Is violence "fun"?

[Scheherazade]

Following the discussion in another thread, I want to discuss the issue of violence.

I would not say this about many things but I personally *abhor* violence and will do anything to avoid it whenever I can. Having said that, I know that there will be questions regarding self-defence. And I won't go into "consulting adults" business here either. :p

I know from experience that I would try my hardest to handle the situation without reaching to that physical stage and only as a last resort I would respond in a similar fashion and I would hate myself for doing so (rather than feeling "high"). If this makes me a coward, so be it.

What I personally find unacceptable is the suggestion that "violence is fun" and that it is liked by everyone. How can we advocate this when there are thousands and thousands of women and children (and men in some cases) are being abused all around the world and are subjected to this painful (both physically and psychological) humiliation? This is not some kind of computer game with fantastic visual and sound effects; we are talking about real lives, real people.

Fighting for survival might be necessary in certain situations but I would like to think that millions years of evaluation has done at least *a little* difference in our attitude towards how we handle ourselves in general.

I would like to hear other views on this.

Does everyone really think that violence is an essential part of human nature so we all tend to enjoy it? Is it fun? And isn't this kind of attitude a way of sanctioning other acts of violence?


The poll is anonymous so you can vote freely.

[Lote-Tree]

So computer Violence ok?

I am redeemed then!

[dizzydoll]

I am totally anti violence. As well there a no winners in any wars. :cold:

[Katy North]

eh, this is a hard one, because I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "violence in sports..." I used to take karate as a teenager, and while that was, in a way violent, it was more about self defense and skill than the actual rough and tough of fighting.

Or are you talking about some team losing and the fans going batty and kicking each other's faces in? That kind of violence is certainly not acceptable.

also what about violence in computer games and movies? That kind of violence is loads of fun because it's obvious no one's getting hurt.... you can't say you didn't laugh at that scene in Indiana Jones when the guy was twirling his sword around and getting ready to do Indy in and Indy just pulls out his gun and pops him in the head. That's fun violence right there, but I'm not sure where it fits on your scale...

[Hurricane]

I think violence is natural, as is competition. I honestly get a little puzzled by people who proclaim to be anti-violence or anti-war. You might as well be anti-breathing. That doesn't mean you have to like violence, but I'd say it's pretty given that it's one of the few constant factors of human existence. Sometimes, talking it out doesn't work and the proper application of violence can end or reduce human suffering in certain scenarios.

On a personal level, I'm not going to lie, it's immensely satisfying and fun to win a fight in my martial arts class, even if it's by doing something that's obviously uncomfortable to the other person like a blood choke or a move that forces someone to tap out. This doesn't mean I go out and find innocent strangers to assault in the streets, but in a certain environment it's a lot of fun and can be kind of a rush.
I don't have any problem with defending myself (or others), either. Obviously proportionality applies (if they're trying to steal my wallet, I'd just fork over the money, because it's not worth it), but if someone is trying to rape or kill me, I will do everything I can to try and stop them, even if it's through violent means.

[applepie]

I'm actually a little unsure of how to answer. I don't truly hate violence, but I do tend to avoid it in my personal life. I'm not violent to others, and it bothers me if others around me are violent. The said, I'm also a trained martial artist, and I spent much of my childhood in a dojo sparring and such. Fighting is pretty ingrained in my behavior and I guess I don't see it as true violence all of the time. I'm a huge fan of the UFC/MMA fighting, but then I suppose it falls under the context of sport.

I guess it would be best to say that I'm don't find violence abhorrent. I find cruelty so, but violence and cruelty do not always go hand in hand. I'll lose my temper and maybe destroy something which is pretty violent, but there is no cruelty there. I've a violent temper, and in my almost 26 years I've never learned to rein it in entirely. I've learned to redirect it to things that will have no care if I pound it, but there is still violence about me.

[hillwalker]

I am very much anti-violence, but acknowledge that it occurs in nature and so is part of our genetic makeup. I enjoyed contact sports and competitiveness, but not to the exent that physical damage occurred.

What I do hate, however, is its glamourisation in the media - violence for violence's sake.
And I can never figure out how society condones censorship values: for example, where it is acceptable for children to observe people killing each other for kicks but to be protected from the image of the naked body in non-erotic situations.

[Scheherazade]

Thank you very much for all your replies; as I have been thinking about this issue since yesterday and I really appreciate your feedback. :)
eh, this is a hard one, because I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "violence in sports..." I mean violent sports which involve hitting or severe physical contact.
I think violence is natural, as is competition. I honestly get a little puzzled by people who proclaim to be anti-violence or anti-war. Just because it happens in nature does not make something acceptable, though, and definitely "fun" or "entertaining".
Sometimes, talking it out doesn't work and the proper application of violence can end or reduce human suffering in certain scenarios.Like washing blood with blood?
I've a violent temper, and in my almost 26 years I've never learned to rein it in entirely. I've learned to redirect it to things that will have no care if I pound it, but there is still violence about me.Maybe this is the reason I find this concept so unacceptable; I am a very calm and patient person; it would take a lot to wipe the smile off my face and/or show severe reactions.
What I do hate, however, is its glamourisation in the media - violence for violence's sake.This is one of my problems too. Presenting violence/fighting as a fun activity, which is naturally enjoyed and craved for by everyone.

[BienvenuJDC]

I would like to consider the differentiation between 'aggression' and 'violence'...
...thoughts?

[Scheherazade]

I hear what you are saying, Bien, however, my question still remains: Whether you consider it violence or aggression, is it fun? By nature, are we designed to enjoy it?

[applepie]

I think you've hit it on the nail Scher :) A lot of how we view violence is determined by personality I would think. I almost need that outlet more or less, but I also recognize it for what it is. Having a very deep understanding of the myriad of reasons for violence tends to make me much more tolerant of it. I think that there are different degrees, and motivation always is a key element for me.

I think of times where I simply went to the dojo because I needed to work off some steam. Often I would go home with bruises down my ribs and every now and then I would be sporting a black eye. When I was a waitress on third shift for a summer, my regulars were ready to have a "talk" with my boyfriend because they thought I was abused. They were very clearly defensive injuries, and not many people can understand that I thrive on those kinds of activities. A good fight will cure many ills for me, but if you are of a different nature then I imagine that the idea would be loathsome.

On the flip side of the argument I suppose, I have never understood people who don't lose their temper and get driven to hit things. It is just natural to me. I get angry and I go pound on a punching bag. It is better for all involved, but I can't understand remaining calm and collected. How can you do it? I mean this in earnest, since I've spent most of my life trying to become someone who is calm a rational. Violence, or aggression as Bien would likely call it is just part of my world and personality.

[Satan]

Violence is overrated. What worries me more is how coolly one can press a red button ten thousand miles away and vaporize millions while sipping coffee. Aggression, as neutered violent streak, becomes far more dangerous.

[The Comedian]

This is a good question, and I don't have much time to respond so I'll have to make a quick reply here: I think violence in sports is different (in nearly all cases) than abuse that was mentioned earlier. In sports, say real football for example ;) -- the violence there is acknowledged on both side. It's governed and it's voluntary. The violence in abuse is totally different in this regard because one party has not sanctioned it.

I mock-play violent games with my kids, and they love it. They ask me to pretend to be a tiger and roar at them. They laugh and run; they scold and discipline me.

Later, they'll want to play the "crash" game with me: I sit up and pretend that I don't know what's going on, and they run and "crash" into me. I make a big ruckus about falling, tumbling, crashing. . . .they laugh, laugh, laugh. . . . . And while there's no real "violence" in our game it's based simulated violence.

[Lulim]

I loath violence, can't have it in games, in music, in movies or in books and certainly not in real live.

[Hurricane]

Like washing blood with blood?

I'd like to see a solution to fascism or genocide (and I'm not just talking about WWII) that doesn't involve cracking skulls. Appeasement and negotiation, though great most of the time, don't always work.

[Paulclem]

Following on from the Comedian's post, I think there is a distinction between violence with rules - sports - martial arts boxing, and to an extent playground type violence/ friends violence which are within a context of rules - school - or are between peers with social type rules, and the violence without rules or social censure.

The violence without rules includes crime, domestic violence and abuse, and war. This latter type is brutal and nasty and directed toward the domination of others against their will. It is the worst type of experience.

I have exprienced both types and the first did prepare me - through ruby - to cope with the second type. I know violence is shocking if you are not used to it. There is also the danger though, that by rehearsing violence it is encouraged. It can become a habit. On balance some preparation might help with violent situation.

[Satan]

The mankind believes in justifying violence. Slaughtering millions of animals in abattoirs for consumption is conveniently overlooked, while a single incident of unjustified animal cruelty raises concerns. Is it merely because we somehow identify more with our pets and not so with the food on our tables? Likewise, revenge can be justified and is quite an acceptable behavior in many societies even today.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I have to disagree with you on that Satan. The practice of slaughtering animals is not one of violence, whereas cruelty towards a pet is done with the express intention of causing pain or distress, which I would say is violent.

I think in a lot of cases, violence is an expression of something else, like frustration or being ignored. One who suffers from things like that lack a certain element of control over his or her own situation, and performing a violent act is a means of exerting power and control over something else. In that sense, violence is almost a coping mechanism. If you can't have control over yourself, sometimes you just need to have control over something. I wouldn't really say that that's "fun", but it may bring a sense of pleasure or satisfaction. At the same time, I think it's probably the worst way to deal with situations like that, because then something else suffers as well as the violent person.

[Satan]

That raises a question, Charm. Is violence more cruel and immoral than swift murder?

In all, I agree with your second paragraph.

[Gladys]

For me, bullying is a major issue, with psychological violence usually at the forefront. I'm also miffed that unprovoked assault is treated so lightly in the courts.


I loath violence, can't have it in games, in music, in movies or in books and certainly not in real live.

Yes. As a lover of Dostoevsky, I nevertheless wince and cringe when I think of Crime and Punishment, even though most of its violence is psychological.


I'd like to see a solution to fascism or genocide...that doesn't involve cracking skulls.

Yes, there the rub. :incazzato: But what kind of solution subjects their cities, their civilians, to fire bombing or nuclear incineration?


I think in a lot of cases, violence is an expression of something else, like frustration or being ignored. One who suffers from things like that lack a certain element of control over his or her own situation, and performing a violent act is a means of exerting power and control over something else.

Just as Adolph Hitler may have had reason, in the 1920's, for aggression to free a beleaguered Germany, aggression so often spirals out of one's control.


Is violence more cruel and immoral than swift murder?

Murder is extreme violence.

[*Classic*Charm*]

That raises a question, Charm. Is violence more cruel and immoral than swift murder?

In all, I agree with your second paragraph.

Absolutely. This is going to sounds really wrong, but hear me out. Violence causes a reduction in welfare because it inflicts suffering. Murder, if done painlessly, cannot be considered to reduce welfare because the victim experienced no bad feelings but simply died, and once you're dead, welfare does not exist. This would only apply to situations where the person dies instantly, and does not take account for the rights of the person being killed. What I'm saying is, if given the option between causing immense pain and suffering, and a quick painless death, the violence is more cruel.


Murder is extreme violence

I don't necessarily agree with you there, Gladys. What about assisted suicide to someone who is extremely ill and suffering? That would technically constitute murder, but is putting someone out of their misery really violence?

[Satan]

Absolutely. This is going to sounds really wrong, but hear me out. Violence causes a reduction in welfare because it inflicts suffering. Murder, if done painlessly, cannot be considered to reduce welfare because the victim experienced no bad feelings but simply died, and once you're dead, welfare does not exist. This would only apply to situations where the person dies instantly, and does not take account for the rights of the person being killed. What I'm saying is, if given the option between causing immense pain and suffering, and a quick painless death, the violence is more cruel.
Your arguments, while technically and economically sound, don't fit well with the human morality. Almost every judicial body in this world considers murder, or stealing a person's right to live, the greatest sin possible.

In defense of your argument: I'll take painless death over unbearable pain.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Your arguments, while technically and economically sound, don't fit well with the human morality. Almost every judicial body in this world considers murder, or stealing a person's right to live, the greatest sin possible.

In defense of your argument: I'll take painless death over unbearable pain.

I absolutely agree, murder is considered the greatest moral sin, yet humans are so inconsistent with the punishments they deliver for that sin. If murder is the greatest sin, shouldn't the punishment for being responsible for the death of another be the same no matter the circumstances of the murder? They're not- sentences vary based on the brutality of the act.

So therein lies the largest inconsistency of all: society has deemed that brutality is worse than quick and easy. This applies to murder and it applies to other crimes such as assault, yet we will not put murder and other crimes on par with each other.

[Satan]

Well, usually punishments for extraordinarily brutal murders far outweigh a quick and painless one, hence there indeed is some weight in that argument. I think we'd be far transgressing into the realms of judicial inconsistencies if we hop onto that problem. I have my own qualms with the big machine.

In short:
1. Only the vegans would protest against quick and painless death of animals.
2. Animal/human cruelty is unacceptable and should be harshly dealt with.
3. Euthanasia is humane.

That said, violence, as Charm stated above, is a perverse expression. It's not going away whether we derive fun from it or loathe it as a morally wrong act, and like all other expressions, this too, is a very natural one.

[*Classic*Charm*]

You think it's natural to derive fun from violence? Does natural mean acceptable?

[JuniperWoolf]

You know my opinion. I'd argue from an evolutionary perspective that the enjoyment of violence is inborn, and the abhorrence of violence is a result of modern socialization. It's not pretty, and it's not an easy thing to admit, but the same is true about a lot of aspects of nature (incest, cannibalism, infanticide, etc.). These are not easy pills to swallow. Nature has no knowledge of morality, the concept of which is almost entirely human (and yes, there are some minor exceptions). How else can you explain the film industry's focus on murder? Do people usually grab books of the shelf that promise not to deliver conflict? How often do we see violence on television? Before television, did people not flock to the square to observe the executions of local criminals? Every society before ours was submerged in violence from birth until death, the genetics that are inside of us were selected for in such an environment.

That said, just because it's in our genetics doesn't mean it's our fate (that's called the "deterministic fallacy"). That's the same argument that's posed when people say that men have a higher tendency to cheat on their spouses because sex with multiple partners is beneficial to their DNA (the Coolidge effect). Violence may be in our genetics, but humans are rational. We don't have to do something just because we have a natural inclination towards it.

Anyway, on a personal note I've been in martial arts since I was four, I'm from a hockey family and I've grown up with some rough people. Fighting was just consistently present throughout my life, I don't really have much of a problem with it. It usually had little to do with hate or aggression. More often than not it had to do with ego (especially in hockey).

*edit* Violence in hockey isn't just about ego, though. It's also a very important part of the game. If you're too rough when you check a little guy, you've got to expect that the other team's brawler is coming after you. It keeps things in line.

[blazeofglory]

Violence is a relative term in point of fact. Violence or aggression is not just physical it is also psychological. We may psychologically hurt or do violence to somebody. Maybe a little of a sadistic nature is inbuilt in each of us despite the fact that we usually do not let our aggressive nature surface on moral ground mostly. We are conditioned to be good, something likened to the doctrine of non-resistance to evil. We must dispense with violence of all sorts, physical, psychological, moral, social, political and of course virtual. But violence or attack is an evolutionary choice also. And certainly we must counterattack if we are pounced.
The violence the OP has in mind maybe totally different. Violence is however taken figuratively at times. There are of course psychological injury which at times is more damaging than any physical one. Violence and appeasement seem a mutually exclusive idea but life, everyone’s life without a little violence is unthinkable. Of course in our progression forward through evolutionary processes we have to at times act somewhat aggressively or else another being will subdue us. We cannot go ahead if we cannot push somebody behind. We cannot go up if we cannot pull down somebody, for there is not enough space at the top. In our struggle for existence, acts of violence or aggressions are natural courses. It is a not a question whether we are violent or completely peaceable, it is only a matter of degrees as to how much we are violent and how much we are peaceable in life

[Katy North]

So therein lies the largest inconsistency of all: society has deemed that brutality is worse than quick and easy. This applies to murder and it applies to other crimes such as assault, yet we will not put murder and other crimes on par with each other.

We will not put murder on par with other crimes because murder is basically one person denying the other the right to existence. That crime, in my opinion, is far more abhorrent than any other crime, and is in a sense separate from the crime of violence.

While I do agree that if a person requests an end to their existence after a long terminal illness, assisting might be justifiable. No one should make that decision for the other person, however, unless it is explicitly stated in their will.

Though yes, I do eat meat, so the human vs animal argument is unresolved in my mind... I was almost a vegetarian once, but it didn't last very long...

[Virgil]

I'm a little confused too in regards to the question. Is the question specifically focused on sports violence? I can't imagine anyone condoning assault or any other form of criminal violence. Certainly self defense is not something anyone should criticize.

So in regards to sports violence, I would have to say no. I don't see anything wrong with contact sports such as American football or hockey. I don't even think "violence" is the right way to describe those sports. They are contact sports. Violence implies an intent to harm the opponent. That is not the objective of those sports.

Now when it comes to boxing and other martial arts sports, I guess one can say there is a level of controled violence. Frankly I don't have a problem with them either, when it comes to the violence part. It is controlled. I do have a problem with the damage to the conbatants over time. Damage to the brain cells does occur to boxers and I do have qualms with that. But that's a separate issue; it's not the "violence" that bothers me, it's the health concerns.

In summary I'm with Paul and Comedian and whoever sees a distinction between sports and criminal assault.


I think violence is natural, as is competition. I honestly get a little puzzled by people who proclaim to be anti-violence or anti-war. You might as well be anti-breathing. That doesn't mean you have to like violence, but I'd say it's pretty given that it's one of the few constant factors of human existence. Sometimes, talking it out doesn't work and the proper application of violence can end or reduce human suffering in certain scenarios.

I do agree with you, especially on anti-war. War is part of the human condition. It has been with us from the beginning of humanity. I would love to hear of a single century where a war did not occur. In fact every century from the beginning of time has had many wars. Anyone that believes in eliminating their country's military defense is naive. And I also agree that some wars are justifiable.

And if there is a suggestion that war correlates to violent sports, well that's just dubiuous psychobabble.

[dizzydoll]

Violence is overrated. What worries me more is how coolly one can press a red button ten thousand miles away and vaporize millions while sipping coffee. Aggression, as neutered violent streak, becomes far more dangerous.

Agreed. Its sad how others reveal what's in their soul which they are not willing to change and we MUST live with. Sick really.

[TheFifthElement]

It's tricky, Scher, because it depends what you mean by violence and how far the boundaries of violence extend. Because I would differentiate between real or deliberate violence, which is usually spontaneous (but not always) and motivated by or designed to directly or indirectly cause physical or emotional damage to another person, either out of anger or as a means of control or exercise of power; fantasy violence, such as play fighting, which Comedian mentioned, movie and game violence (which I'll come back to); and consensual violence, such as occurs in sports, (or S&M). I'd say fantasy and consensual violence can be fun if exercised carefully and consensually (obviously!), and the real or deliberate violence is obviously not fun. I've had the misfortune to have observed real and deliberate violence first hand, and I can vouch for that.

Movies I find a tricky one. As Katy North mentioned, that scene in Indiana Jones is funny. But it's not real. And I enjoy Kill Bill but again the violence portrayed in Kill Bill is fantasy violence, cartoony: not real. That being said, some movie violence is too close to the bone for me - for example, I once saw a 5 minute clip of City of God showing a scene in which some small children had been cornered by a criminal gang on the streets of Rio de Janero. One child was asked to choose where he wanted to be shot, in the hand or the foot. Then he was shot. I couldn't sleep afterward; it was too much for me, too real. The sad thing is, it is real and it does happen. That makes me mad. Ergo, not fun.

Sports violence is different again. I don't really think of boxing or karate or the like as being about violence. I think they're all much more about control. That being the case I don't have a problem with it. And for those involved they probably find it fun, though I don't find watching a boxing match fun personally. Like Meg said, it can be a valuable and constructive outlet for aggressive feelings and if it gives a person greater self control so they don't become angry and lose control and cause damage another person, it is probably a good thing.

Satan made an interesting point about perception of acceptable/unacceptable violence. It may be worth a separate thread, but it puzzles me too. For example, I know many animal lovers who think nothing of the thousands of cows, ducks, chickens and whatever else gets put in pet food that are slaughtered in order to feed pets, and as Satan mentioned we get beat up about animal cruelty but think nothing of the slaughterhouse. I'm not adverse to a chicken sandwich myself! People tend to agree that violence towards children is abhorent but then a lot of people, and quite often it is the same people, think smacking is appropriate in order to maintain discipline. People abhor violent crime but support the death penalty. It's perhaps why your question is quite difficult to answer. I think it's a subject we're all mixed up on, because probably the key driver of whether it is acceptable or not, or fun or not, is contextual.

[applepie]

Great response Fifth. I'm in total agreement with what it is that you've written :nod:

[kilted exile]

No



I grew up in one of the most violent cities in europe not an overly enjoyable experience walking down the street and wondering whether or not the guy you just walked by is going to crack your skull or stick a knife in your back. Thankfully growing up there has taught me how to avoid getting into physical confrontations here - I can make people a lot bigger than me very scared by use of language and body movement.


With regards to sport I have boxed and played rugby at a decent level growing up - I do not classify those as violent just physical. I cant stand hockey fights, and dont buy the argument Juniper gives about needing to "protect" the smaller player. The way to protect the smaller player is to enforce proper suspensions against people who take cheapshots, if it is a clean hit there is no problem and no reason for retalliation. Also why the hell does the NHLPA stand up for the player getting suspended instead of the player who gets injured most of the time?

[Taliesin]

If you take out the people-getting-hurt aspect, violence is fun as hell.
Yeah.
People getting hurt is like a bloody terrible hangover that a fine wine causes, so that's why you really don't want to. No, really, no, doesn't seem worth it. But if I could get violence without people getting hurt/minding it, then, hell yeah.
Matter of taste probably.
Maybe I shouldn't post here while drunk.
Well, I will anyhow.

[JuniperWoolf]

I cant stand hockey fights, and dont buy the argument Juniper gives about needing to "protect" the smaller player. The way to protect the smaller player is to enforce proper suspensions against people who take cheapshots, if it is a clean hit there is no problem and no reason for retalliation.

Fights are part of the game, they always have been. There are people who make their entire living beating people up on a hockey rink. Big men with missing teeth are a staple of the sport. Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to play. The instigator rule used to keep everything nice and balanced, and now that they've taken it out little guys keep getting checked in the head. What are they going to do? Take checking out of the game? You can't just tell people to "be nice" and not check little guys, that's just where a big player's shoulder is going to line up. Next they'll remove checking, and we might as well watch curling. You can't say that hockey without violence wouldn't be a cultural travesty.

[dizzydoll]

Finally I am happy to see the scale is tipping in the "Violence is not acceptable in any form" direction.

I dont agree with violence in sport at all. My late brother played ice hockey and was always getting bashed up. I cant watch the game because of this. After all sport is and should be the best way to unite people who come from vastly differing cultures. Rugby is also very aggressive but after the best team wins supporters and players alike enjoy refreshments together. Of course there are those, we know so well coming from SA, who are sore losers -- who state things like they must have been poisoned by our food after they have lost. After all, this attitude only exposes bad losers.

I recall a movie that I saw many years ago, it was called Roller Ball if I am not mistaken.. anyway that movie portrayed sports becoming much more violent. Looks like the producers knew ahead of time.

This aggressive behaviour is a must for a real belly laugh. Its only 2mins long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiNALqCbxg&feature=related

I never tire from watching it. LOL

[MarkBastable]

...there a no winners in any wars...

I think that you might hear a contrary view from the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and disabled people whose countries weren't invaded by Nazis due to someone stopping them.

[OrphanPip]

I always love the thrill of the physical part of hockey, but I really don't see that as violence. The intent is never to hurt, well maybe sometimes, but usually your mind is just on winning.

Anyway, I don't think I've lifted a finger against another living thing since I was 14. I've never been in a real fight either. I'm not opposed to violence but it never seems to come my way.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm not opposed to violence but it never seems to come my way.

You're kinda lucky, honestly non-sport fighting is a bit scary (even if it does make a good dinner story). I've been tossed around, pushed down stairs, randomly punched in the face, not to mention all the times that I've just been happily standing around in a hallway or someone's living room when a fight breaks out and these two huge pissed off guys barrel into little 117 pound me. *sigh* Tal's right... the pain part's no fun.

Sorry about your Habs tonight by the way, that was painful.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I've firmly gone for "violence is not acceptable in any form" and I'd stick by that in any situation. Violence, anger, rage etc, are all negative emotions whereby nothing of value can come of them. No, much better to surround yourself with pure, beautiful things as much as possible.

Violence is primitive.

[anzki4]

Absolutely. This is going to sounds really wrong, but hear me out. Violence causes a reduction in welfare because it inflicts suffering. Murder, if done painlessly, cannot be considered to reduce welfare because the victim experienced no bad feelings but simply died, and once you're dead, welfare does not exist. This would only apply to situations where the person dies instantly, and does not take account for the rights of the person being killed. What I'm saying is, if given the option between causing immense pain and suffering, and a quick painless death, the violence is more cruel.



If you have to kill someone, if you have to, is it somehow better to do it clean with a bullet through the head? Is it somehow worse to chop em up with an axe? What if you have to kill ten, or a hundred, or a thousand? What if it in doing it you save a thousand, or you spare ten? What if you save yourself? What is the measure of a man, or his murder? By what insane calculus can we answer questions like these, should we even try?
Quote from game called Far Cry 2.

Personally I think violence is natural, but not acceptable, in real life. Games, movies, books, etc. are different in my opinion.

[dizzydoll]

Originally Posted by dizzydoll
...there a no winners in any wars...


I think that you might hear a contrary view from the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and disabled people whose countries weren't invaded by Nazis due to someone stopping them.

Ok Mark, you tell me, who benefited by any war? Other than the arms manufacturers of course, who benefited? All sides will always agree, there is no benefit from war. War stabs the heart of all societies.

[soundofmusic]

Very interesting question:
I generally assume, from my own personal experience, that not all people are equally evolved; there are certain sub-cultures that are quite barbarous and dangerous unless one is willing to defend him/herself without a seconds thought.
As far as Xbox violence, I love getting all of my pent up frusterations out shooting all of the bad guys in Star Wars. When I'm really frusterated, I even steal a few cars and run over a few people in Grand theft auto.

[MarkBastable]

Ok Mark, you tell me, who benefited by any war?

I just did.

[dizzydoll]

Mark I think you and I have a different interpretation of the meaning of War, most likely because you havent been in one or lived through a war. When I look at the examples you provide, first if you ask most Germans they will tell you no-one [including them] benefited from the war. Then the two other examples you provide are human conditions, now you can defend a human condition but you cannot go to War on it unless you are a nation with vested interests as I stated earlier.

No nation has ever benefited from war, it leaves all nations broke economically. War kills the spirit of man, it weakens them. In war even the victor is the loser. War divides nations, it separates people. Worst of all war sacrifices the soldier to the streets with ongoing PSTD. I think you and I have a vastly different understanding of what WAR means.

[Paulclem]

Mark I think you and I have a different interpretation of the meaning of War, most likely because you havent been in one or lived through a war. When I look at the examples you provide, first if you ask most Germans they will tell you no-one [including them] benefited from the war. Then the two other examples you provide are human conditions, now you can defend a human condition but you cannot go to War on it unless you are a nation with vested interests as I stated earlier.

No nation has ever benefited from war, it leaves all nations broke economically. War kills the spirit of man, it weakens them. In war even the victor is the loser. War divides nations, it separates people. Worst of all war sacrifices the soldier to the streets with ongoing PSTD. I think you and I have a vastly different understanding of what WAR means.

What about the subjugated French, Italians, Norwegians, Estonians and Russians in WW2? Plus any others who the Nazis conquered. Remember they considered Slav people, along with Jews and Gypsies as Untermensch - sub-human I think. The people they conquered, when they weren't used as slave albour, had their country and economy dominated by the Nazi war machine.

I know what you're saying Dizzy - that everyone loses in war, but if ever there was a case for the just war - WW2 was it. That's only Europe as well. The japanese invaded Manchuria, and did unspeakable things to the population - as well as Burma etc etc.

I agree that everyone loses in war, but WW1 was a case where it had to be fouhgt. A Ghandi figure would have had little effect in the face of such terror, and in fact when one did protest - Dietrich Bonhoeffer - he was quickly imprisoned and executed.

[MarkBastable]

Mark I think you and I have a different interpretation of the meaning of War, most likely because you havent been in one or lived through a war. When I look at the examples you provide, first if you ask most Germans they will tell you no-one [including them] benefited from the war. Then the two other examples you provide are human conditions, now you can defend a human condition but you cannot go to War on it unless you are a nation with vested interests as I stated earlier.

No nation has ever benefited from war, it leaves all nations broke economically. War kills the spirit of man, it weakens them. In war even the victor is the loser. War divides nations, it separates people. Worst of all war sacrifices the soldier to the streets with ongoing PSTD. I think you and I have a vastly different understanding of what WAR means.


You said that no one ever benefited from a war. I'm saying that the groups I mentioned who lived in the countries that the Nazis were prevented from invading - they benefited. I'm not saying that the cost wasn't high - in many ways we're still paying for it - but I don't think you can deny that avoiding being herded into cattle trucks and taken to camps to be gassed is a clearly identifiable benefit. Or don't you think it is?

[dizzydoll]

Thats my point Paul, of all these invading countries if you ask the people living under the rule of the invading country they also suffered. You are only looking at it from the victims position. All sides always loose in war, the perpetrator as well as the victim. There are definitely no victors in any war.

And no Mark, I do not believe herding people off to concentration camps is acceptable. In fact when it comes to war, I follow the money trail today, even during Nazi Germany it all came down to money. Some nations today will fuel war purposefully to benefit fianancially from the war effort. Today wars are created to get the fat cats richer, no other reason.

[Virgil]

Finally I am happy to see the scale is tipping in the "Violence is not acceptable in any form" direction.


Well, then, we're just going to have to beat you up. :p :p :p

Sorry Dizzydoll, you're position on war is incredibly simplistic and, if you don't mind me saying so, naive. And yes, some wars do settle certain things (and granted some wars don't). Just looking over my American history I can cite the War of Indepedence, our Civil War, World War II, and the Cold War in all its forms all had meritorious outcomes.

I would love for war never to occur. I challenge you to tell me of a single century where there wasn't any war. I'll even let you limit yourself to western civilization. Exclude eastern, African, and all the others. War is part of the human condition.

[dizzydoll]

I would love for war never to occur. I challenge you to tell me of a single century where there wasn't any war. I'll even let you limit yourself to western civilization. Exclude eastern, African, and all the others. War is part of the human condition.

Correct and her subjects suffer as a result of war always, in every single country. The only people benefiting from war are those fueling it to benefit financially. We are conditioned through paranoia and control by those who fuel the war for their own financial benefit.

[MarkBastable]

And no Mark, I do not believe herding people off to concentration camps is acceptable.

So do you think it was of benefit to the people I mentioned that they avoided having that heppen?

[dizzydoll]

Dont patronize me Mark, how many times must I say the same thing. The Germans wanted the Jews money, can I make it any clearer.

Right I have provided my reasoning why no-one benefits from war, there is no point rehashing the same thing over and over again. If you witness any war, you can never go wrong by following the money trail in every single circumstance otherwise if money was not involved there would be no point in going to war at all.

[wessexgirl]

Dont patronize me Mark, how many times must I say the same thing. The Germans wanted the Jews money, can I make it any clearer.


I don't understand what you're trying to say, so could you make it a bit clearer to me? I'm sure the victims of the Nazis weren't debating whether or not the World being at war with the Nazis was a benefit to them. They would have been far too busy trying to survive.

[dizzydoll]

What I said is, there are no victors in war. Nobody benefits from war. Now while the plight of the victim is of prime importance, can you say the German public or that country as a whole benefited from WW2? There is your answer.

Same goes for every war, the country who is invading any country will suffer as much and possibly more in the long run. War costs lots of money but today the emphasis has shifted to where wars are fueled purposefully to trade and test the latest production of arms and ammunition as well as to control the assets of other countries.

[Lulim]

I agree with dizzydoll completely that fueling and starting wars always comes down to money, actually.

I agree also that it was very important to stop Hitler, and his hideous machinery of death in WWII.

Now, hypothetically speaking, wouldn't it have been better if Hitler hadn't started the war in the first place?

[dizzydoll]

Oh thank you for agreeing that it comes down to a money issue.



Now, hypothetically speaking, wouldn't it have been better if Hitler hadn't started the war in the first place?

Exactly and that is my point, the invader has his eye on the assets of others thats why Hitler attacked the Jewish people. Same goes for every other case of war, its a "I want what you got" attitude, or in the case of today "I wish to trade my arms so where can I fuel a war to make lots of money". It has to be, otherwise where will they test the latest Armour? This is the real side of war and its ugly, so how do we as the worlds public eliminate the fat cats from fueling more wars? This should be the pressing question these days.

[wessexgirl]

What I said is, there are no victors in war. Nobody benefits from war. Now while the plight of the victim is of prime importance, can you say the German public or the country as a whole benefited from WW2? There is your answer.

Same goes for every war, the country who is invading any country will suffer as much and possibly more in the long run. War costs lots of money but today the emphasis has shifted to where wars are fueled purposefully to trade and test the latest production of arms and ammunition as well as to control the assets of other countries.

I'm still confused by your answer. You seem to be coming from a totally pacifist standpoint which is your right. You obviously don't agree with war under any circumstances whatsoever. But that means that you don't think that the plight of the victim is of prime importance. Sometimes war has to be fought, to save those victims.

And yes, Germany did benefit from losing the war, they were no longer under the rule of a madman, and the world was free from his tyranny. While I appreciate you being anti-war, as most people would be, there are times when you have to fight. It's a bit of a hypocritical comment to say the victims are of prime importance, but to not acknowledge that they benefitted from a just war which freed them. What do you suggest should have happened? Should the world turn a blind eye and let despots like Hitler carry on with his genocide? I am genuinely intrigued as to what you would have done faced with such a dilemma.

[dizzydoll]

I said the victim is of prime importance but lets not forget the perpetrator has as much to loose if not more in the long run for any number of reasons including those that the victim face. If the perpetrator was not there to start with, there would be no war.. the perpetrator has an object to grab what he wants at both the expense of his own people and the victims.

So if we look at the same scenario today, we have the fat cats making money from trading arms. For example, we could all become victims in this middle east conflict resulting in WW3. How do we stop the villain? ...the one who is making money from arms trading? He wants WW3 for his financial gain. So what do we do to stop him in his tracks, you forget every nation will be victims in the event of WW3 but those making money from war will benefit. Is the worlds people not being blind to this?

You speak of genocide. Right now there is genocide happening in several countries in Africa and all world leaders know about it, so you tell me... seen as the worlds people are so concerned, why is nothing been done about protecting the victims in Africa against genocide? I will tell you why, cos there is no money to be made from protecting them.

Bottom line the world doesnt care unless there is financial gain. This included the plight of the Jews too at that time, for a long time the world actually did turn a blind eye until the secret could be no longer contained, only then were world leaders forced by public demand, to take up arms to free the Jews.

Also let me make this clear again, the fact that I mention that the perpetrating nation is as much victim as the victims themselves are, does NOT mean that I care not for the victims of any war... I do, but I am also capable of looking at the whole scenario from the total perspective, incl. trade of arms and ammunition, and this certainly needs addressing urgently but sadly most people will buy whatever propaganda is sold to them instead.

[MarkBastable]

Dont patronize me Mark, how many times must I say the same thing. The Germans wanted the Jews money, can I make it any clearer.

Whatever the motives for starting it, stopping it by waging war was of benefit to those to whom it was being done. Therefore that war benefited someone.

Since when, incidentally, has arguing been patronising? If I wanted to patronise you, I would say, Yes, yes, of course, dear. And then I'd leave you be.

[Paulclem]

I said the victim is of prime importance but lets not forget the perpetrator has as much to loose if not more in the long run for any number of reasons including those that the victim face. If the perpetrator was not there to start with, there would be no war.. the perpetrator has an object to grab what he wants at both the expense of his own people and the victims.

Yes - everybody loses by war, but how would you propose to stop a politically elected perpetrator such as Hitler who was going to be an aggressor whatever happened?

So if we look at the same scenario today, we have the fat cats making money from trading arms. For example, we could all become victims in this middle east conflict resulting in WW3. How do we stop the villain? ...the one who is making money from arms trading? He wants WW3 for his financial gain. So what do we do to stop him in his tracks, you forget every nation will be victims in the event of WW3 but those making money from war will benefit. Is the worlds people not being blind to this?

The arms come from demand. A nation can halt their own demand, but what about the demand from other nations and organisations? I realise that arms dealing is harmful, but where there's a will there will be a way to re-arm such as in Germany in WW2.


You speak of genocide. Right now there is genocide happening in several countries in Africa and all world leaders know about it, so you tell me... seen as the worlds people are so concerned, why is nothing been done about protecting the victims in Africa against genocide? I will tell you why, cos there is no money to be made from protecting them.

Is it somthing to do with the League of African Nations? Don't they have their own voice and effect on African matters? There has been involvement in Africa, but perhaps you're right about the cash interest in this. Economics is always a factor, but I would not say it was just economics.

Bottom line the world doesnt care unless there is financial gain. This included the plight of the Jews too at that time, for a long time the world actually did turn a blind eye until the secret could be no longer contained, only then were world leaders forced by public demand, to take up arms to free the Jews.

This is incorrect and simplistic. WW2, like WW1, happened because the series of strataegic pacts in Europe was violated by Germany. How would you deal with an aggressor who was killing people to dominate their country or an individual who is doing the same to a victim? Someone - if negotiation doesn't work, has to use force. In fact Britain bent over backwards to try to avoid conflict with Germany with the horror of WW1 still fresh in people's minds.It also took the bombing of Pearl Harbour to officially bring the US into the war.

Also let me make this clear again, the fact that I mention that the perpetrating nation is as much victim as the victims themselves are, does NOT mean that I care not for the victims of any war... I do, but I am also capable of looking at the whole scenario from the total perspective, incl. trade of arms and ammunition, and this certainly needs addressing urgently but sadly most people will buy whatever propaganda is sold to them instead.

I don't think anyone could question your compassion Dizzy, and you're right, the question is complex. But the conundrum remains - how do you deal with anggressor who will not respond to negotiation, and still continues to inflict murder upon the population as happened in he Balkan war in the 90's. In that case Serbia was inflicting ethnic cleansing and employing concentration camps to subjugate the population. It needed multinational force to stop it.

[Virgil]

No one goes to war for financial gain, at least not in modern times. That is a folklore. The cost of war, even for the aggressor far outweighs whatever they will gain in both blood and treasure. Business/commerce interests require peace and stability to trade. War for oil or whatever gain is left wing hogwash delusion.

[OrphanPip]

Virgil while I agree that the notion that powerful individuals are manipulating states to go to war for their financial benefit is nonsense, the idea that states go to war for their own benefit is not unusual. The dominant theories in international relations are neorealism and neoliberalism, which both agree that states act in their own interest and don't go to war unless they expect some sort of gain from it. However, this usually means an increase in power, which could include access to new resources, or an increase of security by taking out a potential future threat.

We just have to go back to Macchiavelli's Prince to see this kind of political philosophy being advocated 700 years ago. It makes good political sense to only go to war when you are going to benefit.

I would think countries going to war for altruistic reasons, like aiding Democratic forces in South Korea, are largely hogwash, the real reason is to make the USA and its allies more secure.

Edit: I'll clarify that I'm not criticizing the USA's behavior, I think this is how all states act all around the world.

[Niamh]

Just to remind members before this war discussion progresses that current politics is not allowed on the forum as par forum rules

[OrphanPip]

I can amend my post to use a less current example.

[Niamh]

If you dont mind Pip. :)

[dizzydoll]

No one goes to war for financial gain, at least not in modern times. That is a folklore. The cost of war, even for the aggressor far outweighs whatever they will gain in both blood and treasure. Business/commerce interests require peace and stability to trade. War for oil or whatever gain is left wing hogwash delusion.

Thats not true.. today more than ever its all about money and power. My biggest concern is all this new technology in military equipment has to be tested on who? or where? Otherwise what is the point of making such equipment?

Personally I believe the only way to deal with this problem is to put restrictions on all worldwide arms manufacturers with a view to eventually eliminate them completely. The worlds people should demand this. Now I know this sounds very idealistic but what other choice is there, the world it pretty capable of laying down the rules and laws with all kinds of conditions, as they did for ivory trading for example, so why not this too?

This is the only way in fact that the problem can be addressed otherwise those making money from the misery of others will never stop. Leaders of countries have been assassinated in the past for attempting to stop wars, it hasnt worked. The hippies went wide and demanded that wars were stop, it didnt help. The only way it can stop is if the Worlds People set clear boundaries regarding arms manufacturing in the future.

The only way evil survives is when good men do nothing.

[OrphanPip]

Thats not true.. today more than ever its all about money and power. My biggest concern is all this new technology in military equipment has to be tested on who? or where? Otherwise what is the point of making such equipment?

Personally I believe the only way to deal with this problem is to put restrictions on all worldwide arms manufacturers with a view to eventually eliminate them completely. The worlds people should demand this. Now I know this sounds very idealistic but what other choice is there, the world it pretty capable of laying down the rules and laws in all kinds of conditions, as they did for ivory trading for example, so why not this too.

This is the only way in fact that the problem can be addressed otherwise those making money from the misery of others will never stop. Leaders of countries have been assassinated in the past for attempting to stop wars, it hasnt worked. The hippies went wide and demanded that wars were stop, it didnt help. The only way it can stop is if the Worlds People set clear boundaries regarding arms manufacturing in the future.

The only way evil survives is when good men do nothing.

What are you going to do when someone breaks the rules? One bad apple spoils the whole bunch, how are you going to force people not to build weapons without the threat of military retaliation?

[dizzydoll]

Its got to start somewhere. It cannot be left to one nation to handle, otherwise that leader will be assignated. There is far too much money involved and believe me, those who have it want more.. its the nature of their game, and they dont give two hoots about anybody to get it.

All weapons must use some form of metal, the control can begin with records of the metals sold and to whom from the mines worldwide.

We are just discussing now, what other way can we stop world wars?

[OrphanPip]

Its got to start somewhere. It cannot be left to one nation to handle, otherwise that leader will be assignation. There is far too much money involved and believe me, those who have it want more.. its the nature of their game.

All weapons must use some form of metal, the control can begin with records of the metals sold and to whom.

We are just discussing now, what other way can you stop world wars?

I would say you can't stop wars, the proposition is absurd. It has nothing to do with the money in arms businesses. It has everything to do with a states desire and need to remain sovereign, without military you can not assert or defend your sovereignty.

[dizzydoll]

Well how many sovereign states have been compromised by war? Who cares, is the better question? ...with so many people supporting those who make money from the trade of arms to the detriment of themselves in the long run. For all their intelligence human beings are not very bright. Who pays for the wars, in blood and financially? This is an example of human beings being their own worst enemies, where they cannot see truth even if it slapped them in the face.. simply because they get 'sold a line' and they buy into it hook, line and sinker.


It has nothing to do with the money in arms businesses.

I dont believe that for a minute and if a vote was taken it would show not many would believe that either.

Anyway I am off to bed, its almost 11.30pm here.

[Hurricane]

I dont believe that for a minute and few others would either.


This just doesn't make sense. Arms industries hold so much sway and are so important because of the threat of war, which is omnipresent, not war itself.

[Virgil]

Thats not true.. today more than ever its all about money and power.
Well, I'd like to see your evidence. Especially when you consider the United States is spending billions (probably adds up to trillions at this point) of dollars in this war on terrorism.



The only way evil survives is when good men do nothing.
Excuse me, good people have done something. They have stopped evil by defeating it. All you have to do is look at WWII. It's passivism and appeasement that did and does nothing in the face of evil.

[Lulim]

(...) Especially when you consider the United States is spending billions (probably adds up to trillions at this point) of dollars in this war on terrorism. (...).

Somewhere do all this billions, maybe trillions of dollars go.

[OrphanPip]

Somewhere do all this billions, maybe trillions of dollars go.

Part of the reason so much money is spent on these industries is that most powerful nations need to maintain the domestic capacity to produce weapons when out of war. You spend on research and development to keep ahead of your potential enemies, but also to make sure you have the arms factories around when a war breaks out. The arms industry doesn't feed the desire for war, the potential for war feeds the arms industry.

Countries without primary arms industries, like Iran, don't buy masses of retired Russian arms because the Russian arms industry is so powerful in their nation, they do it because they understand the need to keep up military capability.

[dizzydoll]

Do your own research on the net, there is plenty about the war machine without too much effort. But this explains very well too....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4

Knowledge is power, go to Google to find out more.

[Virgil]

Do your own research on the net, there is plenty about the war machine without too much effort. But this explains very well too....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4

Knowledge is power, go to Google to find out more.

Pfft. You call that objective? That's a left wing propaganda piece. Please. Obviously you have a fixed view and nothing I say will shake it. Like I said, your view of the world is pretty naive.

[Hurricane]

Part of the reason so much money is spent on these industries is that most powerful nations need to maintain the domestic capacity to produce weapons when out of war. You spend on research and development to keep ahead of your potential enemies, but also to make sure you have the arms factories around when a war breaks out. The arms industry doesn't feed the desire for war, the potential for war feeds the arms industry.

Countries without primary arms industries, like Iran, don't buy masses of retired Russian arms because the Russian arms industry is so powerful in their nation, they do it because they understand the need to keep up military capability.

+1. This.

[dizzydoll]

Pfft. You call that objective? That's a left wing propaganda piece. Please. Obviously you have a fixed view and nothing I say will shake it. Like I said, your view of the world is pretty naive.

Virgil, that video simply represents what the selfish leaders, who control every single country today [its not limited to the US], with no regard for their subjects. Its speaks for the dead -- from an artists perspective. There is nothing naive about me or the circumstance we live in today. It would be best to read up on Google as I stated earlier to get the whole picture or speak to those older than you, they will tell you the same.

Everyone loses in war, even those countries with the military power behind them... who pays? ask the pensioners. But wait, you will be a pensioner sooner than you think and nothing would have changed by then, and you will beef about exactly the same thing as I speak here. Just wait and see if you are not willing to affect change by standing up for "the peoples rights". You cannot really be expected to know any better without direct experience, and that I do have.

[JuniperWoolf]

Okay, fine; everyone loses in war.

Situation: psychotic dictator with a large following of desperate people with starving families resorts to genocide. What do you suggest we as "good people" should do if not go to war with them?

[dizzydoll]

Institute trade sanctions those who dont comply with the rules made by "the worlds people". When it suits the world they will sanction others, so why not with those benefiting from war?.. but it goes deep, so many make money from the war effort starting at the mining companies who make money from the metal they trade in. It would need commitment.. but there is no other way.

I am just listening to that YouTube video again, it really does say it all in just 6mins.

[JuniperWoolf]

No, they're starving, desperate and being led by a psychopath who wants to "cleanse" the earth (ie. kill absolutely everyone). They’ve already murdered thousands of people in their own country, and now they’re invading others. What do we do?

[MarkBastable]

Just wait and see if you are not willing to affect change by standing up for "the peoples rights". You cannot really be expected to know any better without direct experience, and that I do have.


You're actually talking about something else entirely, here, aren't you? The rest of us are trying to debate the bald and obviously debatable statement 'no one ever benefited from a war', but you're actually talking about something else.

What is it?

Though, even if you tell us, I think you have to answer Juniper's question.

[dizzydoll]

No, they're starving, desperate and being led by a psychopath who wants to "cleanse" the earth (ie. kill absolutely everyone). They’ve already murdered thousands of people in their own country, and now they’re invading others. What do we do?

To whom are you referring to? If its Iraq they are a broken country right now, speaking military-wise, and they are a sovereign state, so why is foreign military presence still there? The way I see it, to keep the war effort going in order to test the latest weaponry. My questions never get answered, again who will they test all this high tech military equipment on that they are currently manufacturing?

But I am speaking about a MUCH bigger scenario here. I am talking of the business of war, the money made from it. Everyone loses from war except those who make money from it.

And speaking about genocide, as I said before there are a number of countries in Africa who are suffering from genocide right now. Consult with "Genocide Watch", they are currently in Africa monitoring this. Now the question is, why is the world not stopping this? Because there's no pot a the end of a rainbow for them, clear as daylight.

As I said before, you will be a pensioner sooner than you think and then you will battle to survive because you are taxed to the hilt to keep the war machine going.... every generation wakes up too late. You can argue all you like on things you do not know because you have bought into a line... sold to you by those who gain financially from war. But your time will come and then its too late as the younger generation will not listen then either... as they always know better, dont they?

[MarkBastable]

To whom are you referring to? If its Iraq they have no military power.

But I am speaking about a MUCH bigger scenario here.

He's referring to the rise of the Nazis in the Weimar Republic, the systematic annihilation of German Jews, amongst others, and Hitler's determination to expand German power in Europe. Scenarios don't get much bigger than that, whatever you believe Adolf's motives to have been.

So let's put the question less cryptically: what course of action do you think Great Britain should have taken in 1939?

[dizzydoll]

Ok Mark, you can live in the past that we cannot change. My original post that said 'there a no winners in any wars' that you picked up on was referring to the future of world wars. The past is gone, the future lays ahead that is the ONLY thing we can deal with NOW.

And why is no one answering my question about the genocide in Africa?... seeing as everyone is so perplexed about it. I'm still waiting.

[OrphanPip]

Ok Mark, you live in the past that we cannot change. My original post that said 'there a no winners in any wars' that you picked up on was referring to the future of world wars. The past is gone, the future lays ahead that is the ONLY thing we can deal with NOW.

And why is no one answering my question about the genocide in Africa?... seen as everyone is so perplexed about this.

No one is perplexed by it, the fact that we don't do anything about genocides in Africa is hardly telling of whether we should or shouldn't be doing something. Arguably the Rwandan genocide could have been stopped if the UN had allowed Romeo Dallaire to act pre-emptively to seize weapons caches, or maybe it would have still been a disaster.

The fact is that past events inform us of the future, and we shouldn't hope for the best willy nilly in the future and not expect tyrants and homicidal maniacs to reappear. I don't know how you can claim to know that there will be no winners in future wars when we can clearly point backwards at evidence that suggests there will be.

[dizzydoll]

You guys know it all, so I am backing away now. I have said all that I can on the matter, there is no point in saying the same things it over and over again.

[MarkBastable]

My original post that said 'there a no winners in any wars' that you picked up on was referring to the future of world wars.

Actually, following my post, you asked me this:

Ok Mark, you tell me, who benefited by any war?

Past tense, you'll notice. Your question referred to wars in the past.


You guys know it all.

I'm glad you recognise that. I knew you would eventually.


(See that's patronising. When I intend to do it, I do it right. And as you've already accused me of it, I feel I'm owed one.)

[caddy_caddy]

For every rule there is an exception . Violence is not acceptable in any form but sometimes what should be done must be done .

[Niamh]

Just to remind members before this war discussion progresses that current politics is not allowed on the forum as par forum rules

WWII is considered the past, and is therefore historical, but any discussion of current political affairs is no accepted.

Any Off topic posts will also be removed.

Its time we got back to the point of the thread and return to answering the OP and not arguing amongst ourselves.

Thank you

[BienvenuJDC]

{Edit (Off-topic)}

However, the original question is asking whether violence is FUN, not whether it is necessary. While I might enjoy wrestling with another, or competing is a physical (aggressive) manner, I do not view this as violence since I have not intention of causing injury. I would never engage in a "sport" in which that I had to hurt someone (no boxing for me). I might enjoy a friendly sport of fencing (I like to build fences).

I do not find any "fun" in being violent or in hurting someone else.

[Leeman]

Who is realy a friend?

[Satan]

I'm inclined to think that people - even the modest and reasonably nonviolent ones that wouldn't lift a finger to hurt others unnecessarily - derive circuitous pleasure in torture and cruelty of extreme measures rendered upon unsuspecting beings. How else would you explain the sensual connotations of a fur coat that silently screams of an animal brutally beaten before being skinned alive?

[BienvenuJDC]

before being skinned alive?

Really? You equate hunting and trapping to having fun in violent ways?

While I do not condone the senseless torture of animals, I believe that God gave us animals to serve our purposes. He gave them for food and furs. Although there may be those who are entertained by the killing of animals (and people) in violent ways, this does not imply that anyone who eats meat and wears furs condone or take part in their abominations. Just like there are those who take part in war because they are bloodthirsty, it does not mean that the war is being fought for the fun of it.

[applepie]

{Edit (Off-topic)}

However, the original question is asking whether violence is FUN, not whether it is necessary. While I might enjoy wrestling with another, or competing is a physical (aggressive) manner, I do not view this as violence since I have not intention of causing injury. I would never engage in a "sport" in which that I had to hurt someone (no boxing for me). I might enjoy a friendly sport of fencing (I like to build fences).

I do not find any "fun" in being violent or in hurting someone else.

I'll admit that the bumps and bruises are one of the things that I love about martial arts. I suppose it would fall under violent, but we're not really trying to cause permanent injury.

I think a nasty black eye and some bruised ribs are the worse that I've ever had personally. I also remember that night because I was off my concentration that night, hence the beating :) It had been a horrible week, and wouldn't you know that I left feeling bruised and better than I had all week :nod: I'll admit freely that I like to fight, and it is a perfect way to do so where there are some rules/regulations. It offers safety for me and my opponent, but we also know full well what we've signed up to do.

[caddy_caddy]

{Edit (Off-topic)}

However, the original question is asking whether violence is FUN, not whether it is necessary. While I might enjoy wrestling with another, or competing is a physical (aggressive) manner, I do not view this as violence

Wrestling is not a violence !!
I could not understand what's fun in it and how do people enjoy watching it :confused5: I find it really loathsome .

[Satan]

Really? You equate hunting and trapping to having fun in violent ways?
I'll let the pictures talk. Brace yourself for some heavenly sadistic pleasure that comes from efficient depackaging of the products that exist for no other purpose than to serve us. [WARNING: extreme animal cruelty] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h59tBziJMnI When you have finished watching the video, come back and let me know if that is something you do not condemn.

Please redefine fun and violence if you think hunting doesn't belong to any of these categories whatsoever.

While I do not condone the senseless torture of animals, I believe that God gave us animals to serve our purposes. He gave them for food and furs. Although there may be those who are entertained by the killing of animals (and people) in violent ways, this does not imply that anyone who eats meat and wears furs condone or take part in their abominations. Just like there are those who take part in war because they are bloodthirsty, it does not mean that the war is being fought for the fun of it.
He also gave you sentience. Use it!

War is a different beast altogether. It deserves its own thread.

[caddy_caddy]

but we're not really trying to cause permanent injury.

So temporal injury is ok ?
Come on . We are inflicting PAIN on others . We are enjoying sth that should make us feel pain too or at least repulsive .

[soundofmusic]

I'm inclined to think that people - even the modest and reasonably nonviolent ones that wouldn't lift a finger to hurt others unnecessarily - derive circuitous pleasure in torture and cruelty of extreme measures rendered upon unsuspecting beings. How else would you explain the sensual connotations of a fur coat that silently screams of an animal brutally beaten before being skinned alive?

I don't quite agree with this. I spend 10 minutes lifting spiders out of my bathtub so they don't drown. I feed and leave out water and winter shelter for the raccoons, birds, and other stray animals in the neighborhood...
But, when I buy a skinless, deboned, piece of chicken breast meat or a thin cut steak, I am not seeing a pair of eyes looking back at me. Do you think that my giving up purchasing these would stop thousands of pounds of chicken parts being sold to fast food and grocery stores?:

[The Comedian]

Humm. . . . I've tough about this a bit now. And I offer this story:

I used to love to play table tennis with this friend of mine. We were competitive as hell. We played in my basement -- and next to the table, propped up along wall was an old mattress. We called this mattress "the punching bag".

When one of us hit bad shot or lost a game that we should have won, we'd punch the hell out of that defenseless mattress. Not just mock punches -- angry, tormented blows of rage! :rage::rage: It was a totally violent act. And while it wasn't fun, it was a. . . . release. Punching the thunder out of that mattress sure felt good.

[Satan]

I don't quite agree with this. I spend 10 minutes lifting spiders out of my bathtub so they don't drown. I feed and leave out water and winter shelter for the raccoons, birds, and other stray animals in the neighborhood...
But, when I buy a skinless, deboned, piece of chicken breast meat or a thin cut steak, I am not seeing a pair of eyes looking back at me. Do you think that my giving up purchasing these would stop thousands of pounds of chicken parts being sold to fast food and grocery stores?:
You have the right to disagree with me, especially if you didn't vote for the 'violence is not acceptable in any form' option. 'Cause it wouldn't make any sense if you did.

Using a product of violence doesn't make you an accomplice in the crime, but you cannot deny your moral obligation and involvement in the whole process -- even as a consumer. Make sure your food didn't suffer much. If animals can do that in the wilderness, we are far more capable still.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'll let the pictures talk. Brace yourself for some heavenly sadistic pleasure that comes from efficient depackaging of the products that exist for no other purpose than to serve us. [WARNING: extreme animal cruelty] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h59tBziJMnI When you have finished watching the video, come back and let me know if that is something you do not condemn.

Feeding my family is not having FUN in a VIOLENT way. I do not condone cruelty to animals, and I will not knowingly patronize such companies. I think that this is a skewed tangent that you are diverting to.



Please redefine fun and violence if you think hunting doesn't belong to any of these categories whatsoever.


I do not hunt for sport. I also will not engage in argument explaining the benefits of hunting to the protection of the wildlife ecosystem in this thread. But I will say that you may have an inaccurate perspective of hunting.

[Satan]

Feeding my family is not having FUN in a VIOLENT way. I do not condone cruelty to animals, and I will not knowingly patronize such companies. I think that this is a skewed tangent that you are diverting to.
No, it's still very much about violence. Or is that violence against humans takes a superficial priority over violence against animals in such debates? Not accepting violence in any form requires not accepting it in any form. Anything else, and it becomes a matter of convenient justification of your actions.


I do not hunt for sport. I also will not engage in argument explaining the benefits of hunting to the protection of the wildlife ecosystem in this thread. But I will say that you may have an inaccurate perspective of hunting.
We can all justify our arguments, even in favor of controlled and systematic violence and murder. If anything, humans have only contributed to the destruction of our planetary ecosystem.

[MarkBastable]

If anything, humans have only contributed to the destruction of our planetary ecosystem.


Human beings can't destroy it. They can change it - but frankly our impact is so brief that whatever we do to the planet - and however radical it appears to us - it won't matter in a few thousand years, particularly if we die out.

Life on Earth will get on fine without us.

[caddy_caddy]

It's a good point Satan .
When I voted I didn't think of hunting.
We justify the violence against animals and we accept it . Whether for fun or feeding we do it and it is violence .

[BienvenuJDC]

No, it's still very much about violence. Or is that violence against humans takes a superficial priority over violence against animals in such debates? Not accepting violence in any form requires not accepting it in any form. Anything else, and it becomes a matter of convenient justification of your actions.

First of all, I never voted Not accepting violence in any form. I am not an absolutist. I do not revel in extremes. I believe that there is a HUGE difference between humans and animals. Again, I do not condone senseless violent acts against animals, while I do condone using animals as a source of food. If one maintains that violence in ANY form is wrong, then they would need to completely refrain from eating ANY meats.


We can all justify our arguments, even in favor of controlled and systematic violence and murder. If anything, humans have only contributed to the destruction of our planetary ecosystem.

Humans have ONLY contributed to the destruction? I believe this to be a very radical statement, which I adamantly and totally disagree with.

[Satan]

First of all, I never voted Not accepting violence in any form. I am not an absolutist. I do not revel in extremes. I believe that there is a HUGE difference between humans and animals. Again, I do not condone senseless violent acts against animals, while I do condone using animals as a source of food. If one maintains that violence in ANY form is wrong, then they would need to completely refrain from eating ANY meats.
Precisely! Save for the 'HUGE difference' part, I mostly agree with your stance on the subject at hand. If violence translates to inflicting unnecessary pain unto others, what difference does it make if it's a human or an animal at the receiving end? Pain is pain.


Humans have ONLY contributed to the destruction? I believe this to be a very radical statement, which I adamantly and totally disagree with.
I'll refrain from replying to this or Mark's post in order to keep this discussion on track. We can start another thread for that.

[soundofmusic]

:idea:
Humm. . . . I've tough about this a bit now. And I offer this story:

I used to love to play table tennis with this friend of mine. We were competitive as hell. We played in my basement -- and next to the table, propped up along wall was an old mattress. We called this mattress "the punching bag".

When one of us hit bad shot or lost a game that we should have won, we'd punch the hell out of that defenseless mattress. Not just mock punches -- angry, tormented blows of rage! :rage::rage: It was a totally violent act. And while it wasn't fun, it was a. . . . release. Punching the thunder out of that mattress sure felt good.

Ah yes, the days before Xbox:drool5:

You have the right to disagree with me, especially if you didn't vote for the 'violence is not acceptable in any form' option. 'Cause it wouldn't make any sense if you did.

Using a product of violence doesn't make you an accomplice in the crime, but you cannot deny your moral obligation and involvement in the whole process -- even as a consumer. Make sure your food didn't suffer much. If animals can do that in the wilderness, we are far more capable still.

There wasn't a box for my theory, which is: I believe in equal violence with human or non human predators. I avoid predators by not going into the woods or crime laden areas; if they seek me out in my home or on the street, I'm prepared to do anything I need to end the attack. Actually, I also think that if they are attempting to assault me bodily; I really wouldn't mind making sure that we didn't have to rely on the legal system for justice.

Now, as for little doe-eyed fuzzy creatures, cows and chickens; I really think they should not be made to suffer; and if I had to kill them myself, I wouldk, no doubt, become a vegetarian.

[JuniperWoolf]

Human beings can't destroy it. They can change it - but frankly our impact is so brief that whatever we do to the planet - and however radical it appears to us - it won't matter in a few thousand years, particularly if we die out.

Life on Earth will get on fine without us.

This is true. To say that we are "destroying" the earth is kind of egotistical. If we don't balance our species with the ecosystem (of which we are a part), we're only hurting ourselves. Nature's had worse (it's been reduced to sludge more than once).

[Propter W.]

I recently started Sanda (a form of kung fu) and before that I did Taekwondo for a while and I admit, it can get pretty rough but I wouldn't call that violence. It's fun, indeed. I practise with people who can handle it. It's a sport and it has bounderies. Once you cross these you can talk about violence, imo.

I find it odd that people can link "violent" sports with actual violence.

[mrv]

I find it odd that people can link "violent" sports with actual violence.

Exactly. Somehow I can't think of it as violence.
Violence is basically in the mind. If an activity be considered violent or not should depend on the intention or the attitude behind it.
So what I don't consider violent I don't have a problem with. What I do consider violence is not acceptable to me in any form.

[Dodo25]

Evolution has wired two conflicting urges into males: Violence and empathy. The former is reserved for the 'others' and for competition, while the latter is for members of the group and family.

Despite us now living in a globalized society, these urges are still present. When challenged in honor, or when trying to impress women, lots of men become violent, and enjoy being violent.

Normally there's a limit of suffering inflicted on others and then empathy kicks in and makes you stop. However, empathy can unfortunately be turned down by making use of the inbuilt drive for xenophobia, and convincing ourselves that the victims belong into a despicable sub group.

The way to counteract this unpleasant tendency of human nature is to condone it in society and to bring up children by teaching them empathy for all conscious beings. As long as there are women who find violence attractive, and there are and most likely will be, because evolutionarily this made sense, there will be violence.

Whether violence in the media or in games increases violence in reality is a different question, I'm skeptical about it but it's possible.

[hoope]

Voilence is not fun .. and not acceptable..

But those people who find it fun.. that is because they have a psychological problem .. ( i don't mean the violent sports.. though some sports we can include )
At in conditions when they have burnout .. they would like to put it on anyone comes right infront of them .

[ClaesGefvenberg]

If this makes me a coward, so be it.It does not... Quite the opposite in my opinion.


Does everyone really think that violence is an essential part of human nature
so we all tend to enjoy it?
Is it fun?
And isn't this kind of attitude a way of sanctioning other acts of violence?Yes, No, No and Yes.

/Claes

[Propter W.]

Evolution has wired two conflicting urges into males: Violence and empathy. The former is reserved for the 'others' and for competition, while the latter is for members of the group and family.

Despite us now living in a globalized society, these urges are still present. When challenged in honor, or when trying to impress women, lots of men become violent, and enjoy being violent.

Normally there's a limit of suffering inflicted on others and then empathy kicks in and makes you stop. However, empathy can unfortunately be turned down by making use of the inbuilt drive for xenophobia, and convincing ourselves that the victims belong into a despicable sub group.

The way to counteract this unpleasant tendency of human nature is to condone it in society and to bring up children by teaching them empathy for all conscious beings. As long as there are women who find violence attractive, and there are and most likely will be, because evolutionarily this made sense, there will be violence.

Whether violence in the media or in games increases violence in reality is a different question, I'm skeptical about it but it's possible.

Why would these 'urges' disappear in a globalized society? I fail to see the connexion.

Either way, I don't think people are violent. Violence is more the exception than the rule. The idea that violence is an essential part of human nature is false. The media certainly plays a role in this by continually reporting violence (one might even begin to think man is inherently violent). In general, people live in peace with one another.

[El Viejo]

Following the discussion in another thread, I want to discuss the issue of violence.

I would not say this about many things but I personally *abhor* violence and will do anything to avoid it whenever I can. Having said that, I know that there will be questions regarding self-defence. And I won't go into "consulting adults" business here either. :p

I know from experience that I would try my hardest to handle the situation without reaching to that physical stage and only as a last resort I would respond in a similar fashion and I would hate myself for doing so (rather than feeling "high"). If this makes me a coward, so be it.

What I personally find unacceptable is the suggestion that "violence is fun" and that it is liked by everyone. How can we advocate this when there are thousands and thousands of women and children (and men in some cases) are being abused all around the world and are subjected to this painful (both physically and psychological) humiliation? This is not some kind of computer game with fantastic visual and sound effects; we are talking about real lives, real people.

Fighting for survival might be necessary in certain situations but I would like to think that millions years of evaluation has done at least *a little* difference in our attitude towards how we handle ourselves in general.

I would like to hear other views on this.

Does everyone really think that violence is an essential part of human nature so we all tend to enjoy it? Is it fun? And isn't this kind of attitude a way of sanctioning other acts of violence?


The poll is anonymous so you can vote freely.

Totally with you, I abhor violence.

And with you re: it's a valid last resort in self-defense.

We are all capable of violence, but what we are taught by others and by experience determines whether we see it as only a last resort or as something else, such as a means to control others, or to deal with conflict, or as recreation. Most people in the US are raised by armchair quarterbacks and little-league bleacher coaches, so most feel that violence is at least fun to watch. But like Playboy subscribers saying they read it for the articles, most claim they like the precision, the dedication, the teamwork.

The games, movies, and literature all grew out of our love of violence, and all forms of violence serve to feed the others. In other words putting an end to video games won't stop domestic violence, and vice versa. In medical terms, we have to treat both simultaneously.

Getting back to sports for a moment, sports are ritualized warfare. The higher the violence level, and the more dangerous the players seem to be, the higher the public interest. I think American football will always have more market share than 'soccer' because, although 'soccer' or its rowdy cousin rugby are physically more risky, football players look like killer robots, Transformers. It excites the twisted little kid in us.

PS did you mean 'consenting adults?' Not that it matters much, because I also abhor consultants.

[Dodo25]

Why would these 'urges' disappear in a globalized society? I fail to see the connexion.

I don't think I said that, the problem is that they don't disappear, at least not automatically, and that's why we should try to emphasize empathy and preactively promote non-violence.



Either way, I don't think people are violent. Violence is more the exception than the rule. The idea that violence is an essential part of human nature is false. The media certainly plays a role in this by continually reporting violence (one might even begin to think man is inherently violent). In general, people live in peace with one another.

Wishful thinking, you're very wrong, unfortunately. Look at forager tribes, genocides, even violent crimes in 'civilized society'. Just use evolutionary reasoning and it becomes obvious that violence must be human nature. That doesn't in any way justify it, nevertheless it remains a fact.

[Propter W.]

I don't think I said that, the problem is that they don't disappear, at least not automatically, and that's why we should try to emphasize empathy and preactively promote non-violence.

I completely agree that we should promote non-violence. As for empathy, I'm not sure teaching people how to empathise will help rid the world of violence. Violence should be condemned. If people can empathise will violent people, I'm not sure if they can condemn their actions.


Wishful thinking, you're very wrong, unfortunately. Look at forager tribes, genocides, even violent crimes in 'civilized society'. Just use evolutionary reasoning and it becomes obvious that violence must be human nature. That doesn't in any way justify it, nevertheless it remains a fact.

Well, no offense, Dodo... but I don't think I am. Genocides, violent crimes etc. are not the norm. If they were, we'd see a lot more violence and bloodshed. When I take a look around me (whenever and wherever) I don't see violence. For the most part, I see peaceful people who want to avoid pain and suffering. You won't convince me people are naturally violent. Because they are not and that's a fact. (I love it how that works.)

Anyway, if violence is human nature, you won't change it with any amount of education or empathy.

"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name!"

Emma Goldman

[Dodo25]

Well, no offense, Dodo... but I don't think I am. Genocides, violent crimes etc. are not the norm. If they were, we'd see a lot more violence and bloodshed. When I take a look around me (whenever and wherever) I don't see violence. For the most part, I see peaceful people who want to avoid pain and suffering. You won't convince me people are naturally violent. Because they are not and that's a fact. (I love it how that works.)

Haha we don't get anywhere like this. You can't simply state 'it's a fact' and leave it at this without further arguments.

I think the disagreement is about semantics. By 'human nature', I don't mean that all humans display violent behavior. I just say we are predisposed towards violence in certain circumstances. The circumstances have to do with group mentality (and with reputation/dominance). This is why we see violence between different ethnicities, different religions, different street gangs, hate crimes etc.

Because society condones it, there is not much violence in the streets in civilized countries. But as soon as you look at forager societies, the pictures changes drastically.



Anyway, if violence is human nature, you won't change it with any amount of education or empathy.


Genes are not all that matters, culture does have some influence too.

There's a good book about such things, 'The Third Chimpanzee' by Jared Diamond.

[The Atheist]

I find it odd that people can link "violent" sports with actual violence.

Given that many violent people take up contact/fighting sports to satisfy their appetite for violence, I think it's impossible not to link them.

Not to mention, the more violent a sport is, the higher likelihood there is of the controlled agression of the sport spilling over into actual violence.

When did you last see a punch-up in a game of cricket, croquet, golf or lawn bowls?

On the other hand, illegal violence is perpetrated in almost every game of contact sport on the planet. Ice hockey, anyone? Rugby, league? Even the girls aren't immune from it with netball probably being the most violent women's sport.

[Serena03]

It depends on the severity of violence. For instance the style of violence on the TV show "Jackass" I can't help but crack a smile. If someone gets hit in the head it is funny, if someone gets their head cut off it's horrible. It may not be necessary for comical entertainment, nevertheless it is a style of comedy that people choose to use. This is just as well with sports, such as the obsession with 'Ultimate Fighting Champion' or when some people go to Nascar races just to purposely see a crash. The obsessions are beyond me, but people like what they like. Violence as entertainment seems to be as natural as violence itself.

But there may be moments when violence might be necessary, such as if someone is hurting your family, your natural impulses may react in counter-violence which is why the gun laws are an endless debate. I generally try to practice non-violent resistance whenever possible, but this does not separate me from my intuitions of violent impulses if the moment should come. My choice would be, it is natural and reluctantly accepted wherever resistance can be resisted.

[The Atheist]

But there may be moments when violence might be necessary, such as if someone is hurting your family, your natural impulses may react in counter-violence which is why the gun laws are an endless debate. I generally try to practice non-violent resistance whenever possible, but this does not separate me from my intuitions of violent impulses if the moment should come. My choice would be, it is natural and reluctantly accepted wherever resistance can be resisted.

This seems to go right back to the discussion on war recently.

If you and your family are being attacked by a foe you cannot protect them from, how does a violent response improve the situation?

[Jazz_]

It depends on the severity of violence. For instance the style of violence on the TV show "Jackass" I can't help but crack a smile. If someone gets hit in the head it is funny, if someone gets their head cut off it's horrible

I agree about severity... I'm not sure about violence ever being "necessary", but I believe mild violence can be entertaining...

I have to admit, although I don't usually like voilence - there is something slightly "fun" about violence in sports. Not so much where violence is the main theme - I hate boxing, for example - but I do feel a sense of excitement if there is a bit of shoving (or if a few punches are thrown) in a football match (Aussie rules).

I also have to add that the one time I have gone shooting - I really enjoyed it. I was only shooting clay pigeons though, I don't really approve of hunting and I'm definitely against the use of guns for protection.

[Serena03]

This seems to go right back to the discussion on war recently.

If you and your family are being attacked by a foe you cannot protect them from, how does a violent response improve the situation?

It does not necessarily improve the situation, it's just a common instinct to have violent impulses whether they are mental or physical. In the face of danger, many are likely use violence first before making an alternate and more sensible decision. Even calling the police does not necessarily resolve anything peacefully, they will shoot someone if necessary.


I agree about severity... I'm not sure about violence ever being "necessary", but I believe mild violence can be entertaining...

I have to admit, although I don't usually like voilence - there is something slightly "fun" about violence in sports. Not so much where violence is the main theme - I hate boxing, for example - but I do feel a sense of excitement if there is a bit of shoving (or if a few punches are thrown) in a football match (Aussie rules).

I also have to add that the one time I have gone shooting - I really enjoyed it. I was only shooting clay pigeons though, I don't really approve of hunting and I'm definitely against the use of guns for protection.

The necessity for war is another ongoing debate, arguing that 'war equals peace.' In certain situations it may be the only solution when one cannot be negotiated or reasoned with. In a world full of illogic, individuality and randomness, violence has become the inevitable. The prevention of guns, nuclear weapons and so forth would not put an end to the natural instinct of violence, we can only hope that we eventually will evolve out of it.

[Propter W.]

Haha we don't get anywhere like this. You can't simply state 'it's a fact' and leave it at this without further arguments.

I assumed that if it's good enough for you, it would be good enough for me too.


I think the disagreement is about semantics. By 'human nature', I don't mean that all humans display violent behavior. I just say we are predisposed towards violence in certain circumstances. The circumstances have to do with group mentality (and with reputation/dominance). This is why we see violence between different ethnicities, different religions, different street gangs, hate crimes etc.

Because society condones it, there is not much violence in the streets in civilized countries. But as soon as you look at forager societies, the pictures changes drastically.

Genes are not all that matters, culture does have some influence too.

There's a good book about such things, 'The Third Chimpanzee' by Jared Diamond.

Well, I agree it's quite natural that in certain circumstances people react violently. When I'm attacked, or a friend of mine is, I might try to empathise with the attacker or I may resort to violence myself in order to neutralise the threat. I see no problem with that. If I can, however, I will avoid violence. As would most people.

Your argument that our society condones violence and therefore there is less violence in the streets makes no sense.

And as forager societies... No, I don't think the picture changes drastically. You are generalising.


Totally with you, I abhor violence.

And with you re: it's a valid last resort in self-defense.

We are all capable of violence, but what we are taught by others and by experience determines whether we see it as only a last resort or as something else, such as a means to control others, or to deal with conflict, or as recreation. Most people in the US are raised by armchair quarterbacks and little-league bleacher coaches, so most feel that violence is at least fun to watch. But like Playboy subscribers saying they read it for the articles, most claim they like the precision, the dedication, the teamwork.

The games, movies, and literature all grew out of our love of violence, and all forms of violence serve to feed the others. In other words putting an end to video games won't stop domestic violence, and vice versa. In medical terms, we have to treat both simultaneously.

Getting back to sports for a moment, sports are ritualized warfare. The higher the violence level, and the more dangerous the players seem to be, the higher the public interest. I think American football will always have more market share than 'soccer' because, although 'soccer' or its rowdy cousin rugby are physically more risky, football players look like killer robots, Transformers. It excites the twisted little kid in us.

PS did you mean 'consenting adults?' Not that it matters much, because I also abhor consultants.

I think that's a very poor comparison. Is it possible that you are not an athlete yourself and not too fond of sports?

The most popular sports in my country are tennis, football (soccer) and cycling. None of which are very violent. Boxing, karate, MMA, muay thai or ice hockey, American football and rugby get very little attention from the general public. Does that mean that the people in your country are more violent that the ones in my country?

I think it's more likely that people like sports indeed because of the precision, dedication, teamwork, physical demands etc. than because they drool over violence.

I get the same satisfaction from sparring as I do from swimming or doing gymnastics. I don't like it more because it's violent, because in my opinion it's not violence. It's a sport and it's beautiful.

[altheskeptic]

The big sport down here in the deep south is American football. It may be considered a violent sport and violence is a part of it. But that is not the reason the sport is so popular here in Alabama. The reason is pride. It is the one thing that makes people from this State feel like winners. Shoot, we are at or near the bottom in just about everything else.

I agree with the posts that state that violence is part of human nature. Contact sports seem to be a good way of channeling this natural tendency into a less dangerous form of violence. It also teaches life skills, and helps reduce racism.

I do not think wars are fought for money. I think most wars are fought for political or religious power. I do not think Hitler went to war for money. He went to war for power. He wanted to impose his will on the rest of the world. Would passive resistance taken him out of power? Would non violence worked against his war machine?

Now let us address the issue of violence in food. Not only does eating meat kill, but tilling the ground to grow veggies also kills living things. This does not even consider pest control, either natural or with the use of pesticides.

I am not going to beat myself up over this...Piggly Wiggly has a sale on Porterhouse this weekend.

[stlukesguild]

I think violence is natural, as is competition.

Yes violence is natural... as Tennyson knew when he spoke of "Nature, red in tooth and claw..." And this is where Rousseau was grossly mistaken... it is not nature that is the ideal state and nature or civilization that turns humanity into monsters... but rather the reverse.

[OrphanPip]

I think violence is natural, as is competition.

Yes violence is natural... as Tennyson knew when he spoke of "Nature, red in tooth and claw..." And this is where Rousseau was grossly mistaken... it is not nature that is the ideal state and nature or civilization that turns humanity into monsters... but rather the reverse.

Yet it is civilization that reinforces sectarian divisions and drives us to degrees of violence beyond comprehension.

However, I tend to think when the concept of the "natural" is entirely arbitrary, and the boundaries of nature and civilization are merely twisted to suit whatever appeal to nature or civilization one is trying to make. Culture is as intrinsically linked to human nature as bowel movements, civilizations could not exist if it were not human nature to form social groups. Acts of kindness and civility are as much human nature as acts of violence and barbarity.

[papayahed]

The big sport down here in the deep south is American football. It may be considered a violent sport and violence is a part of it. But that is not the reason the sport is so popular here in Alabama. The reason is pride. It is the one thing that makes people from this State feel like winners. Shoot, we are at or near the bottom in just about everything else.


As a transplant to the south I'm still trying to figure that one out, it's only high school football, right?

[altheskeptic]

As a transplant to the south I'm still trying to figure that one out, it's only high school football, right?

:lol:

[Bluenote]

As a transplant to the south I'm still trying to figure that one out, it's only high school football, right?



Oh boy , now y'all went and did it. The folks you're speaking of take their football very seriously , high school stadiums as large as some colleges in other locales and high school teams that could give many a college team a run for their money and flat out thrash some of 'em.

And in the southeast they're rabid about college basketball , if you happen to be tending bar in Raleigh N.C. during the NCAA tournament never utter these words " I really enjoyed seeing Duke lose." , I believe some of those guys are still looking for a rope and and a tree and my carcass to suspend from same.

Back to the topic at hand , that being violence , which is of course deeply ingrained in mankinds history and the majority of subcultures.

How many times have you seen an individual decry street violence and then sit down on a Sunday to watch highly paid gladiators engage in the mayhem we know as hockey , football or to a lesser degree basketball?

As for the competitive one on one combat sports , many of us competed in wrestling , boxing or a given MMA style or martial arts competition because yes we liked to scrap and wished to do so in a controlled environment ( and get paid for it) , but such competition is not really about the violence involved.

Now the crowds however are a bit of a different story , look at the people in the first five rows sometime , for every individual that's there to see the chess match between two opponents within the confines of the ring there will be five spectators who just want to see someone get banged senseless , get cut , get knocked out , get their mouthpiece knocked into the crowd , not submit and get that arm/ankle/shoulder broken/dislocated.

Strictly within the context of the U.S. , the country doesn't want violence in it's streets , however it sure soaks it up in it's movies , video games , music and literature now doesn't it?

Examine the ridiculous extremes , for example the unfathomable public popularity of the WWC/WWF/WWE ( whatever alphabet soup they've changed to currently) , complete with Linda McMahon running for public office , now what's THAT about?

Unfortunately man is the most violent animal of all , can't get away from it short of perhaps the hypothetical 'remote deserted island' , and even then there's a chance that you might have to defend your idyllic paradise or abandon it to avoid violence.

In many way mankind is akin to the Snake eating It's Own Tail.

[clguerra]

Even though I don't like violence I think it is natural. It has been used in many times to win disputes. A good example would be the honor code that men in the Western culture happen to suffer from it (me included), but remember prior to violence comes aggression and that is normal to everyone.

[Gladys]

...but remember prior to violence comes aggression and that is normal to everyone

Is it true that aggression is normal to everyone? Perhaps so with adolescents, but can't many a mature adult curb any tendency to behave aggressively?

[clguerra]

Is it true that aggression is normal to everyone? Perhaps so with adolescents, but can't many a mature adult curb any tendency to behave aggressively?I would like to rephrase that. I was not thinking clearly at that moment. I somehow confused aggression with anger, but I was trying to say is that anger is common in the human being

[Alexander III]

I am totally anti violence. As well there a no winners in any wars. :cold:

Actually the USA gained a huge amount of wealth as a result of both wwI and wwII, those wars were in fact what changed the USA to one of many western superpowers to THE western superpower. Also after most of Rome's wars it came of very well, im sure history has a plethora of other examples.

[Revolte]

Actually the USA gained a huge amount of wealth as a result of both wwI and wwII, those wars were in fact what changed the USA to one of many western superpowers to THE western superpower. Also after most of Rome's wars it came of very well, im sure history has a plethora of other examples.

thats a loss, not in anyway a win.


Violence is something we have all had in part of our lives, the chances of it not being natural are slim to none. Regardless of this, without violence now, we would have nothing but a hope that can never be reached. Believe it or not, you can't actually petition a better world, you have to be ready to lose everything you have ever loved, including your own life, to make a change.

Weather or not it's natural, it's certainly needed.

[Alexander III]

"thats a loss, not in anyway a win."

Pray do tell how is it a loss ?

[Scheherazade]

The OP:
Following the discussion in another thread, I want to discuss the issue of violence.

I would not say this about many things but I personally *abhor* violence and will do anything to avoid it whenever I can. Having said that, I know that there will be questions regarding self-defence. And I won't go into "consulting adults" business here either. :p

I know from experience that I would try my hardest to handle the situation without reaching to that physical stage and only as a last resort I would respond in a similar fashion and I would hate myself for doing so (rather than feeling "high"). If this makes me a coward, so be it.

What I personally find unacceptable is the suggestion that "violence is fun" and that it is liked by everyone. How can we advocate this when there are thousands and thousands of women and children (and men in some cases) are being abused all around the world and are subjected to this painful (both physically and psychological) humiliation? This is not some kind of computer game with fantastic visual and sound effects; we are talking about real lives, real people.

Fighting for survival might be necessary in certain situations but I would like to think that millions years of evaluation has done at least *a little* difference in our attitude towards how we handle ourselves in general.

I would like to hear other views on this.

Does everyone really think that violence is an essential part of human nature so we all tend to enjoy it? Is it fun? And isn't this kind of attitude a way of sanctioning other acts of violence?


The poll is anonymous so you can vote freely.

[NikolaiI]

Following the discussion in another thread, I want to discuss the issue of violence.

I would not say this about many things but I personally *abhor* violence and will do anything to avoid it whenever I can. Having said that, I know that there will be questions regarding self-defence. And I won't go into "consulting adults" business here either.

I know from experience that I would try my hardest to handle the situation without reaching to that physical stage and only as a last resort I would respond in a similar fashion and I would hate myself for doing so (rather than feeling "high"). If this makes me a coward, so be it.

What I personally find unacceptable is the suggestion that "violence is fun" and that it is liked by everyone. How can we advocate this when there are thousands and thousands of women and children (and men in some cases) are being abused all around the world and are subjected to this painful (both physically and psychological) humiliation? This is not some kind of computer game with fantastic visual and sound effects; we are talking about real lives, real people.

Fighting for survival might be necessary in certain situations but I would like to think that millions years of evaluation has done at least *a little* difference in our attitude towards how we handle ourselves in general.

I would like to hear other views on this.

Does everyone really think that violence is an essential part of human nature so we all tend to enjoy it? Is it fun? And isn't this kind of attitude a way of sanctioning other acts of violence?

I agree, with everything you've said. . . Thank you, also, for bringing up the topic, because it's a more useful and practical topic than so many.

Violence, in my mind, is one of the least pleasant activities, and I believe it can always be overcome if we choose to. By that I mean, personally, within ourselves.

As Miyamoto Musashi wrote in his book of strategy, the ultimate goal of martial arts is to not have to use it. . . In other words, the highest achievement is non-violence. . . My uncle teaches Aikido, and I took 2 years of it. . the goal of that martial art is to end conflict as quickly as possible, with the last amount of violence, although, as his co-teacher Detlef often reminded, there is always the martial aspect, in the various movements. . .

I suppose the most basic thing is that we learn behaviors from our parents, and we inherent many of their habits and beliefs and patterns. However, understanding this, and understanding as much as possible about human nature from every other angle, is very useful in overcoming violence, both within ourselves, and when it presents itself in a situation around us. My father told me several of these things, about how we inherit patterns of behavior from our parents, and that sort of thing, and so I've honestly been considering these issues since I was a very young child.

So therefore one of the main points would be - how do we break free from patterns of violence, if we have them? How do we overcome ourselves? If you become your own master, in the words of the Buddha, no one can ever take that away from you.

I am not saying that it's always wrong in every situation - although most religions do teach that an absolute commitment to pacificism is the correct path - but I am merely addressing the issue as a real problem, which it is; as you say, throughout the world in abusive situations. I merely mention this in case someone would argue the opposite position, just for the sake of arguing it. As you say, it is a very real issue, which very real people are facing every day in their lives.

I would also say that one part of the issue is that we are conditioned to feel like we don't matter, somewhat - that we are not important. I believe this is completely false, and it is a door that opens up many other flaws in thinking - and I would further state that, not only do people matter, and by that I mean all people, but the things we say, the ideas we share, matter a great deal. . because of the fact that words and ideas are the causes of actions and things that happen in reality. . .

There are so many other things going on as well, of course there is all of society - one interesting thing is that violence is no longer than main thing for getting to the top of our society. In pre-historic days, it played a much larger role, and in some places, it is still a major factor - but in many instances, it is not. . . For instance, consider Warren Buffett, with a net worth of several dozen billion dollars. Violence wasn't necessary for him to get there; in fact, I believe it would be rather simple to say, the more violent he was, the worse off. . . In his words, somewhat paraphrased, "I happened to be very good at a particular skill, capital allocation, for which I was rewarded. . ."

Carl Sagan's books on evolution are extraordinarily well-written and they help to understand the place of violence in our lives and society as well, and can help us understand human nature in the context of the whole animal world.

Tara Brach and Thich Nhat Hanh, to me, personally, are two of the wisest, most compassionate, and in-depth teachers in the world today. . . Hanh lived through the Vietnam war, as a young man. . I studied a lot of things in my life, but it wasn't really until listening to Tara's dharma talks, while walking through the woods or simply through peaceful streets, that I gained the understanding of myself, and others, that I have today.

[Ecurb]

The moral acceptability of violence is largely irrelevant to whether it is "fun". It would be reasonable, for example, to object to adultery on moral grounds, yet concede that the involved parties might be having "fun" (i.e. pleasant diversion).

However, I don't think "fun" is QUITE the right word to describe the enjoyment inherent in violence. Clearly, many boys and young men like playing gridiron football, ice hockey, and other sports to which some violence is intrinsic. So they must get SOMETHING out of it. I played ice hockey in college, and the physical joys of sport are related to the joys of violence, but different, too. Intense physical activity; physical competition; the assertion of skill and dominance: these are some of the joys of sport. All of these joys are also available through certain forms of violence (including sports like boxing or wrestling, for example).

When I played hockey, players used to brawl, occasionally. Fighting was outlawed in college hockey (you got kicked out of that game and the next game), but prior to that I was in an occasional fight. Was it "fun"? I'd say it was more of a thrill -- it got the adrenaline pumping. It usually happened so fast you didn't really enjoy it at the time -- but the adrenaline rush that followed might be called "fun". In addition, nobody ever got hurt -- the refs simply broke up the fight if someone started to lose.

So it seems that violence IS "fun" for a great many people, if the word is used in a very general sense. At least people seek leisure activities in which it is practiced.

[Emil Miller]

Intense physical activity; physical competition; the assertion of skill and dominance: these are some of the joys of sport. All of these joys are also available through certain forms of violence (including sports like boxing or wrestling, for example).


This may be one reason why I tend to avoid violence in a given situation. Intense physical activity and physical competition are things I have consciously avoided since childhood. In formative years, I was just as likely to be found in the rough and tumble of boy's games as any of my childhood friends but I would rather be reading something. Except for a slight spectator interest in tennis and golf, I have never had any interest in sport.
However, I feel certain that the 'assertion of skill and dominance' in playing chess was just as enjoyable to me as that which comes with the physical violence of some sports.
That is why I think it's more satisfying to outwit an opponent than outfight him but there will sometimes be circumstances where physical violence is unavoidable.

[Ecurb]

To each his own, Emil. I've always liked non-physical games, too. Bridge is my favorite game, and I play in occasional tournaments. Just as I prefer team sports to individual sports, I prefer bridge to chess because I think the team aspect is fun.

Team sports are endlessly involving, both mentally and physically. In hockey, you have five teammates and six opponents on the ice at once, and tactics involve being aware of all of them. When that kind of mental concentration is combined with the physical concentration and effort, there is no possibility of thinking about other stresses or problems while you are playing. Also, the social fun of being on a team, both on the ice and off of it, is considerable.

I like the outdoors, but I never liked fishing. It's too physically passive for me. I prefer mountaineering which, although more 'individual' than team sports, also involves both mental and physical commitment. In addition to the beauty of nature and the skill and effort involved in climbing, mountaineering is mentally taxing in that it involves route-finding, on both a macro and micro level. You need to find the right general route up the mountain, and the right hand and foot holds on the cliff.

I don't think I preferred hockey to basketball and soccer because it is (slightly) more violent. It fit my physical talents better (I was a better skater than runner), and the speed was exhilarating. As far as whether the violence inherent in some sports is morally justifiable, I'm not sure. I certainly wouldn't object to eliminating the most violent sports, like boxing or mixed martial arts, or, possibly, even gridiron football. It seems that here in America we shouldn't fund school-boy football (which is by far the most expensive of our school sports), because it lacks the health benefits of other sports (it promotes obesity, for example), and causes a lot of injuries. If the schools stopped funding it, it would probably die a natural death (as the pros and University teams run out of trained players).

Have you read "Reflections on Gandhi" by George Orwell, Scher? Orwell posits that the Brits liked the fact that Gandhi was non-violent, and promoted his leadership in he Independence Movement because he posed less of a threat than more violent protesters. Orwell points out that non-violence of the Gandhian sort works only against somewhat moral regimes, and would have been worthless against Stalin or Hitler. In fact, the only time the Brits imprisoned Gandhi was during WW2, when his pacifism threatened the defense of India.

One interesting question is: When is violence justified? I recently read an article on the morality of war from a Christian perspective written by Oliver O'Donovan (the son of short story writer Frank O'Connor). He thinks self defense is an inadequate justification for violence, because Christians are called to turn the other cheek. Instead, he thinks that when the Christian virtue of "justice" is completely out of whack, violence may be the only way to restore it.

[Scheherazade]

Have you read "Reflections on Gandhi" by George Orwell, Scher? Orwell posits that the Brits liked the fact that Gandhi was non-violent, and promoted his leadership in he Independence Movement because he posed less of a threat than more violent protesters. Orwell points out that non-violence of the Gandhian sort works only against somewhat moral regimes, and would have been worthless against Stalin or Hitler. In fact, the only time the Brits imprisoned Gandhi was during WW2, when his pacifism threatened the defense of India. No, I haven't but just located it and will do so during holidays. Thank you for mentioning it.

I am not British and do not come from a "stiff-upper-lip" background. On the contrary, culturally and historically wars and fighting were indispensable to my background and I would not consider myself a passive person in general (think Mediterranean!). I still find the whole idea of having "fun" through violence upsetting but I do see your point regarding the thrill of rough and tumble in certain cases while I may not be go seeking for that kind of thrill myself.

[Pompey Bum]

When I was a boy I loved playing baseball, partly because I found it a suspenseful game of the potential and partly because loving baseball is just what American boys did in those days--local kids, unsupervised, cussin' and spittin' while the Gemini rocket-ships roared over us. It sounds like a Lord of the Flies scenario, but there was no real violence unless a fist fight broke out (and that seldom happened). We slid hard at the second baseman to try to break up double plays, but that was about it. Pitchers didn't have enough control to throw at a batter (they were lucky to get the ball over the plate). If anyone had tried something like that, the rest of is would have beat the sh*t out of him--that's about as violent as we got.

I liked fishing as a kid, too, which was more violent than baseball. I can still clean fish, although I now find it gross--in those days it was just part of being a boy. The fishing in Massachusetts was perennially lousy, but I used to spend my summers in Iowa, which was like Eden in those days (nowadays it's more like Darcon), and the fishing was spectacular. One time my grampa asked me if I wanted to learn to hunt, too, and I told him no.

I loved mountain climbing as a teenager and young man, in part because it wasn't competitive (which I didn't respect) except against myself (which I did). Mountain climbing is still an important metaphor for me in my love of literature--especially long books. The kiddies ask me why I don't read short books, or easy books, or "fun" books about make-believe worlds. I ask them if they have ever climbed mountains and whether they find the easy trails or the hard ones more interesting. The bright ones usually stop right there.

I loved to swim in those days, too, but only as play and exercise--never to show that I could get to the other side first. (I understand that most people strongly disagree with me, but in my humble opinion "our Olympic heroes" are a bunch of spoiled wankers who differ from Lindsey Lohan primarily in that they don't get drunk as much. I know they "work" a lot harder, but I'm not really convinced what they do really counts as work). Anyway, the competitive aspect of swimming was less meaningful to me than the pleasure of a wholly nonviolent sport. It was also fun to check out the girls.

These days, I have more appreciation for the importance of competition in our kind of society (and I understand that competitive sports serve as a kind of indoctrination of children, for better or worse, to prepare them for it). And I certainly respect the right of self-defense or even (rarely and with extreme prudence) what Augustine called a "just war." But that's not the same as a love of violence--far from it. Violence and especially war constitute the reign of hell on earth. That hasn't changed since there have been people here. And still we have war.

[Ecurb]

(I understand that most people strongly disagree with me, but in my humble opinion "our Olympic heroes" are a bunch of spoiled wankers who differ from Lindsey Lohan primarily in that they don't get drunk as much. I know they "work" a lot harder, but I'm not really convinced what they do really counts as work). Anyway, the competitive aspect of swimming was less meaningful to me than the pleasure of a wholly nonviolent sport. It was also fun to check out the girls.

These days, I have more appreciation for the importance of competition in our kind of society (and I understand that competitive sports serve as a kind of indoctrination of children, for better or worse, to prepare them for it). .

The world of sports is replete with worship of the Protestant and Capitalist work ethic -- the notion being that moral diligence and hard work lead to victory. Anyone who has ever played sports knows this is a bit silly. Of course hard work helps athletes succeed -- but natural talent is probably more important to athletic success than it is to success in most other human endeavors. How else can we explain how 20-25 year-olds are often the best athletes in the world? Not many 20 year olds are great doctors or great novelists (although T.S. Eliot did write Prufrock at age 20).

Strangely, I was never particularly competitive in other, less artificial endeavors. I went to competitive college, where my fellow students competed fiercely for grades, but I never cared about them. I wasn't particularly competitive in my business career. There was something about the artificial nature of sports (and games) that fueled my competitive juices. I could condone my own competitive urges BECAUSE the outcome was meaningless, and I didn't really think that victory made me better than anyone else. The competition, in other words, was pure -- uncontaminated by egotism.

p.s. At the top levels of both rock climbing and mountaineering, the climbers are fiercely competitive and almost ego-maniacal, as anyone who has ever read any of Reinhold Messner's books can confirm.

[Pompey Bum]

The world of sports is replete with worship of the Protestant and Capitalist work ethic -- the notion being that moral diligence and hard work lead to victory.

Yes, and many things besides. In our times, the lesson that children are most indoctrinated in is that "coach" is an inviolable figure who must be protected at all costs. And Coach (who let's face it, becomes the CEO after the kiddies grow up) always tells the truth (that is, the team's truth), even when he or she is patently lying. Publicly, for instance, Coach makes speeches about how it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. And *sniff sniff* isn't that just Coach and, yes, what a profound truth to tell, even though in the locker room, where a different sort of truth is told, it turns out that winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. And that's equally true because Coach said both things. And even if it weren't true, those who go against are not tolerated by other team members because it was coach who let you on the team in the first place while others were cut, you b*stard. It's wrong to talk about Coach like that because the truth is that Coach loves you, even if it's also true that Coach would cut you if you couldn't score.

Unanimity, uniformity, and the sacrifice of truth and humanity for the corporate good. This is all about the working world that beckons--for those who have learned the rules. Some may have to serve in the military first, but it doesn't matter. The rules are just the same.


At the top levels of both rock climbing and mountaineering, the climbers are fiercely competitive and almost ego-maniacal, as anyone who has ever read any of Reinhold Messner's books can confirm.

True enough, although all I ever did was to schlep through the Presidentials with a load of other 1970s groovies. But I remember the now-legendary climber Joe Simpson talking (in his movie) about how the elites of the mountaineering world had pretty much shunned him for breaking the unwritten rule when he cut Simon Yates rope. And I remember thinking that it's a funny sport in which the opinion of the other athletes determines your status in the field. But to your point, yes, I'm sure they're as insufferable as the Olympians. "Ego-maniacal" probably doesn't do them justice.

[Ecurb]

Yes, and many things besides. In our times, the lesson that children are most indoctrinated in is that "coach" is an inviolable figure who must be protected at all costs. And Coach (who let's face it, becomes the CEO after the kiddies grow up) always tells the truth (that is, the team's truth), even when he or she is patently lying. Publicly, for instance, Coach makes speeches about how it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. And *sniff sniff* isn't that just Coach and, yes, what a profound truth to tell, even though in the locker room, where a different sort of truth is told, it turns out that winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. And that's equally true because Coach said both things. And even if it weren't true, those who go against are not tolerated by other team members because it was coach who let you on the team in the first place while others were cut, you b*stard. It's wrong to talk about Coach like that because the truth is that Coach loves you, even if it's also true that Coach would cut you if you couldn't score.

.

In general, you're correct. But there are exceptions. My first year out of college I got a job as assistant hockey coach at another University. It wasn't much of a job -- I was paid as a teaching assistant, and I could take graduate courses for free. The first thing the head coach said to me when I showed up for work (I was 21), was, "We have a great group of kids on this team. They'd skate through a wall if I told them to."

Of course I thought, "They sound like morons to me." Needless to say, the "kids" (some of whom were older than I) and I got along great, but I only lasted one season with the head coach. My own college hockey coach was anti-authoritarian and believed in empowering the players in all kinds of decision making -- from who played on which line to which tactics we would use on the power play. That was my coaching ideal. If we're going to have college sports (especially small college sports, which don't give scholarships and are not training grounds for professional athletes) surely they should be educational. Let the darned quarterback call the plays in football! It's called amateurism!

Also, I don't think athletes are any more "insufferable" than non-athletes. It's true that many of them have an inflated idea of the personal value of being good at a silly sport, and some have bought in to the protestant ethic that hard work and success are signs of moral superiority -- but non-athletes have strange notions, too. Some even think that reading lots of novels makes them better than non-readers, shocking as that may sound!

As far as whether participation in violent sports promotes violent behavior off the field, I have no idea if it does or not. Obviously athletes might be slightly more violent, just because of the rational belief that if they do fight they probably won't get beat up. I imagine that question could be answered statistically, but I don't know the answer.

[Pompey Bum]

Also, I don't think athletes are any more "insufferable" than non-athletes. It's true that many of them have an inflated idea of the personal value of being good at a silly sport, and some have bought in to the protestant ethic that hard work and success are signs of moral superiority -- but non-athletes have strange notions, too. Some even think that reading lots of novels makes them better than non-readers, shocking as that may sound!

Pas moi, mon frere. Insufferable? Why to know me is to suffer! :)


As far as whether participation in violent sports promotes violent behavior off the field, I have no idea if it does or not. Obviously athletes might be slightly more violent, just because of the rational belief that if they do fight they probably won't get beat up. I imagine that question could be answered statistically, but I don't know the answer.

I don't know the statistical answer (and suspect that the sample size of professional athletes wouldn't provide much power in any case). But I do note that when the kind of money that is at stake in stadium after stadium of $50-$150 seats is concerned, "Coach" (the corporate variety) can achieve remarkable results with such violent crimes as rape (Kobe Bryant), extreme animal cruelty (Michael Vicks), and punching out your fiancee on an elevator (Ray Rice). My view is that this sort of violence occurs to some extent because elite athletes have learned over time that by uttering the familiar lies that Coach (the locker room variety) taught them about responsibility, they can often escape that very thing. The show--and the dough--must go on.

[Clopin]

I did boxing for awhile but it was mostly a cardio thing. I still want to learn to fight so I can graduate from just being an internet tough guy though.

[Ecurb]

[I] But I do note that when the kind of money that is at stake in stadium after stadium of $50-$150 seats is concerned, "Coach" (the corporate variety) can achieve remarkable results with such violent crimes as rape (Kobe Bryant), extreme animal cruelty (Michael Vicks), and punching out your fiancee on an elevator (Ray Rice). My view is that this sort of violence occurs to some extent because elite athletes have learned over time that by uttering the familiar lies that Coach (the locker room variety) taught them about responsibility, they can often escape that very thing. The show--and the dough--must go on.

And why not? What does the moral virtue of the players have to do with the entertainment they provide on the field? Should we really go back to the days when Americans boycotted Ingrid Bergman films because she was having an adulterous affair?

Of course athletics sets itself up for this kind of criticism by suggesting that the moral, Protestant values of hard work are necessary for success, and conflating success with virtue. Nonetheless, other public entertainers (rock stars, actors, etc.) are hardly moral paragons. Why should we expect it of athletes?

From the league's perspective, all publicity is good publicity. The NFL postures about its lack of tolerance for beating up women, or participating in dog fighting, or child abuse; the television bloviators (whose jobs depend upon the league's success) profess outrage. The fans, therefore, are allowed to feel as morally superior as the commentators, and the games go on. The NFL is not a church; its players are not hypocrites when they do illegal stuff -- the league is hypocritical when it panders to public values with harsh punishments for offenders. It can only do this because it is an (probably) illegal monopoly. If there was a competing league, Rice and Peterson would be playing in it.

[NikolaiI]

Ecurb, Emil, and PB, if I may, I would propose a little different avenue of discussion;

1) domestic violence,
2) how we heal from the scars of violence
3) how we break the cycles of violence. . .
4) how can we engage in peace work?

To me, this is far more important than discussing sports - at least. . . it is of more interest to me.

Understanding human nature; breaking the cycles of violence; healing and growing and learning how to not continue them. . replacing seeds of violence and patterns of violence. . . this has been my life's work, and it's very rewarding. The rewards, the fruits of this, are really limitless. Because if you start that journey, eventually you reach a place where you share peace, and you do great good. . .

It's not the only thing I'm interested in - sure, I'm also interested in chess, reaching a master rating, of poetry, of philosophy, all of that kind of thing.

But how would you address the real issue of domestic violence and that type of thing?

I am only speaking from experience. . . I would encourage you to enlist your help wherever it's possible.


I know a family - they're fairly poor. . . society cuts poor people off - in some cases even geographically. In other cases. . .

Sometimes its worse, sometimes its better - but I can tell you this; one of the main things I've observed is that these people don't think they have any friends, they don't know there're are good people out there. . .

So I would say, if you do peace work, that's the best kind of work. . . and the good you can do is immeasurable - how can you really measure the value of if you save one family from despair, from violence and pain? One child?

Trust me, it's worth it.

So - just those questions. . . How do we heal society, and individuals in society, from the cycles of violence?

Anyway . . I consider this peace work . . and the first one, of course, is healing yourself. . and from there, you can help heal others. . - which, all you need to do, is simply be there, give your attention. . sharing happiness and peace with people, because then they get so much more from that - it benefits them so, so very much, when you look at them like they're good, real, people, and. . yes. It's good.

“Because you are alive, everything is possible.”

“The source of love is deep in us and we can help others realize a lot of happiness. One word, one action, one thought can reduce another person’s suffering and bring that person joy.”

“Root out the violence in your life, and learn to live compassionately and mindfully. Seek peace. When you have peace within, real peace with others is possible.”

“The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. When mindfulness embraces those we love, they will bloom like flowers.”

“I am inviting you to go deeper, to learn and to practice so that you become someone who has a great capacity for being solid, calm, and without fear, because our society needs people like you who have these qualities, and your children, our children, need people like you, in order to go on, in order to become solid, and calm, and without fear.”

"It never helps to draw a line and dismiss some people as enemies, even those who act violently. We have to approach them with love in our hearts and do our best to help them move in a direction of nonviolence. If we work for peace out of anger, we will never succeed. Peace is not an end. It can never come about through non-peaceful means.”

“If we are peaceful, if we are happy, we can smile and blossom like a flower, and everyone in our family, our entire society, will benefit from our peace.”

“If in our daily life we can smile, if we can be peaceful and happy, not only we, but everyone will profit from it. This is the most basic kind of peace work.”

“A human being is like a television set with millions of channels. We cannot let just one channel dominate us. We have the seed of everything in us, and we have to recover our own sovereignty.”

“From time to time, to remind ourselves to relax and be peaceful, we may wish to set aside some time for a retreat, a day of mindfulness, when we can walk slowly, smile, drink tea with a friend, enjoy being together as if we are the happiest people on Earth.”

I am giving these quotes not because I can't say them, but because I think they're already said very well, and I just wish to share them. I consider Thich Nhat Hanh, to be one of the most effective teachers of peace in the world. .

I share some of these quotes because I've seen them work. . . I've never seen anything work better, actually.

I consider Tara Brach to be rather essential, as well.


Hanh's approach to life and peace work, is also reflected in Ram Dass, Rumi, and so many others. . . I could give a list that's dozens of people. . but the real key is the effectiveness of the teachings. . . I've never seen anything as effective at uprooting the seeds of suffering, and replacing them with seeds of happiness, strength, and peacefulness. . .

Anyway, I've given my life to understanding these questions, I hope this offering is of some value and benefit. I can't express these things well - I can't write it as well as Shelley, or Goethe, all I can really do is say what ideas have been the most powerful to overcoming pain, suffering, fear, violence and the rest, and wish you the best. . .and also, encourage you, hopefully, to work for peace in the world; because what's better than that? My father's father and mother's mother died from alcoholism, and although I've experienced about every level on the spectrum of consciousness, as Watts says, "When you get the message, hang up the phone."


“If you love someone, the greatest gift you can give them is your presence”

And it's so funny, how Ram Dass says the same thing. . . and where else. . there is at least one other place I've seen it said, that to give someone all of your attention is the best way to show your love for them. . . it may have been another Zen master. . I suppose, not terribly important.

But as Ram Dass says, the best thing I can do for you is to have no expectations. . .

Sorry. I do ramble on at times.


Here is the source of those quotes, http://www.uth.tmc.edu/pathology/hematopathology/Nguyen/TNH-Quotes-2.htm

Although hearing this master talk is wonderful. . . and Tara Brach's audio recordings, are rather more prolific and a little more organized, and in many ways, completely equally effective and sometimes more. . . like, there's almost nothing more liberating than the beauty of a brilliant, devoted, practical, kind, compassionate, and patient mind of someone who is devoted to it, sharing their insights and understandings. . .

Sometimes I leave out thoughts.

About Ram Dass' statement - to have no expectations, allow you space to be yourself, without my projections, etc., etc.

[Pompey Bum]

And why not? What does the moral virtue of the players have to do with the entertainment they provide on the field? Should we really go back to the days when Americans boycotted Ingrid Bergman films because she was having an adulterous affair?

With respect, I am not suggesting that sports enthusiasts should boycott games, but that athletes (and others) who commit violent crimes should be chucked in the clink for it; and that certain elite athletes who commit such crimes may do so with an understanding that they may be able to beat the rap (as Bryant did), or at least resume their incomes (as Vicks has done and Rice appears to be doing); in short that the rules do not apply to them.


Nonetheless, other public entertainers (rock stars, actors, etc.) are hardly moral paragons. Why should we expect it of athletes?

Rock stars and actors should go to prison, too, if they beat or rape women or torture animals.


The NFL is not a church; its players are not hypocrites when they do illegal stuff -- the league is hypocritical when it panders to public values with harsh punishments for offenders.

So if they're doing "illegal stuff," as you say, then why aren't they in prison? And if that "stuff" involves violence to women and animal abuse, then wouldn't you say that "harsh punishments" are called for--or at least the somewhat milder punishment of being deprived of their source of wealth? How would you say most employers would handle it if an employee committed a felony--especially one that involved a violent assault on a woman or the violent abuse of animals?

[NikolaiI]

Pleasant.

[Ecurb]

With respect, I am not suggesting that sports enthusiasts should boycott games, but that athletes (and others) who commit violent crimes should be chucked in the clink for it; and that certain elite athletes who commit such crimes may do so with an understanding that they may be able to beat the rap (as Bryant did), or at least resume their incomes (as Vicks has done and Rice appears to be doing); in short that the rules do not apply to them.


Rock stars and actors should go to prison, too, if they beat or rape women or torture animals.

So if they're doing "illegal stuff," as you say, then why aren't they in prison? And if that "stuff" involves violence to women and animal abuse, then wouldn't you say that they deserve "harsh punishments"--or at least the somewhat less harsh punishment of being deprived of their source of wealth? How would you say most employers would handle it if an employee committed a felony--especially one that involved a violent assault on a woman or the violent abuse of animals?

Neither Kobe Bryant nor (I think, I'm not sure) Rice were convicted of felonies. They may (or may not) have committed felonies. Vick was convicted of a felony and spent time in prison. In any event, I support strong unions -- and surely a good union wouldn't allow its members to be fired for crimes for which they were never convicted, or for misdemeanors. It seems to me the punishment must come from society -- not from a sports league.

As to whether we as a society are too lenient on criminals -- well, we have placed more than 2 million citizens in prison right now. It's a horror and a travesty. I don't think too much leniency on the part of the courts is a major problem in the U.S., what with ridiculous mandatory sentencing laws and death penalties.

One more point: I'm not sure that "violent assault on a woman" is SO much more horrible than violent assault on a man. Chivalry demands we think so -- but chivalry is sexist. Actually, men are more likely to be the victims of ALL violent crimes except rape. Murder. assault, armed robbery: the victims are primarily men. Violent assault is violent assault, and although it is less chivalrous to assault a woman than to assault a man, both are equally criminal. I sometimes think that if Ray Rice had cold cocked a man in the elevator, football fans would admire him for it.


Ecurb, Emil, and PB, if I may, I would propose a little different avenue of discussion;

1) domestic violence,
2) how we heal from the scars of violence
3) how we break the cycles of violence. . .
4) how can we engage in peace work?
.

If I knew the answers to any of your questions, you may be certain I would speak up. But I don't.

[Scheherazade]

And another aspect: Is violence a learnt behaviour or inherit in us?

I can see that we can argue for both but I am really curious as to which way you find yourselves leaning towards more.

[Ecurb]

And another aspect: Is violence a learnt behaviour or inherit in us?

I can see that we can argue for both but I am really curious as to which way you find yourselves leaning towards more.

It's clear the we have a propensity for violence, as do other mammals, particularly males. Nonetheless, if we look at societies around the world, there are major differences in how violent the members are. That suggests that violent behavior is either learned, or, at least, culturally accepted in some societies, and not in others. I'm sure that anthropologists have commented on the variation, but I don't know a citation off hand. Colin Turnbull's famous ethnography "The Forest People" portrays Pygmies as non-violent; the other end of the spectrum might be represented by the Yanamamo, as described by Napoleon Chagnon.

[NikolaiI]

And another aspect: Is violence a learnt behaviour or inherit in us?

I can see that we can argue for both but I am really curious as to which way you find yourselves leaning towards more.

Well, the books I've mentioned elsewhere, both Dragons of Eden, and the one he and his wife wrote 15 years later, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, I think are rather excellent for understanding how these things are inherent in us - our similarities and differences from the other animals can often give some insight into our own situation. .

But for the most part I would say they are learned behaviors. . . It's also interesting to note that, from the perspective of psychology, I believe it's fairly well-documented, that for most issues, each generation has a general trend of it being less. . . for instance, alcoholism, abuse, that sort of thing. . Not in every case, of course, but as a general trend. It certainly seems true from my observations.

Also, Steven Pinker makes an interesting case for the idea that violence is on the decline over the last few thousand years. . .

from Ted Talks;
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en


[books mentioned, by Carl Sagan]

[Pompey Bum]

Neither Kobe Bryant nor (I think, I'm not sure) Rice were convicted of felonies. They may (or may not) have committed felonies. Vick was convicted of a felony and spent time in prison.

Vick was convicted on federal charges after he was determined to have promoted and funded a dog fighting operation on his property, including brutalizing, hanging, and drowning dogs independent of the actual fighting. He served 21-months in prison and two months of home confinement. After some challenges he resumed his career and has made a lot of people a lot of money.

Rice was indicted on third-degree assault charges, a felony in New Jersey, after beating his fiancée unconscious on an elevator. A security video camera captured the knock out punch, and shows him dragging her body partially through the door of the elevator, leaving her with the crotch of her panties exposed to all comers. Criminal charges for the assault were later dropped when Rice agreed to participate in court supervised counseling. After some legal challenges, he is now able to resume his career, promising to make a lot of people a lot of money.

Bryant was arrested on a felony charge of raping a 19-year-old hotel employee (with whom he admitted having had consensual but adulterous sex) but criminal charges were later dismissed when his accuser refused to testify upon learning that Bryant's attorney planned to expose her pharmaceutical history as part of his defense. Bryant later settled civil charges with his accuser out of court.

As you have said, he may or may not have raped her. We have a legal presumption of innocence in the United States, of course, which has allowed Bryant to make himself and many other people a lot of money in the years since the case.

I understand all that. What I am asking you is for your personal opinion about these cases--as someone who has recently listed "honor, honesty, courage and fortitude" as traits that he grows impatient to find lacking in other men:

In the case of Michael Vick, do you believe that 21 months in prison was a fair sentence for five years of torturing and killing dogs for profit and (apparent) pleasure? Do you think that Vick's status as an elite athlete could have led him to believe that he would not be held fully accountable for his actions? In your opinion, was he held fully accountable?

In the case of Ray Rice, do you believe that his status as an elite athlete could have led him to believe that he would not be held fully accountable for his actions? In your opinion, was he held fully accountable?

In the case of Kobe Bryant, do you believe that his status as an elite athlete could have led him to believe that he would not be held fully accountable for his actions? In your opinion, was he held fully accountable?

Honor, honesty, courage and fortitude are profoundly worthy traits, and I fully agree with you that they should be included on a list of masculine (or feminine) virtues. I call on you now to stand by their truth.

[Ecurb]

Since you ask (and since I'll write long, rambling posts about practically anything), I think Michael Vick's sentence was about right. What purpose would be served in throwing away the key? Dog fighting may seem horrible to many of us, but in many cultures (and sub cultures, including, maybe, Vick's) it has been accepted. I don't see how Vick violated the manly virtues I mentioned by participating in dog fighting. I mean knights -- the most manly of men -- would challenge random strangers to fight to the death. That's disgusting behavior, but not dishonorable, dishonest, cowardly or lacking in fortitude, by the standards of knighthood.

Rice (based on your post) was never convicted of a felony (though we all saw him slug his fiance). It's horrible to slug your fiance, or anybody else's fiance, for that matter, but I think the prosecution's decisions seem reasonable.

I don't have a good grip on whether Kobe Bryant raped that girl in Colorado. He's clearly an egotistical jerk, whose own teammates dislike him. Nonetheless, so was Lancelot du Lac, in some respects. None of the manly virtues I mentioned are violated by being an egotistical jerk, although other mores may be. I'm not sure why you mention them with regard to these three cases. How have these particular perpetrators transgressed against them -- I understand how they have transgressed other moral principles?

No, I don't believe that Rice felt entitled to slug his fiance because he was an athlete. If anything, the fact that he is a public figure would serve to make him more circumspect. My guess: if Ray Rice weren't a pro athlete, he would be just as likely, if not more likely, to slug people. Same with Bryant, although perhaps the strange ego-mania his athletic success has engendered led him to believe that the woman wanted to have sex with him when she didn't.

Obviously, if Bryant raped the girl, and lied about doing so, he violated the principles of honor and honesty -- but considering that he is then also a rapist, his violation of these manly principles is hardly his worst sin.

Felons in this country are disenfranchised (since almost half of young black men have been convicted of felonies it is the new Jim Crow law). Prisons are packed with offenders. I disapprove of Ray Rice's and Michael Vick's behavior -- but I also believe in forgiveness and I believe people can change their behavior. Sending people to prison appears to change their behavior for the worse, as soon as they get out.

Rice's crime was a spur of the moment thing: he wasn't beating up his fiance regularly, they got in a fight and he slugged her. It's the mistake of a moment, although it may reflect a rotten moral essence. Nonetheless, because it was not premeditated it's nowhere near as evil as murdering people with drones, or torturing prisoners. (I'll admit that watching Rice drag his fiance out of the elevator made it seem that he was not shocked by his own behavior, which may mean that he was a repeat offender, but we can't be sure about that.)

[Pompey Bum]

i'll write long, rambling posts about practically anything)

Now I can respect. :)

But I think you missed my point about the virtues in question. I was calling on you to own up to the virtues you had lately attributed to yourself rather than to dodge questions or change the subject, as you seemed (to me) to be doing in your previous post--not assess Ray Rice's fortitude and courage in punching out his fiancée, or to defend Michael Vick's animal abuse on the grounds that manly knights did it, too. (That was a spoof, right? You were teasing me. :) )

Anyway, your post was funny, and I accept that you believe at least a few the rather silly things you said with, well, fortitude. Surely it took courage to say some of them. :) Where honesty and honor are concerned, though, I suspect you know perfectly well that hanging dogs for fun is always wrong, and that it doesn't matter if an African American millionaire does it, or a middle class Uighur, or a déclassé Balt. And that drone attacks could never justify beating up your girl friend. But okay, we get to disagree, at least on the stuff you're being serious about.

I was a little surprised you were so hard on Kobe Bryant, by the way, since he is the only one of the three who might actually not have done it. I don't follow this stuff, so I have no idea who the egotistical jerks are. Letting Vick (and apparently Sir Gawain) off the hook because of their cultural background is called "situational ethics." I don't know what it's called for frying someone for being a you don't like his image on ESPN.

And for the sake of the mythopoetic record, my vague recollection of the claim against Bryant (before the lady ran in fear from his lawyer) was that she had said yes, then changed her mind at the last possible moment, and he had begged to differ. I may be making that up (and if I'm not, who even knows if she was telling the truth?), but that's my memory. I'm glad to hear he's an egotistical jerk, though. It makes me feel better about thinking he's a rapist.

Okay, that's it. Thanks for having at least half an *ss to answer my questions. I suppose that's a kind of manly virtue. Snoopy says you suck, though. :)

[Ecurb]

Well, I warned you that my last post was going to be "rambling", Pompey. However, your last post is just as rambling, so I'm not quite sure what your objections are. I'll wing it.

I do know that "that hanging dogs for fun is always wrong". But I don't think that's what Michael Vick did. Based on my memory of the case, he hanged one dog because he wanted to kill it. Since, as a society, we kill hundreds of dogs every day -- including healthy dogs that are killed simply because nobody wants them as pets -- killing dogs that nobody wants is, whether evil or not, at least a normal practice in our society. A dog that is trained as a fighting dog and isn't good at its job is probably not a good pet. "Hanging" sounds vicious -- but the result is no different from lethal injection. Do I think Inuits who kill and eat a dog who is too injured to continue pulling the sled are evil? No. It's horrible, of course, but not evil.

Second, I think the "manly" virtues I listed are minor virtues (excepting "honor" which is nebulous), and men are often disparaged for lacking those virtues when, in fact, they have done no such thing. I've heard many TV commentators say, "Hitting a woman is cowardly." Huh? How is hitting a woman cowardly? It's true that hitting a woman (generally) takes less courage than hitting, say, one of the Klitschko brothers (heavy weight champions), but many things that don't involve "courage" one way or the other are not "cowardly". One egregious example of this was when G.W. Bush called the terrorists on 9/11 "cowardly". Needless (I hope) to say, those terrorists were extremely courageous. Almost the only thing we knew about them at the time is that they were no cowards. I assume Bush wanted to call them "cowards" because he didn't want to admit they possessed the one "virtue" they obviously did possess. (I'm not saying that you are guilty of this misuse of the language, Pompey. I'm just making a general point.)

I disagree that my position overvalues "situational ethics". Situational ethics (to me) involve the notion that the context of an act is important in evaluating it ethically. I don't see how anyone can object to evaluating the context of an act. It seems to me that my position is based on the notion that ethics are culturally constituted. It's reasonable to think that societies that promote dog fighting are morally flawed. However (I think) it's not reasonable to think that those members involved in dog fighting are horribly evil. We all think that slavery is an evil practice; I don't believe that all the citizens of ancient Athens were unspeakably evil people. We probably are all guilty of behaviors that might be considered evil 300 years from now -- burning fossil fuels; eating meat; who knows what else. But today only the most self-righteous of vegans thinks anyone who eats meat is horribly evil.

Here's a "situation": suppose you're riding in an elevator, arguing with a friend. He suddenly attacks you. You slug him. Of course, you shouldn't have slugged him, especially if you are considerably bigger and stronger than he is. Nonetheless, your spur-of-the-moment reaction is hardly unforgivable. These are, of course, the (possible) facts in the Rice case (as reported by both Rices; the video is consistent with them but 'skips' too much to confirm the initial attack), except that the original attacker was a woman. Obviously, Rice is guilty of bad behavior, but I don't think he is necessarily an evil person.

Regarding dog fighting: What little I know about it, I've learned from reading "Bandit: Dossier of a Dangerous Dog" by Vicki Hearne. For anyone interested in dogs, I highly recommend this book, and Hearne's other book, "Animal Happiness". Her essay from Animal Happiness "Oyez a Beaumont" was reprinted in some collection of "Best Essays of the Century" I looked at recently, and the title refers to a scene in "The Once and Future King" (since we've been talking about knights). "Bandit" is the story of a pit bull who bit someone, and whom Hearne saves from execution by training and testifying. There are many digressions in the book, including a great one in which Hearne argues that the Eutruscan statue of Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she wolf actually depicts not a wolf, but a pit bull. If you've seen the statue, or a picture of it, it's obvious Hearne is correct. Look at the ears.

In any event, Hearne is not a proponent of dog fighting, but she has a grudging admiration for it. According to Hearne, the dog fighting men are real dog lovers -- admiring, in dogs, those manly virtues of courage and fortitude. The same is true for other blood sports. Bullfighting afficianados admire the "nobility" (i.e. courage and fortitude) of the bull. Obviously, both bullfighting and dog fighting are cruel sports -- but so is hunting, so is slaughtering animals for food, and so is executing homeless dogs (except that the last two aren't "sports").

[Pompey Bum]

It's okay. It's fine to disagree. Merry Christmas, Ecurb. :)

[Ecurb]

Merry Christmas, Pompey! Good posting, and happy new year.