resorting to violence, acceptable?

[jverne]

a textbook example: you walk in the part with your GF, a man suddenly knocks you off your feet and tries to rape/kidnap your GF. you have a weapon/object that would effectively resolve the situation if you used it. the perpetrator is incapacitated/dead. was the use of violence acceptable in this case? the obvious answer is yes. it may very well be considered self-defense although you were not the one getting victimized.


in what other situations is violence acceptable? they can be from private life or public life.

obviously in an ideal society there should be no need to resort to violence, but obviously we're not living in an utopia and we probably never will

 

[Escaep]

When a spy starts sappin mah sentry.

 

[jverne]

When a spy starts sappin mah sentry.

oh ye with shit for brains


kidding...no, seriously guys?

 

[VirusType2]

When you come home from work to find that your wife didn't feel like making dinner.

 

[jverne]

When you come home from work to find that your wife didn't feel like making dinner.

i know someone who's not getting it on with his wife after coming home from work, guess who it is?

 

[Adabiviak]

oh ye with shit for brains


kidding...no, seriously guys?

LOL

Messing with one's children is a good excuse to get one's clock cleaned, although this is similar to your example in principle.

 

[VirusType2]

If you are law enforcement.


if you are looking for more reasons, you can try google:

When is violence justified

When is violence acceptable

 

[Xevrex]

When is justice violent? What justifies violence? What is violent justice? What justifies justice? Justice without violence reveals violence without justice, but justice with violence is a violent justice and a justified violence, and if that is so then when will violence stop? It most certainly wouldn't be the result of the bolded formerly defined just cause. For violence to stop, just must be only of a peacefull act in the mind of the Human Being. If one desires peace then one can not justify violence, for violence justified is not a peace at all, and to justify violence for thy own enemy is to create more of a war/attack that is already in place.

What is just about violence? Are we speaking of the currently rotted Human morality or of existential/universal cause and effect, that which are eternally perpetuated? The act(s) of bartered violence will only reciprocate and is only a reciprocation, and a weak one at that. Violence in a limited and enclosed system is weak and will eventually self destruct, love is strong, love is eternal.

Opinions are freely entitled and allowed as is alacrity and sumnolency, yet the consequences of and from actions and effects are a conscious one's endless prison or paradise rendered of personal choice by means of the macro environment and its decisions simultaneously through and of both the precedently mentioned.

5char

 

[Absinthe]

Okay, but since not everybody really cares about their impact on society or whatever when they trespass against you with violent intentions, the question really being asked is if and when violent retaliation is acceptable.

I don't think I'm entitled to kill my neighbor if he hits my dog with his car (though he'd deserve it). Being assaulted? Certainly.

 

[Vegeta897]

i know someone who's not getting it on with his wife after coming home from work, guess who it is?

Virus does not even have a wife.

Get your panties out of a twist, this is hl2.net your thread is going to get some silly replies.

 

[Robbo]

Well if it's a serious answer you looking for I spose it would be when there are no other options left eg. Can't run away.

 

[Krynn72]

Pretending that someone is a dog 'cause of their avatar is just cause for violence.



I've been taking names...

 

[Avoidist]

Though thinking someone is a duck/fish 'cause of their avatar/name is completely justified.

Otherwise it's despicable.

 

[Raziaar]

Pretending that someone is a dog 'cause of their avatar is just cause for violence.



I've been taking names...

And I have people thinking that just because I'm a cow they can go pushing me around!

I have a tipping point you know!

 

[15357]

Considerable threat to life, property, safety, and security. Don't make me define 'considerable threat'.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Okay, but since not everybody really cares about their impact on society or whatever when they trespass against you with violent intentions, the question really being asked is if and when violent retaliation is acceptable.

Is that the question? Because self-defence is really about when violent prevention is acceptable. And as far as I'm concerned violence is only ever acceptable in the cause of prevention. Retaliation, revenge, retribution, even punishment itself: these are all abhorrent concepts. Were it possible and safe to let murderers live in comfortable but total isolation, I would find that just. Punishment is in itself absurd; justice consists only in the prevention of harm and violation. If that really does entail locking up people who have proven to be 'dangerous', then so be it I guess.

Anyway, that's a little off-topic. Self-defence law as it exists in the UK is very adequate. It states that you're entitled to use reasonable (sometimes interpreted as 'proportional') to protect
- yourself
- others for whom you're responsible
- your property.
There's a lot of problems and complications (see wikipage) but generally speaking that's pretty sound. You should be and generally are legally entitled to prevent illegal harm by inflicting legal harm.

On the question of 'public' violence, ie violence against a state or organisation, I'm going to link tp this post because between the lines it pretty much sets out the conditions which I believe must be met before organised public violence might be justifiable. Briefly, those are:
a) violence against people or unjustified deprivation of people's liberty by the state, AND
b) no sufficiently democratic recourse, AND
c) the probability that violently resisting that state would actually be effective in creating greater freedom (this also incorporates questions of 'reasonable force')/
Proviso: even in a democratic state, violence against people who are not directly and consciously involved in activities under section a) is never okay (if any of this ever is).

 

[Gunner]

If you are law enforcement.

Fascist.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

I wouldn't kill him, just incapcitate him. This would involve taking out parts of the body that would allow him to flee the scene and his ability to retaliate.

 

[Saturos]

a textbook example: you walk in the part with your GF, a man suddenly knocks you off your feet and tries to rape/kidnap your GF. you have a weapon/object that would effectively resolve the situation if you used it. the perpetrator is incapacitated/dead. was the use of violence acceptable in this case? the obvious answer is yes. it may very well be considered self-defense although you were not the one getting victimized.


in what other situations is violence acceptable? they can be from private life or public life.

obviously in an ideal society there should be no need to resort to violence, but obviously we're not living in an utopia and we probably never will

Personally, deciding against violence in this situation would make that person a spineless wimp. The GF would probably thank the perpetrator for taking her away from her loser BF and I doubt she'd be with a guy who wouldn't stick up for her in the first place.

Considerable threat to life, property, safety, and security. Don't make me define 'considerable threat'.

^This

Considerable threat to life, property, safety, and security. Don't make me define 'considerable threat'.

^This

Considerable threat to life, property, safety, and security. Don't make me define 'considerable threat'.

...and ^this

Damn, I love how numbers thinks. Although, my family would take a top priority over my own safety.

Also,

obviously in an ideal society there should be no need to resort to violence, but obviously we're not living in an utopia and we probably never will

The only way to create a utopia is to sacrifice most of your freedoms, ideas, pastimes, culture, etc. and live a life that's better for mankind and not the individual. Humans will never stand for any of this, which is why communism doesn't work.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Knowing when they are is the kicker.

 

[lefty]

and a time for SHUT THE **** UP BIBLE BELT COCK SUCKER bam

 

[Escaep]

and a time for SHUT THE **** UP BIBLE BELT COCK SUCKER bam

Location: new jersey

 

[lefty]

like I know where that is