Disgusting!
- Thread starter DavidJT
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
very well said.
Actually you are just plain wrong. If you think a good session of psychoanalysis would have stopped Nazism or many other forms of opression then I'm afraid you are deluded. Opression takes many forms. But ultimately the removal of opression is by those who are prepared to resist - with violence if necessary. The worst criminal thugs do not "come quietly", rapists and murderers never "see the errors of their ways" and this country would have fallen many times to opressive powers if it wasn't for people who knew better than this.
RED
That deer was also locked up by people, controlled by people and forced into contact with people. That would only be the same as the people who killed the fawn being trapped in a forest surrounded by deer and being touched by them constantly and never being allowed to leave.
Keep it in context.
Now if a couple of deer had left the forest walked into town and visciously attacked and killed a baby they would be shot on sight.( as happened to the poor fawn).
Would you want to try rehabilitate those animals?
Would you be able to?
Violence is the most natural law in nature. It oozes with it.
Might is right as far as anything none human goes. That is the way it always has been and always will be. Its these pussy footing about techniques that keeps this sort of stuff on the front page.
Laws give weak men power they should never have had, and it is weak men who are the most vicious given that power.
Amen to the quote Red. Soldiers are welcomed as hero's in times of need but shunned as thugs in time of peace. Hypocritical old world innit
Keep it in context.
Now if a couple of deer had left the forest walked into town and visciously attacked and killed a baby they would be shot on sight.( as happened to the poor fawn).
Would you want to try rehabilitate those animals?
Would you be able to?
Violence is the most natural law in nature. It oozes with it.
Might is right as far as anything none human goes. That is the way it always has been and always will be. Its these pussy footing about techniques that keeps this sort of stuff on the front page.
Laws give weak men power they should never have had, and it is weak men who are the most vicious given that power.
Amen to the quote Red. Soldiers are welcomed as hero's in times of need but shunned as thugs in time of peace. Hypocritical old world innit
Oh no Red! You must know that once Goodwin's law rears its head the thread is dead
Sorry Huon but I call Quirks Exception . No-one here was accused or compared - this is a point of using a historical comparison and example.
The use of a reference to the approapriate use of violence is wholly appropriate in a discussion where the post is made that
In resisting Nazism it WAS the way forward and both appropriate and proprtionate.
If you are going to quote Godwins law do us all the courtesy or understanding it rather than trotting out an anachronism
Red
The use of a reference to the approapriate use of violence is wholly appropriate in a discussion where the post is made that
In resisting Nazism it WAS the way forward and both appropriate and proprtionate.
If you are going to quote Godwins law do us all the courtesy or understanding it rather than trotting out an anachronism
Red
Well as rhetoric has taken hold we'll discuss that old chestnut used in pubs everywhere!
You are in a bar with your partner, it's a rural place with no phone. An unruly type steps up and after a few disagreeable comments hits your partner! What do you do? Discuss at length his wrong doings? He hits your partner again! Do you ask him to stop and inquire as to whether he was breast feed or not? He hits you and your partner yet again! Do you just sit there on the floor and wonder where Super Social Worker Man is? He slugs you both again! You decide that it's obviously nurture over nature as you pick your teeth up and wrap them in a hankey...
No after a few civilised warnings you take issue and at least try to stop the offending behaviour... surely, if not you and those lion picked Christian martyrs have my respect beyond the grave.
I'm playing Devils advocate here but I'm curious to see the "other" side of this one, if only for the reason that someone mentioned Godwin's Law!
Goatboy
You are in a bar with your partner, it's a rural place with no phone. An unruly type steps up and after a few disagreeable comments hits your partner! What do you do? Discuss at length his wrong doings? He hits your partner again! Do you ask him to stop and inquire as to whether he was breast feed or not? He hits you and your partner yet again! Do you just sit there on the floor and wonder where Super Social Worker Man is? He slugs you both again! You decide that it's obviously nurture over nature as you pick your teeth up and wrap them in a hankey...
No after a few civilised warnings you take issue and at least try to stop the offending behaviour... surely, if not you and those lion picked Christian martyrs have my respect beyond the grave.
I'm playing Devils advocate here but I'm curious to see the "other" side of this one, if only for the reason that someone mentioned Godwin's Law!
Goatboy
Oh no Red! You must know that once Goodwin's law rears its head the thread is dead
Your out Red!
Your out Red!
LOLS to Firecrest for finding the 'toon.
Liked your spoon 'toon earlier today as well.
Goatboy
It was funny, like your website and your drawings... very good, I wish I could work in colour like that, prefer / can only manage chalk and charcoal myself.
Goatboy
Oh please Lindsey - read what it says
Godwin himself argued that point of Godwins law is that comparsions to Nazism are invidious (because they are sometimes necessary).
I compared nothing to Nazism so Godwins law does not apply - I was making a point as to the utilisation of violence in resisting opression and citing Nazism as an example of something that should be resisted. No one and nothing was compared to Nazism.
If you are going to cite Godwins law - at least read and understand it huh?
If you wish to invoke it, please show a quote where I compared anything to Nazism
Again - understand Quirks exception (of invalidly invoking Godwins law as an act of censorship)
Lindsey and Huon - you are out
I wonder what was done, to the people who started the wars, that made them inclined to do so?
That is simply not true Huon
He said "Violence is never the way forward".
He did not say anything about "in this instance"
Sometimes violence is the only way to resist violence and opression. My point is this applies in both the microcosm as well as the macrocosom. Many violent and opressive individuals are only subdued and prevented from harming innocents by acts of force and violence.
Do you think most murderers and rapists give up and don't have to be restrained? Do you think they would not attack prison guards and escape without the threat of violent response?
So my point is violence often is the ONLY way forward. Once you accept this point it is a question of degree and proportion, The argument that "violence is never the answer" is both trite and untrue.
If you would use violence to prevent a child being abused and murdered then you accept the point that violence absolutely CAN be the answer sometimes. After that we are arguing about proprotionality.
Red
He said "Violence is never the way forward".
He did not say anything about "in this instance"
Sometimes violence is the only way to resist violence and opression. My point is this applies in both the microcosm as well as the macrocosom. Many violent and opressive individuals are only subdued and prevented from harming innocents by acts of force and violence.
Do you think most murderers and rapists give up and don't have to be restrained? Do you think they would not attack prison guards and escape without the threat of violent response?
So my point is violence often is the ONLY way forward. Once you accept this point it is a question of degree and proportion, The argument that "violence is never the answer" is both trite and untrue.
If you would use violence to prevent a child being abused and murdered then you accept the point that violence absolutely CAN be the answer sometimes. After that we are arguing about proprotionality.
Red
It was a way of lightening the thread Red
Rob didn't say that violence solves nothing. Simply that violence was not the way forward in this instance.
Cheers,
Huon
Huon, Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Yup though some interesting ideals are being discussed lets not get personal.... I'm really enjoying this one.
This is a post endorsement by the way.
Goatboy.
Red,
Can you clarify please; I'm not disagreeing, just trying to understand. Is it violence that is often the only way forward or the perceived threat of violence? The difference in my understanding is the actual execution of the act of violence rather than the fear of it, notwithstanding earlier discussions where I acknowledge some people do not think that far ahead in order to think of consequences.
I'm loving this thread; it is an intelligent conversation with diverse viewpoints articulated in an interesting way. You can't buy this stuff.
Couple of things (well, three).
Firstly, why do people who despise violence (such as was committed on this poor animal) always deplore said violence and then want to do the same violence back on the original offenders!? To me that seems a bit hypocritical. Sounds to me like they don't object to violence so much, they just want public approval for their own violence. Where's the morals in that? America has capital punishement, and still has violent crime - capital punishment clearly doesn't work as a deterent.
Secondly, when were these 'good old days'? Was it as early as the 60's, when the Moors murderers killed several children? Or was it in the Victorian age, when animal fighting and child labour were rife?
Lastly, to all those who say,'a clip around the ears never did me any harm'. Yes it did - it turned you into someone who thinks committing violence on others is acceptable. All violent punishment teaches us is that you get your own way using violence. And whatever that is, it most certainly is not respect for other people or responsibility for one's own actions.
No one would suggest that the people who killed this animal shouldn't be punished. Of course they should. But it's better to get at the root cause to prevent it happening again than perpetuate the violence.
Firstly, why do people who despise violence (such as was committed on this poor animal) always deplore said violence and then want to do the same violence back on the original offenders!? To me that seems a bit hypocritical. Sounds to me like they don't object to violence so much, they just want public approval for their own violence. Where's the morals in that? America has capital punishement, and still has violent crime - capital punishment clearly doesn't work as a deterent.
Secondly, when were these 'good old days'? Was it as early as the 60's, when the Moors murderers killed several children? Or was it in the Victorian age, when animal fighting and child labour were rife?
Lastly, to all those who say,'a clip around the ears never did me any harm'. Yes it did - it turned you into someone who thinks committing violence on others is acceptable. All violent punishment teaches us is that you get your own way using violence. And whatever that is, it most certainly is not respect for other people or responsibility for one's own actions.
No one would suggest that the people who killed this animal shouldn't be punished. Of course they should. But it's better to get at the root cause to prevent it happening again than perpetuate the violence.
Both. To prevent an act of violence that is happening or about to happen, only an act of violence will do. Think of a police marksman in this context when someone has taken hostages. Where an offender does not consider consequences or the time for consideration has passed, only an active intervention can prevent them carrying out their intent.
In others the threat of violence is sufficient if the act of violence is in a planning state rather than an execution state. This implies that the act is a planned one and the offender capable of planning. In this case, the threat of consequence may deter the act. But only if
a) The consequence has a deterrent value to the individual
b) The deterrent is credible to the individual (if they believe the guard will shoot)
c) They are not overwhelmed with emotion rather than logic.
The logic that violence is never the answer is a fallacy. The ultimate sanction of all societies is supported by violence.
Red
