The real problem facing the world, is the acceptance of violence.

[Twilight Hue]

Violence is injuring sentient beings and everything which lives is sentient even if humans do not recognise it as such. For example, Jains have been acutely aware plants can experience a quality of pain for over millennia.

Every life-form contains a vital principle and this elan vital is an intrinsic property of the universe and has always existed in some form. It is the substrate of consciousness and by no means the exclusive preserve of human beings who are the most aggressive species on the planet.

There is only one natural moral law, do not take a life no matter how insignifcant it is deemed to be by arbitrary laws and conventions. You cannot take something which was not yours to take and eventually it will have to be returned.

It's going to be hard to survive if you excise yourself out of the food chain. Unnecessary killing would be better suited but we have no choice but to kill. It's the way nature is.

 

[Heyo]

Violent behaviour has become accepted and normalized and thugs are venerated. Murder has become a form of self-expression. All forms of violence should be verboten, including simulated violence which precipitates actual violence. Humanity cannot progress as a species until violence is completely abandoned.

I don't think you'd find anyone here advocating that violence is a good thing. The opposition you face is not about the morality of violence but about your (wrong) assessment of the prevalence of violence and about the practicality of getting rid of violence.
Violent behaviour in humans is in decline. (Evidence has been posted already.)
There still is too much violence in the world, I think we can all agree on that.
The question is what we can do about that and what is the best strategy to reach that goal.
Starting with virtual violence is the worst possible strategy. It isn't hurtful and it doesn't lead to physical violence (in most cases). More than that, it binds energy to the least important issue. It's a distraction, not a task on your way.
If you'd really want to do something about violence, you'd focus on the places where violence is most destructive and you'd not let yourself be distracted by side issues.

 

[paramecium]

Criminal, offender, or like word would be better for future reference. Thug, gangster, those type words are slang and some people would misinterpret it in regards to race, lifestyle, sub-culture, and rich/poverty stereotypes and discrimination words rather than political correct definitions that don't take into context the connotations behind it.

I'm sorry but I'm not letting a militant and violent left wing ideology dictate what language I'm allowed to use. The word 'thug' originated during the time of the British Raj and still has a common currency. Inhabiting a violent cultural milieu does not relinquish personal responsibility for ones own actions.

 

[Heyo]

I'm sorry but I'm not letting a militant and violent left wing ideology dictate what language I'm allowed to use. The word 'thug' originated during the time of the British Raj and now more than ever should still have a common currency. I also find it rolls of the tongue quite nicely.

Inhabiting a violent cultural milieu does not relinquish personal responsibility for ones own actions.

Black thug music or rap music is toxic and along with violent computer games has fostered a climate of acceptence of casual violence in vapid youth culture.

See what I mean?

 

[paramecium]

It's going to be hard to survive if you excise yourself out of the food chain. Unnecessary killing would be better suited but we have no choice but to kill. It's the way nature is.

Plenty of animals are herbivores and humans can subsist on a vegetarian diet.

 

[syo]

Violent behaviour has become accepted and normalized and thugs are venerated. Murder has become a form of self-expression. All forms of violence should be verboten, including simulated violence which precipitates actual violence. Humanity cannot progress as a species until violence is completely abandoned.

but... capitalism needs violence...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thugs are criminals. Its not racist in origins, it comes from India to describe criminals and their behaviors.
Thuggee - Wikipedia

The point is, though, that's how it is used "here." It has a racist connotation and to many African Americans perceived as criminals and gang members for their looks, where they live, how they speak, and such, in many cases it's a bad word.

It's original origin is besides the point.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm sorry but I'm not letting a militant and violent left wing ideology dictate what language I'm allowed to use. The word 'thug' originated during the time of the British Raj and now more than ever should still have a common currency. I also find it rolls of the tongue quite nicely.

Inhabiting a violent cultural milieu does not relinquish personal responsibility for ones own actions.

Black thug music or rap music along with violent computer games has fostered a climate of casual violence in vapid youth culture.

It's not personal. It's just how it is here. In many cases "thug" is perceived as a racial connotation for black men who live in poverty, perceived as criminals, and discriminated by their color of skin in relation to these two things.

The origin and how you personally use it is besides my point.

 

[HonestJoe]

I didn't say fruiting bodies of plants can't be eaten, all I said is plants can feel pain.

So you don't kill the plants, you just rip away their unborn babies?

 

[paramecium]

Evidence, please -- and define pain.
Imputing animal qualia to a class of creatures so different from us strikes me as wild guesswork.

Plants don't have the nociceptors or the neurological wiring of animals, nor do they have a brain to experience pain.
They don't have a need to perceive pain, since they can do little to counter it. How would such a useless feature have evolved?
The anatomic structures and physiology necessary to perceive pain is metabolically expensive. A useless but expensive feature is counter-selective.

What Is It Like to Be a Bat?

Plants have evolved defenses against predation so even though without a central nervous system they may not experience pain stimuli in quite the same way as animals, they do emit high frequency sounds when distressed by environmental stresses. There is evidence for this.

We as human beings need to completely rethink ethics of nonviolence (actually having some would be a good start) and adopt Jain practices of ahimsa for the benefit of all sentient life.

We have encroached upon the natural habitats of other species leading to an unparalleled loss of biodiversity. For this reason I would support lowering the human birth rate and maybe even consider nonviolently phasing out the entire human species.

 

[Valjean]

Plants have evolved defenses against predation so even though without a central nervous system they may not experience pain stimuli quite the same way as animals but they do emit high frequency sounds when distressed by environmental stresses. There is evidence for this.

We as human beings need to completely rethink ethics of nonviolence (actually having some would be a good start) and adopt Jain practices of ahimsa for the benefit of all sentient life.

We have encroached upon the natural habitats of other species leading to an unparalleled loss of biodiversity. For this reason I would support lowering the human birth rate and maybe even consider nonviolently phasing out the entire human species.

Now here I'm more in agreement. Plants do perceive and react to stimuli, and they do communicate chemically and through the mycelial internet.
My objection was to the term "pain," which is a conscious sensation mediated through nocireceptors, neurons, ganglia and brains -- which plants don't have. Even among animals that do have these features, comparing the conscious qualia of different species is problematic, as the essay I linked to explores.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry but I'm not letting a militant and violent left wing ideology dictate what language I'm allowed to use. The word 'thug' originated during the time of the British Raj and now more than ever should still have a common currency. I also find it rolls off the tongue quite nicely.

Inhabiting a violent cultural milieu does not relinquish personal responsibility for ones own actions.

Black thug music or rap music along with violent computer games has fostered a climate of casual violence in vapid youth culture.

The violence has been true for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Plants have evolved defenses against predation so even though without a central nervous system they may not experience pain stimuli quite the same way as animals but they do emit high frequency sounds when distressed by environmental stresses. There is evidence for this.

We as human beings need to completely rethink ethics of nonviolence (actually having some would be a good start) and adopt Jain practices of ahimsa for the benefit of all sentient life.

Are you going to point this out to all the herbivores in existence and the even more villainous predator species?

 

[paramecium]

So you don't kill the plants, you just rip away their unborn babies?

Now I'm the thug!

 

[Valjean]

The violence has been true for hundreds of thousands of years.

Yes. We're tribal, competitive savanna apes.
Through 99% of our evolutionary history we had no need to extend moral consideration to anyone outside our personal hunter-gatherer bands; indeed, we were often in violent competition with neighboring bands for resources.

 

[Stevicus]

Violent behaviour has become accepted and normalized and thugs are venerated. Murder has become a form of self-expression. All forms of violence should be verboten, including simulated violence which precipitates actual violence. Humanity cannot progress as a species until violence is completely abandoned.

An important consideration is to examine the causes of violence. Violence is just a symptom; anyone is capable of being driven to violence under the right circumstances.

If you have a pit full of hungry dogs and you throw in a piece of meat, then you're going to see those dogs fighting over that piece of meat. But those same dogs could be warm, gentle, wonderful companions if they're well treated and sufficiently fed.

Humans aren't that much different. We live in a dog-eat-dog society where people struggle to keep up with the Joneses and live by a philosophy of "he who dies with the most toys wins." We accept classism and the obscene disparities between rich and poor in this world, so if we're going to accept and embrace concepts like that, no one has any room to complain about the acceptance of violence. If there are people who insist on keeping other people deprived, homeless, unemployed/underemployed, maltreated, oppressed, or otherwise treated like utter crap, then one can expect violence to be a consequence. It might even be considered a moral obligation to be violent if the situation calls for it.

As Jefferson put it, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

[Valjean]

Now I'm the thug!

You monster, you!

 

[paramecium]

An important consideration is to examine the causes of violence. Violence is just a symptom; anyone is capable of being driven to violence under the right circumstances.

If you have a pit full of hungry dogs and you throw in a piece of meat, then you're going to see those dogs fighting over that piece of meat. But those same dogs could be warm, gentle, wonderful companions if they're well treated and sufficiently fed.

Humans aren't that much different. We live in a dog-eat-dog society where people struggle to keep up with the Joneses and live by a philosophy of "he who dies with the most toys wins." We accept classism and the obscene disparities between rich and poor in this world, so if we're going to accept and embrace concepts like that, no one has any room to complain about the acceptance of violence. If there are people who insist on keeping other people deprived, homeless, unemployed/underemployed, maltreated, oppressed, or otherwise treated like utter crap, then one can expect violence to be a consequence. It might even be considered a moral obligation to be violent if the situation calls for it.

As Jefferson put it, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I don't accept this narrative that violence is merely a symptom of social deprivation. Humans are predisposed to violence and have tailored a society of aggression to suit their needs and the needs of others like themselves. The malaise is spiritual not economic. Wealth inequalities cannot justify the wanton destruction of property and thuggish behaviour.

 

[Quintessence]

No one so much as bats an eyelid at violence anymore and aggression and barely-constrained violence are commonplace. As I said before, humans are the most violent species on the planet and nonviolence appears to be very much an aberration of human behaviour.

Human-to-human violence is a rarity???

Depends on where you're from.

For both of you: Violent Crime Rates By Country 2020

Notice how all of these homocide rates are less than 0.001% per capita? How is something with a less than 0.001% incidence rate worldwide "commonplace" or anything other than rare? Even if we were to include less extreme examples of violent crime, do you really think we'd end up with over 1% per capita (which would still be very far from commonplace)? I sure don't. If violent crime was that common, it wouldn't be news.

I'll grant possible exception for domestic abuse. That is, sadly, probably a lot more frequent than reported. In any case, violent behavior still isn't the default of any animal, humans or otherwise. It is part of animal behavior, and it is there with good reason. If you as a species can't defend your young from threats or obtain resources you need for survival, you're toast. There are a variety of evolutionary strategies for dealing with that. In a species that is fundamentally social, defending your young an obtaining resources alongside members of your species is not optional and that results in either cooperation or conflict. Not that humans are in any danger of extinction, but all organisms have evolutionarily-derived behaviors like cooperation and conflict are not going to go away in a few hundred generations because they confer (and still confer) important survival advantages.

 

[Thief]

yes it's true.....I mash potatoes