yours unchallened or B) appoint someone else to do the defending for you. And when it comes down to administering violent replrisal or punishment, because you handed off that duty of defending your home and your person, yo ALSO abdicate the decision on how that is accomplished.

There are three kinds of people on this planet. There are sheep, there are wolves, and there are sheepdogs. If you choose to be a sheep, then shut up and let the sheepdogs do their job, unless you don't particularly MIND being eaten by the wolves.

there. that's my rant for the day.

 

[RickyHayden]

There are three kinds of people on this planet. There are sheep, there are wolves, and there are sheepdogs. If you choose to be a sheep, then shut up and let the sheepdogs do their job, unless you don't particularly MIND being eaten by the wolves.

Actually, there are pussys, dicks, and assholes... ah nevermind.

 

[Donoho]

<snip>

There are three kinds of people on this planet. There are sheep, there are wolves, and there are sheepdogs. If you choose to be a sheep, then shut up and let the sheepdogs do their job, unless you don't particularly MIND being eaten by the wolves.

there. that's my rant for the day. [/B]

+1

By the way, I'm the bastard child of a wolf and a sheep dog...

 

[zefflyn]

OK, first off, mankind is NOT by nature pacifistic. We are territorial. This means that we WILL fight with one another.

For the most part, I disagree with that statement. Were it true, society at large would not work as well as it does.

However, it depends entirely on how moral a group of people are willing to be. To the extent that they are willing to govern themselves and their passions, society flourishes. To the extent that they do not, it decays in all aspects.

Now, in a civilized society, we can't have that sort of thing going on. So, what has to happen is, ANY example of senseless unsanctioned violence has to be punished, and an EXAMPLE SET. If you sucker-punch every 3rd stranger on the street, expect to spend a lot of time in jail, perhaps beaten a few times yourself. If you shoot a cop in cold blood, expect death by injection. It's not nice, it's not all lovey-dovey, but in order to maintain a stable society, SOMEONE must enforce the rules. We cannot afford to turn our backs and chalk it all up to 'a crappy upbringing' because that will then become the excuse of everyone else who does the same thing. And our civilized polite society will collapse.

I see it more like this: How do you get a boxer to stop hitting you? You knock him out, of course.
The criminal-minded pay little attention to the punishments meted out to other convicts. They care only about themselves, and what they can get away with.

If you wish to be a pacifist, go right ahead. However, you need to recognize that, if you refuse to fight for your space, to challenge interlopers on your territory, your property, your family, then you by default either A) allow anyone that wants to to take what it yours unchallened or B) appoint someone else to do the defending for you. And when it comes down to administering violent replrisal or punishment, because you handed off that duty of defending your home and your person, yo ALSO abdicate the decision on how that is accomplished.

True. And the only valid function of government is the protection of inalienable rights. By definition, anything it does beyond that is infringement or abuse of individual rights. But, apprehending and punishing those to violate the rights of others, and break the laws, is a legitimate function.
Again, the primary goal should be achieving restitution, and secondarily, punishment where restitution is not possible.
Certain classes of bad guy merit punishment rendering them permanantly harmless, as they've shown themselves willing to commit acts more heinous than society is willing to accept.

It is a relatively new concept that people are not able to able to tell the difference between crime and punishment, as iloqin's post somewhat illustrates.

 

[*VillageIdiot*]

ooops, sorry to disturb opened the wrong door.....C-ya:later

 

[Holeshot]

This one's easy: our system of law no longer is effective at detering criminals. Also, given the restraint of law enforcement from meniacal judges/ lawyers, we're best off not using the establishment of law to solve our problems.

A gun/ bat/ whatever is the tool to deter a criminal. If your bike is stolen, break legs (if you're able to). Long live the age of mobs, militias, and death to criminals. I really see little need to keep a mugger alive, much less a rapist.

 

[ninja_rydr]

Re: Re: Nonviolence an answer? Or just enabling?

This part is BS, IMHO. Everyone is born innately innocent, and with a concience that pushes them towards good. To a certain extent, parents and society can push someone towards the dark side, but each individual chooses how he will live his life.

Your calling BS, but it sounds to me like you actually agree with him on this point. (i.e. people are good, but outside factors can ruin them)

I work in corrections and I can tell you there are some evil fucking people in this world. I see them daily. People that don't have an ounce of respect for life, their own included. People that will burn their kids, rape a Grand-Mother. People that would literally shoot you in the head, if given the chance for what? a precieved slight against them.

Evil people are as diverse as the rest of us, a literal cross-section of our community. Enviromental factors alone cannot cause crime.

Zeff, I do agree that 'punishment as a deterrent' for the most part is flawed. IMO most hardcore/repeat offenders do not beleive that they will get caught, and in the Greater Bay Area even if they do, most likely will get a slap on the wrist.

 

[Sharky]

This one's easy: our system of law no longer is effective at detering criminals. Also, given the restraint of law enforcement from meniacal judges/ lawyers, we're best off not using the establishment of law to solve our problems.

A gun/ bat/ whatever is the tool to deter a criminal. If your bike is stolen, break legs (if you're able to). Long live the age of mobs, militias, and death to criminals. I really see little need to keep a mugger alive, much less a rapist.

Damn Lawyers! String them up! Gather the posse!...Oh wait, can I be your consultant? $250 per hour, I'll point you to the worst of them.
:laughing

 

[Holeshot]

Drop that Esquire and grab a bat Sharky!

 

[Sharky]

Drop that Esquire and grab a bat Sharky!

the Esq. or the magazine?

After I sold my soul to Corporate America I can no longer wield a bat. I prefer a .50 Cal at distance. Makes a mess, but not on me.

Maybe that is what they call the pussification of America.

 

[sohijiro]

There are three kinds of people on this planet. There are sheep, there are wolves, and there are sheepdogs. If you choose to be a sheep, then shut up and let the sheepdogs do their job, unless you don't particularly MIND being eaten by the wolves.

lol you read that article too?

 

[General Alcazar]

This one's easy: our system of law no longer is effective at detering criminals. Also, given the restraint of law enforcement from meniacal judges/ lawyers, we're best off not using the establishment of law to solve our problems.

A gun/ bat/ whatever is the tool to deter a criminal. If your bike is stolen, break legs (if you're able to). Long live the age of mobs, militias, and death to criminals. I really see little need to keep a mugger alive, much less a rapist.

This works well in situations where you have a likely or even chance at winning in a beat down contest. But, what happens if, from an objective perspective, you realize that you do not have even a remote chance at winning the fight or war?

Notice where non-violent methods gained real traction: India under British rule, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s under Dr. King. Both were situations where the people being wronged (the Indians and the Blacks) had realistically no chance at winning a violent confrontation with their oppressors. So, they resorted to non-violence, which had the interesting effect of revealing the amorality of the oppressors. Suprisingly to some, this revelation did have some effect, but not without obvious sacrifice.

I am not a pacificist, and completely support all forms of self-defense, but I do recognize the power that non-violence can have. Non-violence is is not passivity - it is resistance, and it is a very difficult form of resistance to practice. I can see its value.

For me, it is one option amongst many when confronted with a situation of oppression. I prefer to fight when I can, but when it is just me against an Army, I would probably choose non-violence.

 

[Holeshot]

Dood, I'm not talking about fighting a war, just getting my fucking stereo back once in awhile!

 

[zefflyn]

Re: Re: Re: Nonviolence an answer? Or just enabling?

Your calling BS, but it sounds to me like you actually agree with him on this point. (i.e. people are good, but outside factors can ruin them)

I work in corrections and I can tell you there are some evil fucking people in this world. I see them daily. People that don't have an ounce of respect for life, their own included. People that will burn their kids, rape a Grand-Mother. People that would literally shoot you in the head, if given the chance for what? a precieved slight against them.

Evil people are as diverse as the rest of us, a literal cross-section of our community. Enviromental factors alone cannot cause crime.

Zeff, I do agree that 'punishment as a deterrent' for the most part is flawed. IMO most hardcore/repeat offenders do not beleive that they will get caught, and in the Greater Bay Area even if they do, most likely will get a slap on the wrist.

Yeah, I didn't write that first bit very well. It sounded to me like the original poster was attributing the evildoer's behavior entirely to external factors, so that the evildoer was not responsible for his own actions, and thus, did not merit punishment for his actions, and thus, punishment is violence against an essentially innocent person.

I was trying to say that people may or may not be influenced along the way by other people, but are entirely responsible on their own for becoming a sick puppy, even though they'll blame their actions on something or someone else. "I don't know what happened, it was like I was just watching someone else kill that guy." Stuff like that, which you probably hear a lot of in the pokey.

 

[General Alcazar]

Sorry.



I got carried away!

 

[mercurial]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonviolence an answer? Or just enabling?

I was trying to say that people may or may not be influenced along the way by other people, but are entirely responsible on their own for becoming a sick puppy, even though they'll blame their actions on something or someone else. "I don't know what happened, it was like I was just watching someone else kill that guy." Stuff like that, which you probably hear a lot of in the pokey. [/B]

I seriously doubt inmates say that.. everyone is innocent in the joint, don't you know?

But seriously, you don't seem to give much merit to the concept that one's environment can have a profound effect on the individual. So where does the criminal urge come from then? its either innate or its bred into people by circumstance and environment. Our prisons are overwhelmingly populated by poor destitute people. Now maybe we can't remove all sense of self fault for the crimes that they comment, but it is most certainly true that most of these people in prison have had a much worse hand dealt to them than you (I'm going out on a limb here a bit since i don't know you personally). Doesn't that count for something? Shouldn't society's concept of justice take this into account?

 

[afm199]

One of my clients was an appellate court judge.

She told me she started out anti death penalty, but after 20 years of seeing how incredibly fucking vile and evil people can be, she became pro death penalty (ie. pro violence)

She says the public never sees half the shit that judges see.

Sure our environment has a lot to do with how we behave. You still don't let wolves roam in the sheep.

 

[Melissa]

If you are talking about the individuals who are deemed "antisocial" then there is no treatment for them and etiology indicates a combo of genetics and environmental influences.

 

[Melissa]

hey mecurial, long time no see.

 

[zefflyn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonviolence an answer? Or just enabling?

But seriously, you don't seem to give much merit to the concept that one's environment can have a profound effect on the individual. So where does the criminal urge come from then? its either innate or its bred into people by circumstance and environment. Our prisons are overwhelmingly populated by poor destitute people. Now maybe we can't remove all sense of self fault for the crimes that they comment, but it is most certainly true that most of these people in prison have had a much worse hand dealt to them than you (I'm going out on a limb here a bit since i don't know you personally). Doesn't that count for something? Shouldn't society's concept of justice take this into account?

Is there such a thing as an honest poor person? Why are some poor people honest, and some not?