Yet more reason to despise people of violence

[Sunstone]

There seems to be a distinction between asserting, on the one hand, that someone has legitimate reasons to employ violence in order to achieve an end, and, on the other hand, asserting that such reasons -- no matter how legitimate -- elevate violence to the status of a positive moral good. It's the simple difference between seeing violence as sometimes necessary, and seeing violence as a jolly good thing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is sickening. Anyone who believes attacks on civilians are warranted is a very low form of life. May God have mercy on their souls. I wouldn't.

 

[rusra02]

For example?

He punished Cain for murdering his brother.

 

[McBell]

He punished Cain for murdering his brother.

now explain the world wide flood.
Remember your claim:

To the contrary, God condemns violence.

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Some posts in this thread have been deleted due to violation of the forum rules, and some others were deleted as responses to said posts.​

 

[Me Myself]

"Despise"?

That sounds like a source of violence right there.

 

[Quintessence]

"Despise"?

That sounds like a source of violence right there.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying, but I don't think it's getting through.

Passionate emotion, especially coupled with extremist, uncompromising ideologies, is a major root of violent action.

 

[Penumbra]

I despise the mindset that regards violence as legitimate, I really do.

If your child was being attacked, would you consider violence as an option in defense?

 

[Me Myself]

Yeah, that's what I've been saying, but I don't think it's getting through.

Passionate emotion, especially coupled with extremist, uncompromising ideologies, is a major root of violent action.

Agreed.

I mean I dislike violence too and I can get passionate about my disliking to it. Such anger usually does not lead me to peaceful thoughts

 

[sandandfoam]

Yeah, that's what I've been saying, but I don't think it's getting through.

Passionate emotion, especially coupled with extremist, uncompromising ideologies, is a major root of violent action.

To despise is to have a deep contempt and repugnance for. I have a deep contempt and repugnance for people of violence. For example those who plant bombs in a busy shopping area.

How do you believe a contempt for violence, and people of violence, is a possible root cause of violent action?

Secondly, out of curiosity, how do you feel about people who would murder others indiscriminately?

 

[sandandfoam]

If your child was being attacked, would you consider violence as an option in defense?

No. My priority would be to get them out of the situation.
Moreover, even if I did flip out and attack another that does not make it right.

 

[Quintessence]

How do you believe a contempt for violence, and people of violence, is a possible root cause of violent action?

There's more to it than what I'm going to suggest here, but I think the more abstract discussion on the nature of passion needs to be tabled for the moment. The problem is the bold part. You are hating people and not just their behavior. I think Master Yoda put it very well:

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Harboring vile, negative emotions towards your fellow humans undermines the credibility of any pacifist. It means their thoughts are not in proper order, as such hatred and intolerance is a toxic corruption of a message that should be fundamentally about helping and aiding our fellows. The approach should be that of an open palm to all peoples, especially those we might be otherwise inclined to shun. Anything else undermines the very mission we've set out to accomplish. If we approach people and they know that we hate them, how open are they going to be to dialogue or listening to what we have to say? Not so much; and why should they be, when we've demonized them? Hating people accomplishes nothing of benefit to the pacifist. It puts up walls and places people on the defensive; I don't think I need to explain from there how people in that position can be more prone to using violence as a solution. Accepting people for who they are, offering a basic level of respect towards all, and genuinely trying to understand where they are coming from is a far better approach.

Secondly, out of curiosity, how do you feel about people who would murder others indiscriminately?

I feel that they're human beings?

I don't know them, I'm not in a place to judge them, and I'm not going to judge them. I'm not going to assume that their behavior somehow reflects their entire character, because that would be erroneous. I know that a typical human behavior is driven primarily by circumstance, not by personality. Most of the time, I tend to regard "criminals" as victims of circumstance and social constructs.

 

[illykitty]

I don't know them, I'm not in a place to judge them, and I'm not going to judge them. I'm not going to assume that their behavior somehow reflects their entire character, because that would be erroneous. I know that a typical human behavior is driven primarily by circumstance, not by personality. Most of the time, I tend to regard "criminals" as victims of circumstance and social constructs.

That's actually very important to consider. Being a criminal is an effect of circumstances, socio-economic or else. Of course there's some people who are insane, psychopaths and the like but that's mental illness, which is another issue.

Crime is an act of desperation... So really, we should be looking into what pushed these people to do it and try to solve that.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure I'd say crime is necessarily an act of desperation. That's part of why I put the social constructs bit in there. We decide collectively to regard certain behaviors as taboo and forbidden. If someone wants to engage in these behaviors we have decided to punish them regardless of their disposition or reasons. If it is someone's true essence to engage in behaviors deemed taboo by their society, they typically become a victim of social constructs that do not allow them to be true to who they are. In some cases, we will also stick labels on them like "insane" because they fail to conform to accepted social norms. Regarding any human behavior as not merely statistically abnormal but in need of correcting is an assessment grounded in social norms.

I think it's important that we recognize this, for three main reasons that come to mind for me at this moment in time. If nothing else, it helps us to dispel the hatred and intolerance for people we marginalize because of our own social norms. Secondly, it forces us to recognize that all social norms - no matter how benevolent we may feel they are - come with a cost. Lastly, it shows us that all "problems" are perceptions or labels we put on an event due to normative claims we make or standards of "ought" we set.

One might be inclined from this to suggest that social norms themselves are the problem, but I think most of us will quickly notice that this is a foolish suggestion. As social animals, humans will inevitably utilize social norms to restrict behaviors of its members. What I think we need to make sure of is that we're willing to pay the costs of the norms we impose. Are we willing to demonize the few to allegedly protect the many? If so, who are we demonizing, and why? Are we comfortable calling the person evil or do we want to see it differently? Each culture will answer these sorts of questions differently, and hopefully those answers will serve its current circumstances well. Almost inevitably, conflict will occur regarding social norms, particularly when marginalized groups get sick of being second-classed. We deal with that when it comes, I suppose.

 

[Me Myself]

To despise is to have a deep contempt and repugnance for. I have a deep contempt and repugnance for people of violence. For example those who plant bombs in a busy shopping area.

How do you believe a contempt for violence, and people of violence, is a possible root cause of violent action?

Secondly, out of curiosity, how do you feel about people who would murder others indiscriminately?

Despising PEOPLE of violence genreates passion, anger.

Anger makes blood flow to the hands and generally gives violent thoughts too to join the blood flow to the hand.

The emotion in itself is a root of violence. Anger, hate, contempt have always been a source of violence, since before we were humans but when we started as monkeyish non human beings.

I despise it too mind you, but this contempt is counterproductive and undesirable. Whay is disarable is disapproval, but not contempt.

 

[nazz]

Harboring vile, negative emotions towards your fellow humans undermines the credibility of any pacifist. It means their thoughts are not in proper order, as such hatred and intolerance is a toxic corruption of a message that should be fundamentally about helping and aiding our fellows. The approach should be that of an open palm to all peoples, especially those we might be otherwise inclined to shun. Anything else undermines the very mission we've set out to accomplish. If we approach people and they know that we hate them, how open are they going to be to dialogue or listening to what we have to say? Not so much; and why should they be, when we've demonized them? Hating people accomplishes nothing of benefit to the pacifist. It puts up walls and places people on the defensive; I don't think I need to explain from there how people in that position can be more prone to using violence as a solution. Accepting people for who they are, offering a basic level of respect towards all, and genuinely trying to understand where they are coming from is a far better approach.

Oy, I can relate! I am a pacifist who daydreams about taking vigilante action! I often think summary execution to be the best response to acts of violence. I'm on record as once advocating the resumption of public hangings in the town square! I tell people I personally won't own a gun because I would use it! It's a contradiction for sure! A battle between my emotions and my intellect. But I think it is easier to be against a war that you see no use for and harbor no ill will toward the "enemy". When things hit closer to home it gets trickier. If someone threatened harm to someone I loved I know I would do the wrong thing.

 

[nazz]

No. My priority would be to get them out of the situation.
Moreover, even if I did flip out and attack another that does not make it right.

Ethically speaking a lesser form of violence that is used to prevent a greater form of violence is justifiable.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oy, I can relate! I am a pacifist who daydreams about taking vigilante action! I often think summary execution to be the best response to acts of violence. I'm on record as once advocating the resumption of public hangings in the town square! I tell people I personally won't own a gun because I would use it! It's a contradiction for sure! A battle between my emotions and my intellect. But I think it is easier to be against a war that you see no use for and harbor no ill will toward the "enemy". When things hit closer to home it gets trickier. If someone threatened harm to someone I loved I know I would do the wrong thing.

I'm the same way. I am abhorred by violence on one level, but then support summery executions and violent revolution on another level while still recognizing the problems with state capital punishment. There's people that I wouldn't mind seeing put to death or at least sterilized. It's confusing.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm the same way. I am abhorred by violence on one level, but then support summery executions and violent revolution on another level while still recognizing the problems with state capital punishment. There's people that I wouldn't mind seeing put to death or at least sterilized. It's confusing.

Its called being human.

Its such a pain :cover:

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Its called being human.

Its such a pain :cover:

Bingo! Being human is so terribly difficult. I want to try something else. Let me off this ride!