The Syria Issue: Your Personal Stance Is Much Appreciated

[Richard Falken]

When will they ever learn violence solves nothing, no matter who is doing it or why.

In our province we had a criminal gang. A band of hooded people had them beaten and made then leave the city. The incident never made it to the media.

Violence solved the problem for the neighbors, thus "Violence solves nothing" is proven to be an inaccurate statement.

Regards.

 

[Meadow337]

In our province we had a criminal gang. A band of hooded people had them beaten and made then leave the city. The incident never made it to the media.

Violence solved the problem for the neighbors, thus "Violence solves nothing" is proven to be an inaccurate statement.

Regards.

Vigilantism is against the law and if those 'concerned citizens' are reported, identified, and arrested how did that solve anything? Because now their families just have another worse problem to deal with.

How did it solve anything with the gang? All they were taught is that next time they need to be harder, tougher, rougher and the next bunch of people they harass are going to be worse off.

So no my opinion still stands - all they did was make things worse.

 

[Richard Falken]

I think you miss the point.

No matter things went for the worse or not. The people who used violence to solve their problem solved it. Even if they were identified, and a world of trouble fell upon them, the problem is solved. Even if those gangs learned and grew stronger in other city, their problem is solved. No more gang activity reported in the city for several years? That must be a super-outcome from the vigilantes' point of view.

Examples of this can be found if you want to check them. A thief on the run with some megabucks is ran over by a police van -the theft is solved. Thieves of chickens are found in the village, get hit with sticks, leave the town, no more chickens disappear. The problem for chicken owners has been solved.

In fact, whether it creates more trouble or not, it does not matter for demonstrating violence is used precisely because it has problem solving capabilities.

 

[Meadow337]

I think you miss the point.

No matter things went for the worse or not. The people who used violence to solve their problem solved it. Even if they were identified, and a world of trouble fell upon them, the problem is solved. Even if those gangs learned and grew stronger in other city, their problem is solved. No more gang activity reported in the city for several years? That must be a super-outcome from the vigilantes' point of view.

Examples of this can be found if you want to check them. A thief on the run with some megabucks is ran over by a police van -the theft is solved. Thieves of chickens are found in the village, get hit with sticks, leave the town, no more chickens disappear. The problem for chicken owners have been solved.

In fact, whether it creates more trouble or not, it does not matter for demonstrating violence is used precisely because it has problem solving capabilities.

Well I truly do not regard a temporary and wrong outcome as any kind of solution. The only thing any one is learning is how to use violence and to use more violence. All that happens is that the violence escalates.

There are far better and more effective long term solutions, but if you want to believe that bashing some one over the head with a stick works then how do you feel about that method being applied to you? Fancy a bit of corporal punishment every time you do something wrong? No? Makes you feel powerless, angry, unjustly put upon, revengeful? Teaches you nothing about how to behave correctly? Makes you feel like the other person is just a bully? Needs to be hit back? Can't so you hit any one else back? Or perhaps it just teaches you to be a better wrong doer to avoid punishment (even though there are countless studies that prove it is no deterrent) Aah perhaps now we might to get to why neither violence nor violence against children disguised as 'discipline' works.

Perhaps you might want to do some research in to the long term psychological effects of violence in society. It might just change your mind.

 

[Richard Falken]

Well I truly do not regard a temporary and wrong outcome as any kind of solution.

Fair enough, but rightness or wrongness is not relevant for the discussion as it is. Plus, from the money owner point of view, if the thief is ran over by the police, that is not a temporary solution. The problem is "The money has been stolen", the solution is "The police brought the money back to me in a blood stained van".

but if you want to believe that bashing some one over the head with a stick works then how do you feel about that method being applied to you?

Irrelevant for the discussion.

Perhaps you might want to do some research in to the long term psychological effects of violence in society. It might just change your mind.

Just in case you have not noticed, because it does happen, I am not defending violence as a tool, but just pointing out that "Violence solves nothing" is an inaccurate statement.

Feel free to prove it otherwise.

 

[Meadow337]

Feel free to prove it otherwise.

Funnily enough I think I did

And the police wouldn't bring back the money - it would be held as evidence and you'd still have to claim against your insurance - so no - problem not solved and your premiums just went up

Killing one thief does nothing to help the others lined up behind him who are in the same socio-economic circumstances as he was - so again no - problem not solved.

Irrelevant for the discussion.

I don't actually happen to think so. Experience has taught me that people will hold tightly onto a belief so long as it is applied to some one else. Make it personal, make them think 'How would you feel if it was you this was being done to," and they often (although not always) gain a different perspective. A great many things are tolerated because of the belief that "it won't / can't happen to me." And a little bit of personalization of the issues helps people realise just how and why some things are wrong and / or should not be tolerated or voted into being.

Also people tend not to see things in the abstract. They tend to personalise things - yes run over the thief. If it was MY money I'd run over the $%^&$%^! If it was my mother, sister, aunty, wife, who was raped I'd go and castrate the miserable %^&*%& who did it, but there is little or no personalization of the flip side. What if the mob did carry out that kind of justice and you were wrongfully accused? What if it was consensual and now 'honour' dictates an accusation? Wouldn't you then cry out for rule of law and your chance to defend yourself? There is simply no way to add up the tally sheet on violence to come out on the side of 'solution or 'success' or 'right'.

So I will stick with my belief that violence solves nothing and in the process creates nothing but more victims and more problems.

 

[Richard Falken]

Experience has taught me that people will hold tightly onto a belief so long as it is applied to some one else. Make it personal, make them think 'How would you feel if it was you this was being done to," and they often (although not always) gain a different perspective. A great many things are tolerated because of the belief that "it won't / can't happen to me."

You are taking that I have not been there for granted.

Even if violence had been applied against me, no matter how bad it made me feel, if it achieved the objectives of the people who started it, it was a successful use of violence.

And the police wouldn't bring back the money - it would be held as evidence and you'd still have to claim against your insurance - so no - problem not solved and your premiums just went up.

Even if you proved any of my examples is not relevant, it still does not prove that violence solves nothing.

Furthermore, I have to check, but here you are likely to have the confiscated goods back (later than sooner, but back).

 

[Richard Falken]

My friendly legal advisor says:

"You are required to go to the police department and manifest the goods are yours.

(...)once the judicial process is over, evidences are returned intact to the owner"

So, you have your money back.

 

[SFG75]

If the Syrian artillery pieces are bombed, do any children get chemical shells lobbed at them? If there are no Syrian artillery officers due to them being killed or running from incoming shells and bombs, do the children suffocate due to sarin gas? Then, we have a solution. Then again perhaps *diplomacy* will prevail.

 

[sparkchaser]

I think it depends on who has the chemical weapons.

 

[Conscious Bob]

If the Syrian artillery pieces are bombed, do any children get chemical shells lobbed at them? If there are no Syrian artillery officers due to them being killed or running from incoming shells and bombs, do the children suffocate due to sarin gas? Then, we have a solution. Then again perhaps *diplomacy* will prevail.

I take it you're of the opinion that only the rebels have children?

 

[Bullyboy]

I'm sure it's been discussed already but I see it like when they were all fired to get rid of Saddam. He was a schmuck and committed major nastiness against humanity but...the country worked under him. Their economy was good n' basic society was safe. They got rid of him and now look at the country. The USA can't just come charging into Dodge to solve global situations...sometimes it makes things far worse.

 

[Meadow337]

I'm sure it's been discussed already but I see it like when they were all fired to get rid of Saddam. He was a schmuck and committed major nastiness against humanity but...the country worked under him. Their economy was good n' basic society was safe. They got rid of him and now look at the country. The USA can't just come charging into Dodge to solve global situations...sometimes it makes things far worse.

Ditto for Egypt.