Does using violence against violence necessarily and always render the people who do it un-peaceful?

[LuisDantas]

It's okay, I too can't even have a vague chance to understand why you can't

I refuse to support what I know to be wrong.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Seems to be more of a simplistic question of semantics or labeling than anything else.

Like, a village gets attacked by bandits who want to rape, rob, murder, take over, etc., and the villagers fight back violently to protect themselves; does that reflex necessarily, always and/or specifically make them un-peaceful (whatever the contextual opposite of peaceful is here)?

I say no, it does not. You?

Depends on how you define "peaceful." I think defending one's self against violence in order to protect one's peaceful way of life, doesn't render one "un-peaceful," particularly if it doesn't lead to the peaceful villagers having a greater propensity for violence after-the-fact.

Of course, one can say that, technically, engaging in violence, whatever the justification, defines one as "un-peaceful." However, I don't find such an argument very substantive or meaningful, and is really nothing more than rendering the question down to a point of semantics.

Regardless, I would see someone who, out of an idealistic motivation to be "peaceful," stood around and did nothing while their wife was raped and their children murdered as bad, if not worse, than those perpetrating the acts. I see nothing peaceful about allowing violence to occur against those who depend on you.

 

[roger1440]

 

[Smart_Guy]

I refuse to support what I know to be wrong.

You read my mind

 

[Smart_Guy]

Seems to be more of a simplistic question of semantics or labeling than anything else.



Depends on how you define "peaceful." I think defending one's self against violence in order to protect one's peaceful way of life, doesn't render one "un-peaceful," particularly if it doesn't lead to the peaceful villagers having a greater propensity for violence after-the-fact.

Of course, one can say that, technically, engaging in violence, whatever the justification, defines one as "un-peaceful." However, I don't find such an argument very substantive or meaningful, and is really nothing more than rendering the question down to a point of semantics.

Regardless, I would see someone who, out of an idealistic motivation to be "peaceful," stood around and did nothing while their wife was raped and their children murdered as bad, if not worse, than those perpetrating the acts. I see nothing peaceful about allowing violence to occur against those who depend on you.

Does that mean "yes, it does" as an answer to such a question that people choose to run away from, while it does represent such chosen-to-be-ignored and really possible case or one that did indeed happen in the past in times some pure pacifists pretend never existed and never will?

Do people of such inhumane and cold hearts exist such as those who would watch their families raped and murdered while they watch it like a TV show while they actually can do something about it? If yes, then we just found out what being a low-life really means. That's much worse than being violent, or anything else worse for that matter.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Like, a village gets attacked by bandits who want to rape, rob, murder, take over, etc., and the villagers fight back violently to protect themselves; does that reflex necessarily, always and/or specifically make them un-peaceful (whatever the contextual opposite of peaceful is here)?

I say no, it does not. You?

Absolutely. Use of violence renders someone unpeaceful by definition.
However, I suspect you're asking whether violence can be justified.

Rarely, but yes, would be my opinion.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Absolutely. Use of violence renders someone unpeaceful by definition.
However, I suspect you're asking whether violence can be justified.

Rarely, but yes, would be my opinion.

Actually, I already believe violence "can" be justified, depending. And kinda on equal ground compared to "cannot". I believe this is a universal fact.

I was wondering if who resorts to violence are necessarily violent by nature and definition, and you did answere this very well. Like, I did play football/soccer before, but I sure as hell am not a footballer. And I effen hate this stupid sport. It's so stupid that ~22 people goofs fight against each other for a peace of inflated leather and millions of clever people watching them doing it like their lives depend on it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Actually, I already believe violence "can" be justified, depending. And kinda on equal ground compared to "cannot". I believe this is a universal fact.

I was wondering if who resorts to violence are necessarily violent by nature and definition, and you did answere this very well. Like, I did play football/soccer before, but I sure as hell am not a footballer. And I effen hate this stupid sport. It's so stupid that ~22 people goofs fight against each other for a peace of inflated leather and millions of clever people watching them doing it like their lives depend on it.

I don't think an act of violence makes a person violent by nature.
It's more nuanced than that (I believe).

Just as an act of kindness doesn't make me a 'kind' person by nature.