What exactly is so bad about fighting?

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Very true. Violence can be used to protect more than simply your bodily health; sometimes it is prudent, or even necessary, to fight for more abstract ideals, and you may find times when defending your pride is worth the consequences of physical violence.

Even so, to permit assaults (or even duels) as a norm would be a regression toward a rule-by-might society. In the end, it would be those with the greatest physical prowess, or those with the ability to assemble the strong about themselves, who would assume the highest positions. Such a structure has no business in modern civilization. If your school allowed its students to initiate physical altercations, how would the smaller students fare? What about yourself? The smallest students would be forced into submission by the largest, and gangs would form for protection or retaliation. Not the best environment for education, is it?

If your assumption is that both parties would be required to give consent for the fight, and that structured rules would exist to which the combatants would be required to adhere, then such practices already exist in various forms of sport fighting.

Sadly we are already ruled by force, consider this. Ideologies aside money rules the world, your ability to defend your rights is limited by whom you can get as a lawyer to do so. Yes, agencies such as the ACLU exist but they can not fight every legal injustice for everyone acused. Thus, those with money can afford better lawyers (legal defense) and inturn hold a higher place within society. As such, the police are more likely to believe them then someone in a lower income class.

While this isn't the idea of modern American society it is the nature of it. Those who hold higher status do not need force, because the social state gives it to them in the form of any legal defense their money can afford and in that the police will act on their behalf (as they are contributing more to society).

So where does that leave the rest of us? Strength is measured in different forms and according to Plato's Republic the ideal society is one where the strong dominate the weak and the wise control the strong. This is basically the form that modern American and the world in general has assumed.

Personally, I define true strength as being strong enough to "stand alone" in life. As I explain to my students, its not the strongest warrior who wins the war, its the wisest general. Thus when we define strangth as physical force we forget the true strength that comes from discipline and resourcfulness. If you want to win in the street, you cheat. If you need to use violence be willing to elevate the level of violence outside of expected levels and do without emotional drives.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Chapel

Also, from a big picture, fights rob the society of productivity by wasting energy and injuring otherwise able bodied workers.

But that is probably a bigger picture than really needs to be used.

But even on that scale, we have to address the issues of how able minded those workers are? People with anti-social behavior issues will of course not be of much use to society anyway. They might need a sort of Machievellian leadership to keep them under control.

[Lone Ronin SBK]

Originally Posted by Draven

But even on that scale, we have to address the issues of how able minded those workers are? People with anti-social behavior issues will of course not be of much use to society anyway. They might need a sort of Machievellian leadership to keep them under control.

Dependson what ou define as Anti-Social. I'm not much of a poeple epeson,but I
don't ever go and pick fights.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Lone Ronin SBK

Dependson what ou define as Anti-Social. I'm not much of a poeple epeson,but I
don't ever go and pick fights.

Well their are people we anti-social traits; the loners, ass holes and plain don't-like-people people. Then you have true anti-social disorder which range from functional to non-functional member of society. Of course I mean the more extreme non-functional members, violent personality types who are controllible with violence in their own rights.

[Chapel]

Originally Posted by Draven

But even on that scale, we have to address the issues of how able minded those workers are? People with anti-social behavior issues will of course not be of much use to society anyway. They might need a sort of Machievellian leadership to keep them under control.

Of course, but these are people who will be a detriment to society anyway as they don't care for normal societal rules (such as fighting). The saying goes something like this: 'Locks keep honest people honest.'

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Chapel

Of course, but these are people who will be a detriment to society anyway as they don't care for normal societal rules (such as fighting). The saying goes something like this: 'Locks keep honest people honest.'

And the ability to excert a greater level of violence them another should keep a less violent person under domination?

[Yossarian]

Originally Posted by Draven

Sadly we are already ruled by force, consider this. Ideologies aside money rules the world, your ability to defend your rights is limited by whom you can get as a lawyer to do so.

Yes, of course it will always be the Haves versus the Have-nots, but I would prefer a courtroom oppression from the rich than a bloody oppression from the violent. An assembly increasing taxes along with their own salaries does not normally have the same punch as someone physically taking your money from you. Of course, as the French Revolution would remind us, there is a threshold where, as I stated in my last post, violence becomes the preferred choice.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Yes, of course it will always be the Haves versus the Have-nots, but I would prefer a courtroom oppression from the rich than a bloody oppression from the violent. An assembly increasing taxes along with their own salaries does not normally have the same punch as someone physically taking your money from you. Of course, as the French Revolution would remind us, there is a threshold where, as I stated in my last post, violence becomes the preferred choice.

And what is the difference when a police officer beats you down and incarcerates you for trying to address your rights as a citizen? Force is exerted in many ways and in some such as with a local police officer who was shot, it always comes back. In his case, he tried to rob a drug dealer and got killed. There is violence in all walks of life it just doesn't always make the news or appear on grand scale. Oppression is opression, it doesn't matter if it comes from a bullet or incarceration?

[Chapel]

Originally Posted by Draven

Oppression is opression, it doesn't matter if it comes from a bullet or incarceration?

I disagree, incarceration is reversible.

All of what you are saying here is what is bad about violence.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Chapel

I disagree, incarceration is reversible.

All of what you are saying here is what is bad about violence.

But thats we might disagree, violence for the sake of violence (to be the local tough guy) is pointless. Violence to defend yourself or to up hold an opporessed group within a given society is an acceptable use of violence. Even violence to control other violent groups and individuals is acceptable under certain situations.

In the military soldiers are conditioned to be anti-social; clannish, violent, aggressive and controlling. To keep those people under control it requires leadership and sometimes leadership requires the threat of violence to get someone to act or display self-discipline. Sometimes it takes more then a simple threat. That may not ideologically correct but it is still the way in which the world works.

As for incarceration being reversible; to what extent? Would doing 10 or 15 years in prison be acceptable? Would losing your car, apartment etc. when you look at the status-quo we see allot wrong, but that status-quo will never be changed with talk and ideological discussions, it will require action.

Look at the forefathers of America they used violence in demand for justice and the expression of their rights. It may not be politically correct or ideologically proper but violence is part of life and a part even our civilized society. We can lie to ourselves but violence is apart of everything our society preaches and its how our laws are enforced. When you are arrested the police don't come in all nice and friendly, they use whatever amount of force they feel is needed, even if that force is excessive, it never matters unless you have the money to hire a lawyer to prove such and challenge it in court.

What happens when you have no money or lawyer to defend you in court? You effectively have no rights and so violence is one option. You say incarceration can be reversed, but can you get back the time or years you lose? No, and so what is left for you?

Consider these words "It is better to die on your feet then live on your knees." You may argue that violence isn't the answer but neither allowing yourself to be victimized. We all know one day we will die, but those whom history remembers as great men chose to face death and challenge things others would not. What does it matter if you die, if you die for nothing and live in fear?

I admit violence isn't aways the answer, but it is something you must consider and face in this world. How you choose to deal with it, use it or not is up to you.

[Chapel]

Originally Posted by Draven

But thats we might disagree, violence for the sake of violence (to be the local tough guy) is pointless. Violence to defend yourself or to up hold an opporessed group within a given society is an acceptable use of violence. Even violence to control other violent groups and individuals is acceptable under certain situations.

I didn't read beyond there because I see the root of our disagreement. Violence, to me, is something a bit more chaotic and blood thirsty. The acceptable violence you are talking about is something I would simply call a use of force.

Violence = destructive = bad
Force = constructive = good

But that is just me.

[SirokiFighter]

Originally Posted by Chapel

I didn't read beyond there because I see the root of our disagreement. Violence, to me, is something a bit more chaotic and blood thirsty. The acceptable violence you are talking about is something I would simply call a use of force.

Violence = destructive = bad
Force = constructive = good

But that is just me.

force is violence...

it is imposssibe to unviolenty "Force" someone to do something.

[SirokiFighter]

fighting is seen as bad because it symbolizes barbarism to many. many would say a uncivilized person would fight when put in a situation, rather than peacefully work the situation out(if possible) like a civlized person would do.

[Chapel]

Originally Posted by SirokiFighter

force is violence...

it is imposssibe to unviolenty "Force" someone to do something.

Read my post again to see what I am saying about the different connotations associated with the terms 'force' and 'violence'.

And yes, you can force someone to do something without violence. Coercion and persuasion are two examples.

[SirokiFighter]

Originally Posted by Chapel

Read my post again to see what I am saying about the different connotations associated with the terms 'force' and 'violence'.

And yes, you can force someone to do something without violence. Coercion and persuasion are two examples.

making someone do something against their will is an act of violence.