I'd just like to say a little something from last topic:
I think it was Robert that said violence alone is inherently evil but can be used for good.
I don't like that idea and personally I think violence is neutral. It's neither good nor evil. Things in nature do it, humans do it, it's not going to go away no matter how civilized we become.
I agree violence isn't always a good option, but I am sick of seeing people think violence is NEVER the right option. It's a naive idea.
I agree.Violence used every single day.And it cant be denied that violence excites us.Humans are a violent race and that can be proven soo much from history and present day events. Violence is a part of our nature.It all comes down to war...always war.
Even including regular school fights tho. I disagree with the aggressor, but I dont understand how the defender could ever conceivably be punished.
At my school I got into LOTS of fights, but I never picked them, and usually insisted against it. But if someone hit me I would always fight back. ALWAYS. I usually won too. Because I actually did fight back, while I was still badmouthed, people eventually stopped picking fights with me altogether.
I never understood why "defending myself" was a reason to be suspended. In real life defending yourself isn't a crime, but the "school morality" bullshit said I should curl up into a ball and be made a bitch of so that way I dont get punished. I even talked to a teacher about a situation where there was no teacher around, she literally told me while I am being assaulted my only goal should be looking for a teacher. "what if they run faster than me or restrain me? Should I attempt to hurt them to protect myself?" "No, you should just insist they stop fighting." "...while being beaten?" "yes."
Honestly it's like the teachers of the school are trying to enforce their personal morals on us rather than actually teach us life lessons.
The reason for this is that if you deffend your self you may cause really strong injurees to each other. I know it sounds dumb and i agree with you to a point but on the other side ill give you this as a example. I was bulied for 5 months for being top of the class and i didnt fight back i could destroy the asshole but didn't. Then i got sick of it and broke his left arm and 2 frontal teeth. Thats what teachers try to avoid cos some times the bulied is more dangerous then the bully. But i wasnt suspended or anything cos our director understood what happened and actualy punished the teacher(bullys mom) for not takin action even after i told her.
Ehh, the fights I've gotten into have never escalated to that point. Having said that, I think he morally got what he deserved.
Analogy: Therefore I also claim that if someone in the real world beats u all the time for five months with the police ignoring, your cries for help and you end up seriously injuring the other party, you shouldn't be obligated to suffer any penalties. You've defended yourself.
I have no issue with violence, sometimes it honestly is the only solution. More so for some people, like me for instance, words and me don't work so well together, well at least speaking wise.
And I was picked on, bullied and beaten up all my schooling life. Got into a lot of fights, and got suspended in year 8 for beating up a kid who was had been picking on me and bullying me the entire year. And the school even knew about all of it, and yet I got suspended.
Violence is neither good or evil, it's neutral, and as I said, sometimes it is the only resort for people and things. And it is all in life and nature, it does also excite humans, and we are not the only species that use it for war, chimpanzees are known to create wars over nothing.
So that's my 10 cents, and as Reg knows my view on violence, FUCK YEAH!
The issue here Nikola, is just like the gun argument. Examples....
You didn't go to a school that was (what I would consider) very violent. I was raised in Philly. If you didn't fight back in Philadelphia schools, you were likely to be stomped into unconsciousness, and several times people were taken to the hospital with lifelong injuries.
My high-school had to no longer let us use our outside yard because a kid had been beaten until he was permanently paralyzed from the neck down. That's violence. Maybe if he fought back he would have hurt them enough to get away, of have them stop fighting. Curl into a ball? Stupid in these situations. You are literally hoping that your enemy only wants to "hurt you a little bit". People who haven't been in these types of situations just can't understand the danger.
Why I compare it to the gun debate? I've lived in both the country, and the city. In Philadelphia, New York, and Idaho. In the country? I'm pro gun. People know what they're doing, they hunt, and they are responsible. In the cities? I'm against all guns. Why? Because the places are *different*. City people understand why guns are dangerous, and why you can't trust people to use them properly and be responsible. Country people don't because they don't live where people are getting shot every singe day, going to sleep to the sounds of gunshots and police sirens. So it's all about perspective.
And yes, even in these schools, they insist that fighting, even in self-defense, is bad and suspend both students. Luckily, my mother was the type to not care if I got suspended as long as I hadn't thrown the first punch.
I did say im neutral on the fact clearly i stated "I know it sounds dumb and i agree with you to a point but on the other side ill give you this as a example" I was just giving both sides of the coin.I do approve of it but i also gave the reason why teachers want to stop this. Second i have seen what a very violent school was.Now i dont want to make this in a dick mesuring contest of whos school was more violent.But you have to consider you still come from america i come from a lawless shithole that isnt even recognised as a country in the European Union (Macedonia).As for hospitalisations ive seen a lot of em.A dude burned the eyebrows of 6 kids then stabed them 4 times in the stomach 1 of those kids died but he wasnt sanctioned cos dady politician + lawless shithole=made him the victim.....Then ive seen even the ribs of a teacher get broken in front of my eyes and so on. The reason you may have thought it wasnt cos i didnt specify and i said only one person bullied me but that was cos he thought he was imune cos of his mother the teacher.The reast of em i was frends with and some feared me cos i do look like i can kick your ass+i destroyed that asshole that did bully me. As for the gun debate i cant tell you about having a gun but i can tell you about not having one.This is cos you arent allowed a gun in my country.The best you can get is a riffle for sport that doesnt even shoot bullets oh and a hunting riffle but that one needs a special permit and 1000 procedures.This is bad cos you cant deffend your self and no one has that fear that you may have a gun.So crime is really high here people die every day people dissapear and so on heck even the law is dirty as fuck.There is soo much proof but no one can do shit about it.Even the police dont care unless some higher up starts to and thats rare.You are even fined 200Euros for calling the police about a accident or assult and that a crap ton.Considering 1Euro is 61 of our currency thats a paycheck+.So i can tell you at least having the law is nice cos there is that psychological fear of the other person having a gun.And ill tell you im for Violence if its needed it may be cos i grew up in a shit hole like this.
Just playing advocate, Nikola. Which it seemed you were doing as well. Especially since you yourself apparently have fought. You presented another side, You may cause worse injuries, and that the bullied may be more dangerous than the bully. Was simply providing counter-argument to those points.
I was basically agreeing with you, but pointing out the reasoning for the "look for a teacher" rule. They aren't going to make two rules, "look for a teacher" in the less violent schools, and say "fighting is only acceptable in self-defense" in the more violent ones. So they make one rule. No fighting. Although the idea of suspension being the punishment is retarded because the kind of kids who tend to fight in school (not in self defense, I mean the aggressors) tend not to give a shit about being suspended. So it's not really an effective measure at all.
I just read the latest issue of gamer and I'd like to bring up another issue.
I'm so sick of these characters that absolutely can not kill even if it means problems for them or others in the future. Really? The fact that they're kidnapping and attempting to murder him it isn't enough reason to kill them?
"But muh morals." K, hope they turn a new leaf because they will most likely kidnap, murder, etc because u were nice enough to not stop them. Such morals.
God do I agree... I *hate* that happy feet bullshit type of thinking. Some people will never reform, and sometimes killing is the best way to handle things. I agree that it shouldn't be the *first* resort for all your problems, but sometimes it is the only way to go. Slavers? Dead. Rapists? Dead. Murderers? Dead. Child molesters? Dead. Other stuff... it depends.
Actually The Gamer was ready to hurt them bad as i recall he said. "Ill grind your bones to dust" and "Ill make sure you guys can eat porridge for the rest of your life".So i think next issue he will hurt them badly
Ok. First... lets not get into the gun debate here, for 2 reasons. 1.) It will tear this board apart. 2.) I support a compromise. Modified tazers. Anyway. As for violence, im gonna break this down all simple like. Harm is inherently BAD. Therefore by extension CAUSING harm is too. However, protecting others is GOOD. Therefore we come across conundrums such as "causing harm to protect someone" In this situation and others like it, we must weigh the extremity of the factors. Harm is bad, yes, but defending someone is better. Therefore "causing harm to protect someone" is more good than bad. So It could be ruled as good. On the other hand. If you succeed in defending said person by disabling the agresser but then proceed to repeatedly kick him in the gut, then you are being a dick or cruel, thereby once more changing the act to more bad.
So in summary, violence, as it is taking an action in which you seek to take harm on another, is bad. Yet it is the reason for the violence and the occurrences by which it is surrounded that determine whether or not the event and perpetrator of the violence is good or bad. And don't even get me started on the whole, "good cannot exist without bad" scenario.
Why is harm "inherintly" bad? You just threw that sentence out there without explaining it. I assume ur reasoning is because you don't like to be harmed, so you feel it is bad. However, there are plenty of M's out there who enjoy being harmed.
As far as overkill goes, I agree that's bad, but the act of violence alone is neither good nor bad. Violence is a tool. It's like a hammer. It can be used for bad or good. It's the way in which it's used that can essentially determine whether it's for the right reasons.
Killing is the same way. Regarding that chapter in the gamer, it's unlikely that the police would be able to stop those criminals from kidnapping, raping, and murdering to make money. So I don't get why when the main character scared them away without stopping them it was because he was a good guy. I think a guy with morality would have interrogated them to find out where the kidnap victims before him are being kept using whatever means necessary (including harm), and killing them. Instead he let them go, I assume because people think not killing under all circumstances is a good thing and therefore what he did was a good thing.
I got into roughousing, nuggies, indian burns, etc when I was a kid with my friends, and thinking back I felt pain, but they were fun times honestly and I don't believe any of us felt we were doing acts of evil upon one another for fun.
I'm stating that harm is inherently bad because if a person were to go around harming others solely for the purpose of harming them it and they would be considered "bad" if you are injured then something "bad" happened to you. If you are, however, operating under the assumption that violence and the like are neutral. Then you are most likely also operating under the assumption that there is no black or white, only grey area. Then this argument is pointless. Hopefully you are not operating under the assumption that one cannot put a price on human life because human life is worthless. however if you are to believe in, say, a Christian God, then ANY act of violence no matter the reason is wrong and if you abstain from violence then you will be rewarded in heaven. It really all comes down to your view-point. As such I believe violence can be filed under the category of "Schroedinger's Cat". I.e... both good and bad and which it is can't be determined until we know which viewpoint is correct.
I should amend my statement. You could also be operating under the presumption that there are black and white areas and simply claiming that acts such as violence and killing are grey; However, I find this way of thinking to be greatly flawed because it requires you to function under the idea that only your opinions and viewpoints matter. For example, you may kill or cripple someone to protect you family, country, etc. So from your view point what you did was good. Yet from the standpoint of the one whom you killed, crippled, or otherwise harmed and their families and friends, what you did was bad. And please don't claim that because they started it they must be at fault, because frankly, that's bull. You don't know the circumstances around which this person instigated violence so morality of their violence cannot be factored into this equation.
So from the stand point of the other side you intervened and perpetuated the violence. Therefore after your initial strike everything the aggressor did from that point forward was at least partially fueled by self-defense.
Also. If violence is not bad, simply neutral, then you would not need to defend yourself or others against it. Therefore claiming violence is neutral in a world of black and white areas is inaccurate.
This goes farther than violence. What gives anything value or morality? Us humans. Calling anything "good" or "bad" is from the (general) viewpoint of humanity. Nothing is truly "inherently good" or "inherently bad" at least that we can prove.
Humans like to live, so killing is "bad". By making killing "bad" you attempt to decrease the chances of being killed. Because most people try not to do bad things. Yet these same humans eat. Some say, I won't kill so I'm a vegetarian. But plants are also alive. They may not be sentient as far as we can tell, but they are alive. If "life" is sacred, then you must starve. Or learn to survive only on things that are non-living. Figure out a way to digest rocks or something.
The same goes with violence. You cannot call violence "inherently bad" because that is from the perspective of humanity. Unless you can somehow provide an inhuman reason why violence is bad.
If you're talking from a christian perspective, (which I was hoping to avoid religion coming into this, because it's such a delicate topic and rarely can be discussed without feelings being brought into it, but you brought it up...) then consider the animal kingdom. The bible talks about how the animals all obey god, that it is only humans who are disobedient. (If I recall this is around where it talks about the birds giving God praise every day and so forth, but man not praying and thanking God for everything.) Yet these same animals kill. They also do violence when not killing. And please don't talk about "they kill only to eat" because that is nothing more than a myth. There are animals that kill not for food, and not even just to defend their territory. Some animals, as far as we can tell, kill for enjoyment. So, if the animals obey God, and they do violence, with some even appearing to enjoy it, how is violence "inherently" bad?
My apologies. I was only trying to use religion as an example of a viewpoint. Also, You are correct. I apologize again. I should have specified that I meant killing is inherently bad, from the general consensus of humanities beliefs. Also, according to my BELIEFS, killing is bad but can be used for good purposes, such as eating. According to my UNDERSTANDING, however, as I said before this is a "Schroedinger's Cat" argument.
As a general viewpoint I agree that yes, killing is bad... But it's like the industry thinks we're too stupid to understand that there are exceptions. It goes right back to the topic we had before about Batman and Joker. We don't need these "incorruptible" heroes. We need people that we can actually relate to. People who have realistic personalities. The main reason people liked the Man of Steel version of Superman, was because he killed Zod. He was faced with a choice, and he made the right one. He didn't like killing, even of Zod, but he did what he had to do when his back was against the wall. That's the kind of superman people like. Sure, there were people who were angry that he killed Zod, but they were angry about that not because Zod died, but because it was Superman who killed him, and the previous incarnations of Superman would never kill. They were complaining about the difference in his character, not the action taken. That's the point here.
As for agreeing Rob, I like to think that agreement is the entire *point* of debates. You disagree at first, but eventually, with enough discussion, a truth can be found and from that truth, agreement reached.
Naww. Construction woke me up in the morning again so I ended up trying to sleep through the whole day again. I can't tell you how infuriating that is. I'll make sure to get a couple hours in on Sunday at the usual time.
I personally like these "nah, nothing happened" posts. Reassures me that the game isn't dead, which can happen with no warning.
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to say a little something from last topic:
ReplyDeleteI think it was Robert that said violence alone is inherently evil but can be used for good.
I don't like that idea and personally I think violence is neutral. It's neither good nor evil. Things in nature do it, humans do it, it's not going to go away no matter how civilized we become.
I agree violence isn't always a good option, but I am sick of seeing people think violence is NEVER the right option. It's a naive idea.
I agree.Violence used every single day.And it cant be denied that violence excites us.Humans are a violent race and that can be proven soo much from history and present day events. Violence is a part of our nature.It all comes down to war...always war.
DeleteI think it depends on what you term "violence". I'm sure he didn't just mean killing things for food, for example.
DeleteEven including regular school fights tho. I disagree with the aggressor, but I dont understand how the defender could ever conceivably be punished.
DeleteAt my school I got into LOTS of fights, but I never picked them, and usually insisted against it. But if someone hit me I would always fight back. ALWAYS. I usually won too. Because I actually did fight back, while I was still badmouthed, people eventually stopped picking fights with me altogether.
I never understood why "defending myself" was a reason to be suspended. In real life defending yourself isn't a crime, but the "school morality" bullshit said I should curl up into a ball and be made a bitch of so that way I dont get punished. I even talked to a teacher about a situation where there was no teacher around, she literally told me while I am being assaulted my only goal should be looking for a teacher. "what if they run faster than me or restrain me? Should I attempt to hurt them to protect myself?" "No, you should just insist they stop fighting." "...while being beaten?" "yes."
Honestly it's like the teachers of the school are trying to enforce their personal morals on us rather than actually teach us life lessons.
The reason for this is that if you deffend your self you may cause really strong injurees to each other. I know it sounds dumb and i agree with you to a point but on the other side ill give you this as a example. I was bulied for 5 months for being top of the class and i didnt fight back i could destroy the asshole but didn't. Then i got sick of it and broke his left arm and 2 frontal teeth. Thats what teachers try to avoid cos some times the bulied is more dangerous then the bully. But i wasnt suspended or anything cos our director understood what happened and actualy punished the teacher(bullys mom) for not takin action even after i told her.
DeleteEhh, the fights I've gotten into have never escalated to that point. Having said that, I think he morally got what he deserved.
DeleteAnalogy: Therefore I also claim that if someone in the real world beats u all the time for five months with the police ignoring, your cries for help and you end up seriously injuring the other party, you shouldn't be obligated to suffer any penalties. You've defended yourself.
I have no issue with violence, sometimes it honestly is the only solution. More so for some people, like me for instance, words and me don't work so well together, well at least speaking wise.
DeleteAnd I was picked on, bullied and beaten up all my schooling life. Got into a lot of fights, and got suspended in year 8 for beating up a kid who was had been picking on me and bullying me the entire year. And the school even knew about all of it, and yet I got suspended.
Violence is neither good or evil, it's neutral, and as I said, sometimes it is the only resort for people and things. And it is all in life and nature, it does also excite humans, and we are not the only species that use it for war, chimpanzees are known to create wars over nothing.
So that's my 10 cents, and as Reg knows my view on violence, FUCK YEAH!
The issue here Nikola, is just like the gun argument. Examples....
DeleteYou didn't go to a school that was (what I would consider) very violent. I was raised in Philly. If you didn't fight back in Philadelphia schools, you were likely to be stomped into unconsciousness, and several times people were taken to the hospital with lifelong injuries.
My high-school had to no longer let us use our outside yard because a kid had been beaten until he was permanently paralyzed from the neck down. That's violence. Maybe if he fought back he would have hurt them enough to get away, of have them stop fighting. Curl into a ball? Stupid in these situations. You are literally hoping that your enemy only wants to "hurt you a little bit". People who haven't been in these types of situations just can't understand the danger.
Why I compare it to the gun debate? I've lived in both the country, and the city. In Philadelphia, New York, and Idaho. In the country? I'm pro gun. People know what they're doing, they hunt, and they are responsible. In the cities? I'm against all guns. Why? Because the places are *different*. City people understand why guns are dangerous, and why you can't trust people to use them properly and be responsible. Country people don't because they don't live where people are getting shot every singe day, going to sleep to the sounds of gunshots and police sirens. So it's all about perspective.
And yes, even in these schools, they insist that fighting, even in self-defense, is bad and suspend both students. Luckily, my mother was the type to not care if I got suspended as long as I hadn't thrown the first punch.
DeleteI did say im neutral on the fact clearly i stated "I know it sounds dumb and i agree with you to a point but on the other side ill give you this as a example"
DeleteI was just giving both sides of the coin.I do approve of it but i also gave the reason why teachers want to stop this.
Second i have seen what a very violent school was.Now i dont want to make this in a dick mesuring contest of whos school was more violent.But you have to consider you still come from america i come from a lawless shithole that isnt even recognised as a country in the European Union (Macedonia).As for hospitalisations ive seen a lot of em.A dude burned the eyebrows of 6 kids then stabed them 4 times in the stomach 1 of those kids died but he wasnt sanctioned cos dady politician + lawless shithole=made him the victim.....Then ive seen even the ribs of a teacher get broken in front of my eyes and so on.
The reason you may have thought it wasnt cos i didnt specify and i said only one person bullied me but that was cos he thought he was imune cos of his mother the teacher.The reast of em i was frends with and some feared me cos i do look like i can kick your ass+i destroyed that asshole that did bully me.
As for the gun debate i cant tell you about having a gun but i can tell you about not having one.This is cos you arent allowed a gun in my country.The best you can get is a riffle for sport that doesnt even shoot bullets oh and a hunting riffle but that one needs a special permit and 1000 procedures.This is bad cos you cant deffend your self and no one has that fear that you may have a gun.So crime is really high here people die every day people dissapear and so on heck even the law is dirty as fuck.There is soo much proof but no one can do shit about it.Even the police dont care unless some higher up starts to and thats rare.You are even fined 200Euros for calling the police about a accident or assult and that a crap ton.Considering 1Euro is 61 of our currency thats a paycheck+.So i can tell you at least having the law is nice cos there is that psychological fear of the other person having a gun.And ill tell you im for Violence if its needed it may be cos i grew up in a shit hole like this.
Just playing advocate, Nikola. Which it seemed you were doing as well. Especially since you yourself apparently have fought. You presented another side, You may cause worse injuries, and that the bullied may be more dangerous than the bully. Was simply providing counter-argument to those points.
DeleteI was basically agreeing with you, but pointing out the reasoning for the "look for a teacher" rule. They aren't going to make two rules, "look for a teacher" in the less violent schools, and say "fighting is only acceptable in self-defense" in the more violent ones. So they make one rule. No fighting. Although the idea of suspension being the punishment is retarded because the kind of kids who tend to fight in school (not in self defense, I mean the aggressors) tend not to give a shit about being suspended. So it's not really an effective measure at all.
DeleteThe animal point wasn't t justify violence either, it's just a fact of life. That was all I was trying to state so yea
ReplyDeleteI just read the latest issue of gamer and I'd like to bring up another issue.
ReplyDeleteI'm so sick of these characters that absolutely can not kill even if it means problems for them or others in the future. Really? The fact that they're kidnapping and attempting to murder him it isn't enough reason to kill them?
"But muh morals." K, hope they turn a new leaf because they will most likely kidnap, murder, etc because u were nice enough to not stop them. Such morals.
God do I agree... I *hate* that happy feet bullshit type of thinking. Some people will never reform, and sometimes killing is the best way to handle things. I agree that it shouldn't be the *first* resort for all your problems, but sometimes it is the only way to go. Slavers? Dead. Rapists? Dead. Murderers? Dead. Child molesters? Dead. Other stuff... it depends.
DeleteActually The Gamer was ready to hurt them bad as i recall he said. "Ill grind your bones to dust" and "Ill make sure you guys can eat porridge for the rest of your life".So i think next issue he will hurt them badly
DeleteOk. First... lets not get into the gun debate here, for 2 reasons. 1.) It will tear this board apart. 2.) I support a compromise. Modified tazers.
ReplyDeleteAnyway. As for violence, im gonna break this down all simple like.
Harm is inherently BAD. Therefore by extension CAUSING harm is too. However, protecting others is GOOD. Therefore we come across conundrums such as "causing harm to protect someone"
In this situation and others like it, we must weigh the extremity of the factors. Harm is bad, yes, but defending someone is better. Therefore "causing harm to protect someone" is more good than bad. So It could be ruled as good.
On the other hand. If you succeed in defending said person by disabling the agresser but then proceed to repeatedly kick him in the gut, then you are being a dick or cruel, thereby once more changing the act to more bad.
So in summary, violence, as it is taking an action in which you seek to take harm on another, is bad. Yet it is the reason for the violence and the occurrences by which it is surrounded that determine whether or not the event and perpetrator of the violence is good or bad.
And don't even get me started on the whole, "good cannot exist without bad" scenario.
Why is harm "inherintly" bad? You just threw that sentence out there without explaining it. I assume ur reasoning is because you don't like to be harmed, so you feel it is bad. However, there are plenty of M's out there who enjoy being harmed.
DeleteAs far as overkill goes, I agree that's bad, but the act of violence alone is neither good nor bad. Violence is a tool. It's like a hammer. It can be used for bad or good. It's the way in which it's used that can essentially determine whether it's for the right reasons.
Killing is the same way. Regarding that chapter in the gamer, it's unlikely that the police would be able to stop those criminals from kidnapping, raping, and murdering to make money. So I don't get why when the main character scared them away without stopping them it was because he was a good guy. I think a guy with morality would have interrogated them to find out where the kidnap victims before him are being kept using whatever means necessary (including harm), and killing them. Instead he let them go, I assume because people think not killing under all circumstances is a good thing and therefore what he did was a good thing.
I got into roughousing, nuggies, indian burns, etc when I was a kid with my friends, and thinking back I felt pain, but they were fun times honestly and I don't believe any of us felt we were doing acts of evil upon one another for fun.
I'm stating that harm is inherently bad because if a person were to go around harming others solely for the purpose of harming them it and they would be considered "bad" if you are injured then something "bad" happened to you.
DeleteIf you are, however, operating under the assumption that violence and the like are neutral. Then you are most likely also operating under the assumption that there is no black or white, only grey area.
Then this argument is pointless.
Hopefully you are not operating under the assumption that one cannot put a price on human life because human life is worthless.
however if you are to believe in, say, a Christian God, then ANY act of violence no matter the reason is wrong and if you abstain from violence then you will be rewarded in heaven.
It really all comes down to your view-point. As such I believe violence can be filed under the category of "Schroedinger's Cat". I.e... both good and bad and which it is can't be determined until we know which viewpoint is correct.
I should amend my statement. You could also be operating under the presumption that there are black and white areas and simply claiming that acts such as violence and killing are grey; However, I find this way of thinking to be greatly flawed because it requires you to function under the idea that only your opinions and viewpoints matter. For example, you may kill or cripple someone to protect you family, country, etc. So from your view point what you did was good. Yet from the standpoint of the one whom you killed, crippled, or otherwise harmed and their families and friends, what you did was bad. And please don't claim that because they started it they must be at fault, because frankly, that's bull. You don't know the circumstances around which this person instigated violence so morality of their violence cannot be factored into this equation.
DeleteSo from the stand point of the other side you intervened and perpetuated the violence. Therefore after your initial strike everything the aggressor did from that point forward was at least partially fueled by self-defense.
Also. If violence is not bad, simply neutral, then you would not need to defend yourself or others against it.
Therefore claiming violence is neutral in a world of black and white areas is inaccurate.
Regarding life being worthless, or priceless...
DeleteThis goes farther than violence. What gives anything value or morality? Us humans. Calling anything "good" or "bad" is from the (general) viewpoint of humanity. Nothing is truly "inherently good" or "inherently bad" at least that we can prove.
Humans like to live, so killing is "bad". By making killing "bad" you attempt to decrease the chances of being killed. Because most people try not to do bad things. Yet these same humans eat. Some say, I won't kill so I'm a vegetarian. But plants are also alive. They may not be sentient as far as we can tell, but they are alive. If "life" is sacred, then you must starve. Or learn to survive only on things that are non-living. Figure out a way to digest rocks or something.
The same goes with violence. You cannot call violence "inherently bad" because that is from the perspective of humanity. Unless you can somehow provide an inhuman reason why violence is bad.
If you're talking from a christian perspective, (which I was hoping to avoid religion coming into this, because it's such a delicate topic and rarely can be discussed without feelings being brought into it, but you brought it up...) then consider the animal kingdom. The bible talks about how the animals all obey god, that it is only humans who are disobedient. (If I recall this is around where it talks about the birds giving God praise every day and so forth, but man not praying and thanking God for everything.) Yet these same animals kill. They also do violence when not killing. And please don't talk about "they kill only to eat" because that is nothing more than a myth. There are animals that kill not for food, and not even just to defend their territory. Some animals, as far as we can tell, kill for enjoyment. So, if the animals obey God, and they do violence, with some even appearing to enjoy it, how is violence "inherently" bad?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMy apologies. I was only trying to use religion as an example of a viewpoint.
DeleteAlso, You are correct. I apologize again. I should have specified that I meant killing is inherently bad, from the general consensus of humanities beliefs.
Also, according to my BELIEFS, killing is bad but can be used for good purposes, such as eating. According to my UNDERSTANDING, however, as I said before this is a "Schroedinger's Cat" argument.
As a general viewpoint I agree that yes, killing is bad... But it's like the industry thinks we're too stupid to understand that there are exceptions. It goes right back to the topic we had before about Batman and Joker. We don't need these "incorruptible" heroes. We need people that we can actually relate to. People who have realistic personalities. The main reason people liked the Man of Steel version of Superman, was because he killed Zod. He was faced with a choice, and he made the right one. He didn't like killing, even of Zod, but he did what he had to do when his back was against the wall. That's the kind of superman people like. Sure, there were people who were angry that he killed Zod, but they were angry about that not because Zod died, but because it was Superman who killed him, and the previous incarnations of Superman would never kill. They were complaining about the difference in his character, not the action taken. That's the point here.
DeleteCloud.... I think you and I have just achieved something never before seen on this site. An agreement and the end of a debate.
DeleteThis was an awesome discussion and a very enjoyable read for me.
DeleteIm glad we can entertain you.
DeleteIndeed... consider it us paying you back for entertaining us with your game.
DeleteAs for agreeing Rob, I like to think that agreement is the entire *point* of debates. You disagree at first, but eventually, with enough discussion, a truth can be found and from that truth, agreement reached.
DeleteReg you gonna stream tonight?
ReplyDeleteNaww. Construction woke me up in the morning again so I ended up trying to sleep through the whole day again. I can't tell you how infuriating that is. I'll make sure to get a couple hours in on Sunday at the usual time.
Deletewhy u no post up artwork?
DeleteWait a bit
Delete