• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Violence on Violence

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
How does violence against violence solve a problem?
Complicated.....it depends upon who, when, where, & how.
The threat of business & home owner violence against looters
& vandals keeps rural areas safe (IMO). But urban dwellers
are different, so malefactors know they have freer reign.
Would violent defense of one's stores work? I suspect so.
But police violence is different....there's a balance between
quelling the rioters vs inspiring the rioters to be even more so.

In the news....
Sheriff Judd extends curfew, warns rioters that residents are armed

The most peaceful & friendly protest I've ever been to was the
"Brass Roots Rally" in Lansing. Thousands of armed people
being really calm. I even took my 2 young kids there.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
How does violence against violence solve a problem?
It doesn't; however the argument in favor is below:

"Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state. When rioters take territory and loot, they are revealing precisely how, in a space without cops, property relations can be destroyed and things can be had for free.

Source: In Defense of Looting (emphasis mine)

edit: I put the link in a spoiler due to its controversial nature.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I don't agree with anyone simply saying "it doesn't." This isn't accurate or representative of some circumstances we actually experience in reality at all.

When I was a kid I was bullied. There was a set of kids who would get off the bus at my stop and call me names, push me, throw things at me, etc. Well, one day, they kept egging one of them on to fight me, but he was a little guy, and I was larger, and the little guy didn't want to get involved, and neither did I, so nothing happened. Well, this little guy had a friend who felt that his inability to fight me was some kind of insult to their friendship, so he decided to fight me himself the next day. I wanted no part of it, but damned if I was just going to take the licks and crawl off somewhere to lick my wounds later. So I fought back. At one point he had me down on my back and was coming at me, and I kicked up off the ground and hit him hard in the chest and he bowled over. In another moment I had a handful of his hair a was beating on his head repeatedly. The fight dispersed when a neighbor came out from their house and scared all the others off. The kid went around telling everyone how he "won" the fight. But I obviously knew better - I had gotten some good, solid violence of my own in there and kept it fairly even, and he knew it. Which is why he never tried it again - and indeed stopped bullying me altogether. They all did.

Violence begets violence. Sometimes you have show someone that if they are willing to approach you with violence, then you are taking that as license to do the same. Just look at any interaction of violence in the animal kingdom. Does one of the animals EVER approach the situation in "peaceful protest?" Not that I know of or have seen. Many seem to think we are so much different - but our base understanding and mentality remains there, and understands that when someone reacts to our violence with more in return than we care to take, the best course is to back down. You can get people to back down. You can. To say "it doesn't work" is ridiculous, foolish even.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
One thing I feel should be clarified about my earlier reply is that violence followed up by completely unrelated violence is just plain dumb. For example, looting someone's (or many someones') shop(s) in response to a member of your community being killed by police comes with a hefty disconnect. You're not just punishing the cops involved (or you're not punishing them at all), in other words - who are the ones you actually desire to affect. You're instead taking your frustration out on someone or something else entirely - which is decidedly not productive.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
I don't agree with anyone simply saying "it doesn't." This isn't accurate or representative of some circumstances we actually experience in reality at all.
Now this hurt my feelings :(

:D

Well, actually violence brings terror, and if we respond with violence we help build the terror. Who wants to live with terror? We should have ''counter-action''. ;)
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It doesn't; however the argument in favor is below:

"Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state. When rioters take territory and loot, they are revealing precisely how, in a space without cops, property relations can be destroyed and things can be had for free.

Source: In Defense of Looting (emphasis mine)

edit: I put the link in a spoiler due to its controversial nature.

Phht...justice is also a social construct.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
and Moses put forth....
an eye for an eye....a tooth for a tooth

if you know this going into the situation
you might not raise your hand
in the first place
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
It doesn't; however the argument in favor is below:

"Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state. When rioters take territory and loot, they are revealing precisely how, in a space without cops, property relations can be destroyed and things can be had for free.

Source: In Defense of Looting (emphasis mine)

edit: I put the link in a spoiler due to its controversial nature.
Hmmm. Reminds me of privateers, the legal, patriotic pirates.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
How does violence against violence solve a problem?

Enforcement prevents violence. Unfortunately, enforcement has to escalate in response to violence.

Ideally, the enforcement escalates as an appropriate response to the violence. Where it doesn't, then enforcement or inappropriate escalation leads to more violence. The trick is to use the proper amount of enforcement in response to the violence.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I don't agree with anyone simply saying "it doesn't." This isn't accurate or representative of some circumstances we actually experience in reality at all.

When I was a kid I was bullied. There was a set of kids who would get off the bus at my stop and call me names, push me, throw things at me, etc. Well, one day, they kept egging one of them on to fight me, but he was a little guy, and I was larger, and the little guy didn't want to get involved, and neither did I, so nothing happened. Well, this little guy had a friend who felt that his inability to fight me was some kind of insult to their friendship, so he decided to fight me himself the next day. I wanted no part of it, but damned if I was just going to take the licks and crawl off somewhere to lick my wounds later. So I fought back. At one point he had me down on my back and was coming at me, and I kicked up off the ground and hit him hard in the chest and he bowled over. In another moment I had a handful of his hair a was beating on his head repeatedly. The fight dispersed when a neighbor came out from their house and scared all the others off. The kid went around telling everyone how he "won" the fight. But I obviously knew better - I had gotten some good, solid violence of my own in there and kept it fairly even, and he knew it. Which is why he never tried it again - and indeed stopped bullying me altogether. They all did.

Violence begets violence. Sometimes you have show someone that if they are willing to approach you with violence, then you are taking that as license to do the same. Just look at any interaction of violence in the animal kingdom. Does one of the animals EVER approach the situation in "peaceful protest?" Not that I know of or have seen. Many seem to think we are so much different - but our base understanding and mentality remains there, and understands that when someone reacts to our violence with more in return than we care to take, the best course is to back down. You can get people to back down. You can. To say "it doesn't work" is ridiculous, foolish even.
black belt here!

bravo!

one step up.....have you tried turning the other cheek?

I might post as an op
look for it
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
How does violence against violence solve a problem?

Eventually one wins or both get tired and settle. Its the same with pacifism its a long term play. If you are violent or pacifist in the short term nothing gets accomplished you have to go long term.
 
Top