On Violence

[Angrboda]

Watching football. A player for KC just got injured. Players from both sides, circle around, many on bended knee, and looks of concern and anguish all-around.

They escort the injured player to the locker room and a minute later resume the activity which led to the dreadful outcome.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Would it be morally justified to use violence to stop a man who was raping a child? If not, then standing by and letting the rape proceed must be a more moral act, then.

Boru

The word violence is not the word I would use. Yes, it is justified to use force in this scenario. However, at least in the American system, you are not justified in killing him or maming him. I would assume the law allows you to use only enough force to stop the act. (Of course, the jury may be completely fine with you killing him.) So I would consider the unjust act of force to be examples of violence.

This isn't an arbitrary distinction. The word violence, even though it refers to force, still carries a negative sense. No one hears the word violence and infers a neutral or positive use of force. The force used when teams play sports, for example, is not the same as the violence used when teams start physically fighting.

[arewethereyet]

Ohhhh! Word games - how fun.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I was just noticing that while violence may not be the best path to power, it sure does comprise a lot of our entertainment in movies and television.

It may be in the nature of art, but I think there is a certain truth to the idea that many, men particular, like violence and admire violent people.

Look at the recent admiration for Luigi Mangione, the HCU executive shooter.  

Another example is rape porn.  Why do people find watching someone raped to be titillating?

I don’t disagree, which is why violence has a heavy presence in cinema and television. Violent movies don’t cause people to be violent, they cater to an audience that likes violence.

As to why people like rape porn, same answer - there’s a percentage of society who may be prone to rape, and this particular aspect of the porn industry is for them.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Would it be morally justified to use violence to stop a man who was raping a child? If not, then standing by and letting the rape proceed must be a more moral act, then.

Boru

The word violence is not the word I would use. Yes, it is justified to use force in this scenario. However, at least in the American system, you are not justified in killing him or maming him. I would assume the law allows you to use only enough force to stop the act. (Of course, the jury may be completely fine with you killing him.) So I would consider the unjust act of force to be examples of violence.

This isn't an arbitrary distinction. The word violence, even though it refers to force, still carries a negative sense. No one hears the word violence and infers a neutral use of force. The force used when teams play sports, for example, is not the same as the violence used when teams start physically fighting.

So, if a man is raping a child and I bash him over the head with a metal pipe, that’s not violence? And, by your definition, martial arts contests do not qualify as violence. Seriously - have you ever even see an MMA fight or a boxing match?

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Ohhhh!  Word games - how fun.

I think he means, ‘Violence isn’t violence if it’s violence I approve of.’

Boru

[The Valkyrie]

Hobbies?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If I were to die painlessly then I wouldn’t care because I wouldn’t suffer.

Really? If you're this cavalier about death, why is it you're still alive? Might it be that you enjoy living?

In general, then, I would recommend minimal force.

Rather than being busy killing I absolutely recommend minimal force.

It's almost like you don't understand that minimal force can actually provide more suffering. That is, after all, the entire point of torture: to inflict violence insufficient to cause death, but sufficient to cause suffering. By your logic, it follows that one should submit to torture rather than increase the amount of violence and suffering by making your tormentor suffer in kind.

If someone is bent on torturing you for whatever reason, what makes you think they will listen to your advice at all?

I’m not sure that I follow the other part of your argument. Can you rephrase?

It's fairly straightforward:

And if they don't, what recourse aside from hand-wringing before you bleed out do you have?

If someone is bent on making you suffer, and rejects your plea to "Mister, por favor be nice to me, pretty please with sugar and cream on top", what else can you do to make the suffering stop? Maybe you should try paying them off. I'm sure they'd appreciate the happenstance extortion.

You sound like someone who's never had to fight for his life, because there's no gang-members or armed robbers in ivory towers.

[John 6IX Breezy]

And, by your definition, martial arts contests do not qualify as violence. Seriously - have you ever even see an MMA fight or a boxing match?

My point is not whether MMA is violent. Rather, that when people say MMA is violent, they are saying something like "the sport uses force in a way I consider excessive, harmful, or damaging." The word violent is not a neutral, all-encompassing word for force; rather it tells the listener that the force is believed to be negative or unjust.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And, by your definition, martial arts contests do not qualify as violence. Seriously - have you ever even see an MMA fight or a boxing match?

My point is not whether MMA is violent. Rather, that when people say MMA is violent, they are saying something like "the sport uses force in a way I consider excessive, harmful, or damaging." The word violent is not a neutral, all-encompassing word for force; rather it tells the listener that the force is believed to be negative or unjust.

See my earlier comment.

Boru