Revans Exile said
I am not talking the specifics of human history such as this country won this war, or this group committed atrocities. I am talking about human history of the species being violent evil garbage.

Yes, humans are assholes, I agree with this. If not corrected, we will tend to choose what's best for ourselves and/or out "tribe". It's simple nature to act like that. However, just because this is true does not mean that violence is the only way in which you can correct such behaviour. In fact, I would dare say that violence alone does nothing to solve the underlying problem, the reason why people act like that in the first place. As long as that problem is not fixed, it will happen again, either with you but with more force, or with someone else who does not have the strength to fight back.

Brovo said
Hmm. How about we try approaching this from a different position since we're not all getting through to each other, using clarification.

#1: If it's non-verbal abuse, what do you do, what avenues are available, and in what order do you do those things? (ex: Do you first attempt to communicate, then turn to others for help, then resort to violence as a last resort? Is there an ordered structure, is it one option only, is it situational dependent?)

#2: If it's physical abuse, what do you do, what avenues are available, and in what order do you do those things?

#3: If it's physical or verbal abuse by a parent, what do you do, what avenues are available, and in what order do you do those things?

It seems we all agree these things are problems but we don't agree on resolution, so lets try to clarify the questions a bit more, then put the solutions more in a list of most favourable to least favourable as opposed to some generic "my way is right". Isn't this the sort of situation where there are multiple solutions, but some might be better than others anyway?

About the first question: Did you meant to say "non-verbal abuse", or did you make a typo of sorts and meant to say "verbal abuse"? I want to assume the latter, because the former is incredibly vague. Also, on that matter, are we supposed to think from the victim's position, or from a third party's?

Brovo said #1 If it's verbal abuse, what do you do, what avenues are available, and in what order do you do those things? (ex: Do you first attempt to communicate, then turn to others for help, then resort to violence as a last resort? Is there an ordered structure, is it one option only, is it situational dependent?)

#2 If it's physical abuse, what do you do, what avenues are available, and in what order do you do those things?

#3 If it's physical or verbal abuse by a parent, what do you do, what avenues are available, and in what order do you do those things?

I'm assuming by #1 you mean "verbal abuse" and not "non-verbal abuse". In all three cases I say the exact approach does vary on a case by case basis. Otherwise we are subscribing to a one size fits all approach which has been proven time and time again to never work.

Fix'd. #1 = Verbal abuse.

Responding to violence with violence is a natural knee-jerk reaction. And to most people it appears to work, especially if one can comfortably do so with minimal acceptance of responsibility for those actions of violence.

Typical rationalizations for violence as preferred option:
1. Kill a person? Bury the body. Done. Let the orphans feed themselves. Totally no way this can bite me in the arse.
2. Broke your bones? Not my bones, so not my problem. Can't prove I did it so you don't have a leg to stand on, literally.
3. Oh hey, eye for an eye. Because equal and immediate retribution is all these idiots understand. I don't have the time/patience to talk to idiots.
4. Kharma / they had it coming / It was god's will that I got angry and crippled someone on the street (pretty sure the last one is a sacrilege)
5. I have the law on my side, it says I can beat you to death with this stick. It's rule of thumb, bitch.

^Feel free to tear those apart.

In the bigger scheme of things, yeah, there are other methods one can try. Will it 'work'? Not immediately, maybe not at all... could even get worse.
-But does that alone justify not even trying other ways?

Foster said
Responding to violence with violence is a natural knee-jerk reaction. And to most people it appears to work, especially if one can comfortably do so with minimal acceptance of responsibility for those actions of violence.Typical rationalizations for violence as preferred option:1. Kill a person? Bury the body. Done. Let the orphans feed themselves. Totally no way this can bite me in the arse.2. Broke your bones? Not my bones, so not my problem. Can't prove I did it so you don't have a leg to stand on, literally.3. Oh hey, eye for an eye. Because equal and immediate retribution is all these idiots understand. I don't have the time/patience to talk to idiots.4. Kharma / they had it coming / It was god's will that I got angry and crippled someone on the street (pretty sure the last one is a sacrilege)5. I have the law on my side, it says I can beat you to death with this stick. It's rule of thumb, bitch.^Feel free to tear those apart.In the bigger scheme of things, yeah, there are other methods one can try. Will it 'work'? Not immediately, maybe not at all... could even get worse.-But does that alone justify not even trying other ways?

I.....can't think of anybody who justifies anything in a way that remotely resembles any of your 'typical' rationalizations. I mean..... I guess three, but that's the entire subject of the thread, and you don't have time for it, so.......

mdk said
I.....can't think of anybody who justifies anything in a way that remotely resembles any of your 'typical' rationalizations. I mean..... I guess three, but that's the entire subject of the thread, and you don't have time for it, so.......

3 & 4 were basically the arguments I faced originally with this on facebook in a nutshell.

I am surprised. I expected there to be more wild-eyed idealists.