Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

I found this video very helpful to me. How about you? (:

Man, sitting around for three hours watching a video would make anyone violent.

this is very sad

Personally, I have always found violence to have terrible shortcomings when it comes to actually communicating things. Oh, they talk so much about body language and how splendid it is - but if it is so adept at what it is meant to do, why do they not use it, rather than words, to convey how useful it is? ^_^

Is this the same guy?

This is the official International Sign Language phrase for, "Shut up, you hippie faggot."

ILB, on 07 July 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

That is good a question. Well I suppose that body language works pretty well in communicating the emotions of the person and he may make it seem more useful than it really is, but I think that might be because we ignore the other person when we feel hurt. I think of it like a saw and a hammer, both are pretty useful at what they're designed to do, but they can't do everything. That's what I think. ^^

Violence should always be a option.

Malice, on 09 July 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Hate to say it, but he's right. The world is always going to have people who rely extensively on violence to get what they want, and the only way to deal with it is to respond in kind. That said, violence should be saved for a last resort.

This post has been edited by Luigifan: 09 July 2012 - 10:19 PM

Luigifan, on 09 July 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

No, if you're postulating that violence is the answer if it's in a response to violence, then violence should never be optional (or able) for anyone or anything. If no one could hurt anyone, there would be no need to hurt someone to prevent from getting hurt.

Also, I wouldn't really cite Tvtropes as a source, considering it's relating mostly to fiction, the real life tab has the comment of just one person, and by the very nature of the site, there are no citations.

Though, I agree violence against plants and animals is necessary if you want to eat them (or defend against them), but that's about the limit of what (at least to me, personally) is constituent of necessary violence.

Luigifan, on 09 July 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

Well I suppose when it comes large amounts of people it might be. However, when it comes to personal issues I find that violence doesn't really work all that well.

ILB, on 07 July 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Well, that's why you beat them in Morse code.

In terms of kids, hippies and homeless people, it's a great educational tool.

Titanium Dragon, on 10 July 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Isn't that how they taught Helen Keller?

Lux Aeterna, on 09 July 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Violence should always be a option, if you do not even have violence, then in the end you have no real freedom to stand for what you believe.
The way of Gandhi only works if you are not already starving and you have a audience, if you have only one or nether, you are only killing yourself.


It doesn't matter what it is, if violence is not a option, then you have already lost

This post has been edited by Malice: 10 July 2012 - 07:11 AM

I hate to use a hackneyed expression like this, Malice, but: the pen is mightier than the sword. Again, if no violence anywhere among any nations was legal for any purpose, it would be punished, and there would be no need to stand up with violence since there... was no violence.

If you're going to ask "then how are we going to arrest criminals?" I just want to be clear that violence is a physical force meant to hurt, kill, or damage something. Just capturing someone doesn't necessarily mean that they must be hurt in the process.

Though, this is based off of an ideal reality where no violence is allowed (save for the instance mentioned in my earlier post). In real life, violence is necessary for self-defense purposes, which is a form of standing up for yourself; but, if there is another alternative, it should be pursued.

So would rape be more like a distinctive accent or an entirely different dialect?

Malice, on 10 July 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

But people always have a choice to do violence if they wish. Not really going to say whether it's a good option or not. There are many options, but as I would say if people find violence against others at certain times is best for their needs then they're going to do it.

So in short, violence is always an option. It's an option along with many other options in life.

I hold my tongue and avoid brandishing my fists. It wouldn't help me, because I don't seem to have issues with being violent.

Titanium Dragon, on 07 July 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Titanium Dragon wins the thread.

Lux Aeterna, on 10 July 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

The Pen is only mightier then the sword if there people to read what you wrote. If no violence anywhere among any nations was legal for any purpose, then the only people who would use it are the people you don't want using violence. Violence comes in many different forms and meanings, which can be as simple as throwing rocks at someone or throwing rocks at someone and hitting them. There is no "ideal" reality, there is only the one you are in right now.

JjinttaSet, on 10 July 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

A choice is not the same as a option, violence can not be a choice but still an option, not the other way around. It doesn't have to be a choice, but if you believe violence should never be a option then you have lost your truest of freedoms.

Malice, on 10 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

1op·tion
noun \ˈäp-shən\
Definition of OPTION
1: an act of choosing
2a : the power or right to choose : freedom of choice

Option - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I never said in this thread, "violence should never be a choice."

This post has been edited by JjinttaSet: 10 July 2012 - 10:38 PM

Malice, on 10 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Oh, yeah? Tell me, then. Give me one single instance where you would suggest violence other than as a method of getting to eat animals/plants or for the purpose of self-defense. If you can do that, then also tell me why any other alternative method of completing said purpose is inferior to that of violence.

By the way, I was saying violence shouldn't be necessary. Never did I say anything along the lines of "violence isn't necessary in the reality in which we live"--only that it should not be. Ideally, we should exist in a world without violence save for eating purposes. But in reality, self-defense with violence is necessary because others will commit violent acts when it is by no means necessary. Even then, though, self-defense is the only other valid reason for violence, even in the reality in which we live.

JjinttaSet, on 10 July 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Definition of CHOICE

1 : the act of choosing : selection <finding it hard to make a choice>
2 : power of choosing : option <you have no choice>
3 a : the best part : cream b : a person or thing chosen <she was their first choice>
4 : a number and variety to choose among <a plan with a wide choice of options>
5 : care in selecting
6 : a grade of meat between prime and good — of choice : to be preferred

Choice - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Linguistics: the word 'Option' vs. the word 'Choice'? - Yahoo! Answers

I was just making it clear that a choice is not the same as a option.

Lux Aeterna, on 10 July 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

A hooded man is trying to take your suitcase in a classic grab n' run, it's clear the man isn't trying to cause you harm and only wants whatever he thinks you have in the suitcase.

Do you let go of the suitcase and try calling the police, or do you not let go and try and to wrestle it free, swing or kick at him? It is likely letting go and calling the police will result nothing substantial, shouting for help may only lead to more people getting hurt as the thief would now view himself at odds with more people and maybe pull a weapon he wasn't planning to use.

As I said, there are different meanings and levels of violence, simply not letting go of the suitcase and trying to wrestle it out of his hands is a measurable act of violence.
Is pulling a gun on a mugger and not shooting him a act of violence?

I was only saying i disagrees with the concept of a 'ideal" reality or world, as everyone's idea of it is different.



Its not violence that's a problem, its the people using it.

This post has been edited by Malice: 11 July 2012 - 12:48 AM

Lux Aeterna, on 10 July 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

To force compliance with a pre-existing agreement, such as in the case of human rights or a federal constitution; because you've already attempted to reason with an entity that shows complete disregard for a legality. No amount of diplomacy can enforce legalism without a sufficient pool of strength with which to back it.

JjinttaSet, on 10 July 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Malice, on 11 July 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

An-noy-ing
adjective
Definition of ANNOYING
1. http://www.bitterswe...er/1864-malice/
2. http://www.bitterswe...62-lux-aeterna/
3. http://www.bitterswe...419-jjinttaset/

Malice, on 11 July 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

I hate to argue semantics some more since it's clearly bothering Jerk to the point where he can't seem to tune it out, but, to self-defense is defending one's self, be that directly or indirectly. If someone was stealing one of your possessions, that would be harmful to you financially. If one was about to burn your house down, they're indirectly causing a lot of harm to you (or directly, if you're in the house). You seem to be thinking that I limit "self-defense" in physical terms.

Jerk, on 11 July 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

If someone attempts to infringe upon those rights or tenets with violence, and someone else uses violence to prevent the infringement, that's defense. If the same person attempts the same act in a non-violent manner, punishment that is not corporeal or capital is perfectly viable. There's prison or other punishments for that. But let's not get into the "overcrowding" issue with prison, since that's unrelated to this discussion.

Quote

Thankfully, defining "jerk" would be redundant in this case, so it saves me the trouble of linking a profile.

You're assuming that the offending party used violence to infringe on the agreement in the first place, which is stupid. The American Civil War didn't require violence to instigate secession, but the secession necessitated the use of violence to keep the country a single political unit.

Quote

Godwin's Law is going to fell me on this, but it has to be said: If you were up against Hitler and Nazi Germany, along with their allies in Japan, Italy and Russia - what would you have done? A lack of violence would most certainly not have been an option. I know you will reply that violence should not even have been an option for the Axis, but you must be aware that not only was the whole of Europe already set on having no more wars - World War I had already been dubbed "The War to End All Wars", and Germany had been burdened with a great amount of restrictions set to keep them from ever building another army, or at least one that could contend in a war. The united governments of Britain, France and most of Europe otherwise publicly condemned Germany's annexation of Austria and Bohemia/Moravia, and when Hitler went for Poland, that was met with official declarations of war. Nigh everyone disapproved - and yet, the war happened because it was a necessity. This does not mean that we should condone any violent actions carried out during World War II - it simply means that the answer is not as obvious as you seem to think.

Also consider the fact that we have laws against violence, at least to the degree that it is done outside regulated borders (boxing being one example), and certainly if it should lead to death or grievous bodily harm. Almost nobody disagrees with these laws, yet murders and assaults continue to happen. Idealism, in this case, seems not to work at all.

Malice, on 11 July 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

I think we both good points though. It might not help that language is as fluid as it is.

Your perspective is interesting. (:

Jerk, on 11 July 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

You obviously say that you are annoyed by something I am doing. What could I do to help this?

Let's skip the part where Lux and Set say in five hundred words what anyone else could convey with twenty.

Speak of the devil. Set, please me by watching what Lux is about to do and not do it. Like stating the God damn obvious, for example.

@Jerk: Did you not read the second part of my post? I offered both instances: an infringement with violence, and an infringement without. If you look closely at the example of the Civil War, most of the northerners were like "Farewell!" when the south seceded. Most people didn't hope for re-assimilation, merely peaceful coexistence; but, fights broke out despite their wishes. The war on the other hand was fomented because of attacks by the South--self-defense.

@ILB: Self-defense, again, justifies the war, assuming they pose a danger to you. Let me put a different spin on it, though: if a person starts a fight with violence, it may be necessary to end it with violence. That's just another way of defining self-defense, because protecting one's own self goes behind the direct causation of self-defense, which is a physical attack to a person. Assume a person attacked another country, and that would expand its power, and maybe eventually they would set their sights on you and you would be too weak to do a thing about it. So long as the intention is self-defense, then it's, if not justified, at the very least not totally without merit with regards to necessity. Admittedly, one could attempt to explain any action of violence as self-defense, but I'm talking about in the objective sense, lies aside.

Also, you can point and laugh at me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I never stated that the ideal should be applied to the real. I merely stated the existence of the ideal... Which, as an afterthought, really just boils down to a useless piece of trivia rather than useful application.

The abridged version, for Jerk's convenience: The Civil War was still self-defense.

This post has been edited by Lux Aeterna: 11 July 2012 - 01:49 AM

Lux Aeterna, on 11 July 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

I have never seen a more clear example of someone who did not know what the fuck they were talking about.

EDIT: No, I see you typing. Quit it. You're wasting everyone's time now with your third grade world view. Let it go.

Jerk, on 11 July 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

I shouldn't have said "didn't want re-assimilation." I should have said "preferred to avoid bloodshed." They didn't want to start a war to bring the South back. The point remains that the Civil War was self-defense.

Yeah, I would indeed be a dumbfuck if I were to insinuate people were happy about the secession.

This post has been edited by Lux Aeterna: 11 July 2012 - 02:31 AM

Then you're still acknowledging that the war was started to reassimilate the south in the first place, which is exactly what they wanted since it was an economic powerhouse in its own right at the time. No, nobody wanted bloodshed, but it still wasn't about self-defense from their point of view. It was about enforcing a legal code. You're trying to fit things in simplistic terms like self-defense when you could as easily argue that they were defending themselves in the context of their economic power. Self-defense is only good for describing violence on a personal level; applying it to entire nations is just poor judgment. Might doesn't "make right," it allows "right" to exist.

Lux Aeterna, on 11 July 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

That is not self defense, that is defending your property, 2 completely different things. If your house burned down with you in it, you will get hurt, if not, you will get financially harmed.
Learning English | BBC World Service


But lets look back at the original challenge.

Lux Aeterna, on 10 July 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

In the situation I gave you, the thief posed no threat to you and no one would have gotten hurt had you chose to not violently react. Therefor that does not count as self-defense because you chose to take violent action in a situation that did not require it. (unless you want to debate what violence is, which you clearly have been ignoring)


But I like how changed the challenge by changing the definitions of self-defense and harm while ignoring my questions of what is violence, I see your game.

This post has been edited by Malice: 11 July 2012 - 09:11 PM