- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
**Do you believe violence, more specifically murder, can be justified? Why or why not?
**Or do you believe that violence is never justifiable?
Let the debating begin!!!
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate
**Do you believe violence, more specifically murder, can be justified? Why or why not?
**Or do you believe that violence is never justifiable?
Let the debating begin!!!
- Time
- Post link
Ok... I believe that violence(let's just call it murder) is never justifiable because nothing can be gained from it.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
http://ttrim.blogspot.com
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
Self defense is always justified, in terms of personally...If someone were to attack me they'd probably wind up dead.
Self defense is always justified, in terms of personally...If someone were to attack me they'd probably wind up dead.
self defense, or defense of others...if someone were to attack me, they'd more likely end up severely beaten, then dead...if they were to attack my girl, or my kids they would most definately end up dead.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Devilman-1369
self defense, or defense of others...if someone were to attack me, they'd more likely end up severely beaten, then dead...if they were to attack my girl, or my kids they would most definately end up dead.
Originally posted by: JediSage
Self defense is always justified, in terms of personally...If someone were to attack me they'd probably wind up dead.
Self defense is always justified, in terms of personally...If someone were to attack me they'd probably wind up dead.
self defense, or defense of others...if someone were to attack me, they'd more likely end up severely beaten, then dead...if they were to attack my girl, or my kids they would most definately end up dead.
I stand corrected...you are right. My life, and the life of my family/loved ones. Absolutely.
http://ttrim.blogspot.com
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
As we look at history, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima remains justified, as the massive death was still paltry compared to the amount of death that would have been caused by a protracted invasion of Japan. Sometimes violence is supported by bean counting. Doesn't mean we will rest easy with the thought, and it doesn't mean the afterlife will be any kinder to us for making those kinds of decisions, but this is perhaps the ultimate example that answers the question.
As we look at history, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima remains justified, as the massive death was still paltry compared to the amount of death that would have been caused by a protracted invasion of Japan. Sometimes violence is supported by bean counting. Doesn't mean we will rest easy with the thought, and it doesn't mean the afterlife will be any kinder to us for making those kinds of decisions, but this is perhaps the ultimate example that answers the question.
Wow ADM, you're scaring me lately!
We're in a golden age of agreement!I had a neighbor quite a while ago who was among the "on the ground" troops who went to Nagasaki (I believe) shortly after the surrender. He had terrible pain in his joints from the exposure and he saw it first hand.
I can't even imagine how terrible it was, but I too believe it was necessary to bring about a faster end to the war, especially considering that the Japanese military was arming women and children for the invasion of the mainland.
Where I believe we may differ is that it is my opinion, that in order to preserve peace we must always be prepared for war. We must maintain the strongest military on the planet (they must train for war, not dig ditches in Lousiana), and sadly must keep terrible, terrible weapons at our disposal. But as the eagle emblem shows, we must have the arrow in one talon, and an olive branch in the other.
http://ttrim.blogspot.com
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
As we look at history, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima remains justified, as the massive death was still paltry compared to the amount of death that would have been caused by a protracted invasion of Japan. Sometimes violence is supported by bean counting. Doesn't mean we will rest easy with the thought, and it doesn't mean the afterlife will be any kinder to us for making those kinds of decisions, but this is perhaps the ultimate example that answers the question.
As we look at history, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima remains justified, as the massive death was still paltry compared to the amount of death that would have been caused by a protracted invasion of Japan. Sometimes violence is supported by bean counting. Doesn't mean we will rest easy with the thought, and it doesn't mean the afterlife will be any kinder to us for making those kinds of decisions, but this is perhaps the ultimate example that answers the question.
Your argument may be that a lesser evil can be justified by a greater good, but isn't NO evil the greatest good of all?
- Time
- Post link
Where I believe we may differ is that it is my opinion, that in order to preserve peace we must always be prepared for war. We must maintain the strongest military on the planet (they must train for war, not dig ditches in Lousiana), and sadly must keep terrible, terrible weapons at our disposal. But as the eagle emblem shows, we must have the arrow in one talon, and an olive branch in the other.
Amen, and well said. I would add that one must be prepared not just to wage war, but to wage it in such a way that the enemy is met with overwhelming force. If a potential enemy is assured of their destruction when diplomacy fails, they are far more likely to acquiesce. Of course, if self-preservation is a low priority (as it is with Iraqi insurgents and other terrorist types), then death becomes less of a deterrent.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Your argument may be that a lesser evil can be justified by a greater good, but isn't NO evil the greatest good of all?
In a perfect society, of course it is.Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
As we look at history, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima remains justified, as the massive death was still paltry compared to the amount of death that would have been caused by a protracted invasion of Japan. Sometimes violence is supported by bean counting. Doesn't mean we will rest easy with the thought, and it doesn't mean the afterlife will be any kinder to us for making those kinds of decisions, but this is perhaps the ultimate example that answers the question.
As we look at history, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima remains justified, as the massive death was still paltry compared to the amount of death that would have been caused by a protracted invasion of Japan. Sometimes violence is supported by bean counting. Doesn't mean we will rest easy with the thought, and it doesn't mean the afterlife will be any kinder to us for making those kinds of decisions, but this is perhaps the ultimate example that answers the question.
Your argument may be that a lesser evil can be justified by a greater good, but isn't NO evil the greatest good of all?
However, we do not live in a perfect society. There will always be evil in our world.
Evil would win out if it were not for the good choosing to "do evil things" to eliminate them.
You know, this makes me think of EP3. Anakin went to the DS (evil) because he wanted to eliminate evil (CIS) and protect good (Padme). His problem was that he could not return from it until ROTJ.
- Time
- Post link
it's all a matter of opinion
besides, 'good' & 'evil' have nothing to do with 'violence' or 'non-violence'
the 'evil' ones aren't always the ones to instigate violence...think of the Crusades, The Salem Witch Hunt, WWII (hey, the nazis thought they were the good guys...and if they had won that war, history would remember them as heros)
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
What is your opinion...?
**Do you believe violence, more specifically murder, can be justified? Why or why not?
**Or do you believe that violence is never justifiable?
Let the debating begin!!!
unfortunatly yes.
Unless you what murderers, rapists, and thefts to walk freely about and go unpunished which is what would happen if we were unwilling to use violence to stop them.
Unless you would like to be ruled by the likes of Sadam, Hitler and Bin Laden then yes.
I do not know wheither it is true or not. But many argue that Japan was willing to surrender before the bomb was dropped.
Originally posted by: JediSage
We must maintain the strongest military on the planet (they must train for war, not dig ditches in Lousiana).
What is your opinion...?
**Do you believe violence, more specifically murder, can be justified? Why or why not?
**Or do you believe that violence is never justifiable?
Let the debating begin!!!
unfortunatly yes.
Unless you what murderers, rapists, and thefts to walk freely about and go unpunished which is what would happen if we were unwilling to use violence to stop them.
Unless you would like to be ruled by the likes of Sadam, Hitler and Bin Laden then yes.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
As we look at history, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima remains justified, as the massive death was still paltry compared to the amount of death that would have been caused by a protracted invasion of Japan. Sometimes violence is supported by bean counting. Doesn't mean we will rest easy with the thought, and it doesn't mean the afterlife will be any kinder to us for making those kinds of decisions, but this is perhaps the ultimate example that answers the question.
As we look at history, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima remains justified, as the massive death was still paltry compared to the amount of death that would have been caused by a protracted invasion of Japan. Sometimes violence is supported by bean counting. Doesn't mean we will rest easy with the thought, and it doesn't mean the afterlife will be any kinder to us for making those kinds of decisions, but this is perhaps the ultimate example that answers the question.
I do not know wheither it is true or not. But many argue that Japan was willing to surrender before the bomb was dropped.
Originally posted by: JediSage
We must maintain the strongest military on the planet (they must train for war, not dig ditches in Lousiana).
are their not enough people in America to do both?
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Devilman-1369
evil is just a matter of opinion (as is 'good'), so a world with NO evil is just as impossible as a world with NO good.
it's all a matter of opinion
besides, 'good' & 'evil' have nothing to do with 'violence' or 'non-violence'
the 'evil' ones aren't always the ones to instigate violence...think of the Crusades, The Salem Witch Hunt, WWII (hey, the nazis thought they were the good guys...and if they had won that war, history would remember them as heros)
evil is just a matter of opinion (as is 'good'), so a world with NO evil is just as impossible as a world with NO good.
it's all a matter of opinion
besides, 'good' & 'evil' have nothing to do with 'violence' or 'non-violence'
the 'evil' ones aren't always the ones to instigate violence...think of the Crusades, The Salem Witch Hunt, WWII (hey, the nazis thought they were the good guys...and if they had won that war, history would remember them as heros)
So, is it your assertion that the holocaust can't be judged to be "evil" because one opinion is as valid as the other? Is it a matter of opinion that the two kids who killed all those people at Columbine were'nt evil because evil is only an idea? Is it your assertion that slavery in the United States was neither good nor evil because those ideas don't exist? Using this logic I can walk into your house and steal your tv with impunity, because hey, good and evil are only opinions.
Relativism. What a way to be. It's proponents espouse it as the ultimate system of belief while condeming those who don't go along with it...more like the ultimate in hypocrisy. There are absolutely no absolutes...
http://ttrim.blogspot.com
- Time
- Post link
It appears from all your comments that:
1. "Without evil, there can be no good" (quoted from Darth Enzo), which can be said about anything; if everyone was stupid, than no one would be stupid because 'stupid' would be normal.
2. We do not live in a perfect world so there can be 2 positions taken at the same time in this debate; non-violence in a perfect world, and violence in our own. Do you agree?
3. 'Justice', 'Vengeance', and possibly 'Pay-back' are all forms of justification for violence based upon statement 2's 'non-perfect world'.
Saying these things makes me wonder.....
If there can be no good without evil--then why couldn't there be no 'unjustified murder' if there is presently 'justified murder'. What I'm saying is if murder is murder, and the only thing seperating 'justified murder' from 'unjustified murder' is personal opinion and piece of mind......then isn't all murder the same, and using words like 'vengeance' and 'justice' are just defense mechanisms created by our brains to protect us from guilt?
- Time
- Post link
NOTHING justifies violence. Nothing.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
I do not know wheither it is true or not. But many argue that Japan was willing to surrender before the bomb was dropped.
I do not know wheither it is true or not. But many argue that Japan was willing to surrender before the bomb was dropped.
This is definitely a possibility. And this sparks a new discussion--if the justification of violence is made only by ourselves, than can't we justify any kind of violence? Isn't it all the same?
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
"An eye for an eye will make everyone blind"
NOTHING justifies violence. Nothing.
"An eye for an eye will make everyone blind"
NOTHING justifies violence. Nothing.
There's the ticket, we agree on that one Ric. Good quote btw, who is it again?
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
So, is it your assertion that the holocaust can't be judged to be "evil" because one opinion is as valid as the other? Is it a matter of opinion that the two kids who killed all those people at Columbine were'nt evil because evil is only an idea? Is it your assertion that slavery in the United States was neither good nor evil because those ideas don't exist? Using this logic I can walk into your house and steal your tv with impunity, because hey, good and evil are only opinions.
Relativism. What a way to be. It's proponents espouse it as the ultimate system of belief while condeming those who don't go along with it...more like the ultimate in hypocrisy. There are absolutely no absolutes...
Originally posted by: Devilman-1369
evil is just a matter of opinion (as is 'good'), so a world with NO evil is just as impossible as a world with NO good.
it's all a matter of opinion
besides, 'good' & 'evil' have nothing to do with 'violence' or 'non-violence'
the 'evil' ones aren't always the ones to instigate violence...think of the Crusades, The Salem Witch Hunt, WWII (hey, the nazis thought they were the good guys...and if they had won that war, history would remember them as heros)
evil is just a matter of opinion (as is 'good'), so a world with NO evil is just as impossible as a world with NO good.
it's all a matter of opinion
besides, 'good' & 'evil' have nothing to do with 'violence' or 'non-violence'
the 'evil' ones aren't always the ones to instigate violence...think of the Crusades, The Salem Witch Hunt, WWII (hey, the nazis thought they were the good guys...and if they had won that war, history would remember them as heros)
So, is it your assertion that the holocaust can't be judged to be "evil" because one opinion is as valid as the other? Is it a matter of opinion that the two kids who killed all those people at Columbine were'nt evil because evil is only an idea? Is it your assertion that slavery in the United States was neither good nor evil because those ideas don't exist? Using this logic I can walk into your house and steal your tv with impunity, because hey, good and evil are only opinions.
Relativism. What a way to be. It's proponents espouse it as the ultimate system of belief while condeming those who don't go along with it...more like the ultimate in hypocrisy. There are absolutely no absolutes...
I didn't read all of this and didn't realize what I had said was already touched upon. Good point, and well lol, you can tell I agree.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
There's the ticket, we agree on that one Ric. Good quote btw, who is it again?
Originally posted by: ricarleite
"An eye for an eye will make everyone blind"
NOTHING justifies violence. Nothing.
"An eye for an eye will make everyone blind"
NOTHING justifies violence. Nothing.
There's the ticket, we agree on that one Ric. Good quote btw, who is it again?
Gandhi.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Now, I agree that murder--which I would define as taking the life of someone for nothing but selfish convienience or killing because of a strong emotion--is ALWAYS wrong. But not all violence is murder.
Shooting someoen who's trying to kill you and/or your family isn't murder. Killing a solider in a war isn't murder. I don't hold it against any German soldier in WW2 for killing a US soldier (or of course vice versa) because that's what war is. Doesn't make it okay, or good, certainly. It isn't what we want to happen, but sometimes violence is the only thing that works because violent people understand nothing else.
Just look at the war on Terrorism! You think Hussein or Bin Laden would sit down and negotiate? OF COURSE NOT. To suggest otherwise is the utmost fallacy.
- Time
- Post link
Personally, I don't think killing in war is justified because unless your drafted (and have no choice but to defend yourself), you choose to go to war and you choose to kill someone. Someone that you do not even know and may be there because THEY were drafted (*ahem* what I said above) and must defend themself from you! Which brings me to this;
Not all enemy soldiers "deserve it".
They're just trying to do the same thing you are, fight for their country. And if both sides were to decide that violence wasn't necessary (it's been done before!), then killing wouldn't HAVE to be justified in the way you described it. And I include this quote:
"Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country;
let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind."
-Baha'u'llah (current leader of the Bahai faith)
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Not to disagree, but the definitions of 1nd 2nd degree murders don't include a line between heartless killing and justified killing. You can still go to jail for killing someone that "deserved it". It's all perspective.
I'm not saying killing for revenge is acceptable. I'm saying that killing in SELF DEFENSE is.
Which is why we NEED to go to war against monsters like those people who run most of the middle east. They certainly don't love mankind!
Baha'u'llah (current leader of the Bahai faith)
Not to disagree, but the definitions of 1nd 2nd degree murders don't include a line between heartless killing and justified killing. You can still go to jail for killing someone that "deserved it". It's all perspective.
I'm not saying killing for revenge is acceptable. I'm saying that killing in SELF DEFENSE is.
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Personally, I don't think killing in war is justified because unless your drafted (and have no choice but to defend yourself), you choose to go to war and you choose to kill someone. Someone that you do not even know and may be there because THEY were drafted (*ahem* what I said above) and must defend themself from you! Which brings me to this;
Well if you go to war because you WANT to kill then you have some issues. Most people, however, go to war because they want to DEFEND INNOCENT PEOPLE. You know, like those people killed on 9/11. You're acting like all soldiers who join the military are bloodthirsty savages! THINK before you speak, man!
Yes. How does that remotely even vindicate the idea that there are no justifiable wars? Just because occiasionally people realize that "hey, we shouldn't fight, we should work this out peacefully" doesn't mean that all rogue nations are going to follow suit. It's interesting that you are this naive.
You see, I just got done reading Lord of the Flies, a book which makes the point that human beings are prone to selfisness and fear, and these emotions can make us violent, that evil is part of human nature. I thought it was ridiculous, and asked myself several times "why write a book about something everyone already knows."
Now I see that obviously not everyone understands. You really ought to pick up a copy. Lord of the Flies by Golding.
"Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country;
let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind."
Personally, I don't think killing in war is justified because unless your drafted (and have no choice but to defend yourself), you choose to go to war and you choose to kill someone. Someone that you do not even know and may be there because THEY were drafted (*ahem* what I said above) and must defend themself from you! Which brings me to this;
Well if you go to war because you WANT to kill then you have some issues. Most people, however, go to war because they want to DEFEND INNOCENT PEOPLE. You know, like those people killed on 9/11. You're acting like all soldiers who join the military are bloodthirsty savages! THINK before you speak, man!
Not all enemy soldiers "deserve it".
It's not about 'deserving it' or not, though. When two nations are at war, the soliders kill each other. Not because they believe each other to be evil. Heck, in WW1, soldiers from opposing sides spent Christmas with each other before going back to fighting. It's about duty, not bloodlust.
They're just trying to do the same thing you are, fight for their country. And if both sides were to decide that violence wasn't necessary (it's been done before!),
It's not about 'deserving it' or not, though. When two nations are at war, the soliders kill each other. Not because they believe each other to be evil. Heck, in WW1, soldiers from opposing sides spent Christmas with each other before going back to fighting. It's about duty, not bloodlust.
They're just trying to do the same thing you are, fight for their country. And if both sides were to decide that violence wasn't necessary (it's been done before!),
Yes. How does that remotely even vindicate the idea that there are no justifiable wars? Just because occiasionally people realize that "hey, we shouldn't fight, we should work this out peacefully" doesn't mean that all rogue nations are going to follow suit. It's interesting that you are this naive.
You see, I just got done reading Lord of the Flies, a book which makes the point that human beings are prone to selfisness and fear, and these emotions can make us violent, that evil is part of human nature. I thought it was ridiculous, and asked myself several times "why write a book about something everyone already knows."
Now I see that obviously not everyone understands. You really ought to pick up a copy. Lord of the Flies by Golding.
"Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country;
let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind."
Which is why we NEED to go to war against monsters like those people who run most of the middle east. They certainly don't love mankind!
Baha'u'llah (current leader of the Bahai faith)
Never heard of him. And what the fork is the Bahai faith?