Okay...Hitting in General

[tippy2k2]

I can think of several situations in my life where coming to blows was the appropriate response. They did not directly involve me, but if they had I hope I would have had the courage to break the guys jaw and accept the consequences.

One such incident involved a member of my family deciding they had had enough of a certain situation and walking for the door. Someone else in the room thought they should stay and blocked the exit in a somewhat threatening way. Personally, I would have said get out of my way, once, and jabbed them in the throat if they didn't (the person in question was large and physically imposing, not someone to be taken on with less immobilising methods).

...I really really really really hope there is more to that story than what you're telling us because if not, your family really needs to have a good long talk with one another (ideally with a cop or three in the area just in case).

Punching someone in the throat (which, unlike what the movies show you, could very easily KILL the person you just hit) because they won't get out of your way is not exactly rational behavior.

 

[mecegirl]

I don't like using specific examples because people tend to latch on to it. Most personal experiences are just that, personal. And they are not good enough to stand as evidence. But since I like your avatar (And you have a valid point) I'll do this for you:

Grinning Cat

In New York city you have people who can be classified as the "Don't give a fucks." They vary in ages from younglings to adults and can be found mostly in the city. The most common examples take place on a bus, in a movie theater, or maybe even on a train. In my personal experience, the "Don't give a fucks" will be loud, obnoxious, and abrasive. They are somewhat aware of what they are doing and they dare you to say anything to them. They welcome the chance for a fight and the opportunity to whup someone in a fight. I've been in situations when someone has dared to say something, like "Will you please lower your voice?, Could you please be quiet?" Some have even got mad enough to tell them to "Shut the Fuck up." In all cases the response is usually met with, if it's a youngling "You ain't my momma nigga.", if it's an adult "Who da' fuck are you?" This goes back to the point I made about everyone's geographic location. I presumed most Escapists have never had the unfortunate pleasure of dealing with adults who simply "don't give a fuck." Most black people in, and out of, the city have experiences with these type of people. Same goes for people in most countries around the world. On average it seems white people don't have to deal with this type of thing. Which is why my claim, that sometimes fighting is necessary, seems obvious to some while others not so much. I hope I answered your inquiry. If I haven't I will try again.

Maybe you are right about not giving examples because that example is horrible. I know the type of people you are talking about, and unless they put their hands on you there is no reason for you to fight them, or even acknowledge their existence. Sometimes you're lucky and contacting the police will help, or you can get the usher at a movie theater, or bouncer at a club. But unless those people take exceptional notice of you (which can happen) why bother fighting? Unless everyone else in the train decides to join you in your efforts all you have done is make a temporary annoyance into a brawl.

 

[Gary Thompson]

Using violence to solve your problems is an easy way to get killed.

 

[Dimitriov]

The world is unpredictable, indeed in retrospect sometimes violence leads to a better result. I stand by my personal code though that violence should only ever be used in self-defence, or in the defence of others. There are too many negative consequences of violence in my opinion to risk using it in situations where no violence has arisen. You have said violence can be appropriate quite a few times but never given any solid examples of situations where it would be, would you mind providing some outside of the obvious self-defence/defence of others ones we all agree on? I've asked it to a couple of other people on this thread so far and no-one has delivered yet :-/

A fair request, although one that I feel it may be difficult to provide. The difficulty stemming from a fundamental difference in value systems, and the inherently personal nature of what might qualify for an individual.

For myself I have never really resorted to violence, and I have a pretty thick skin so to speak. I do not, however, discount the possibility. There are of course the obvious cases of defending oneself or others. But for me what I guess it comes down to is that words and ideas really do have power.

Saying "sticks and stones..." has itself always seemed incredibly childish and untrue to me. I do not share the same concern that some people seem to over physical injury. I think that physical violence can only only hurt what you are, but words have the potential to hurt who you are. And it may be necessary to resort to physical violence in response to someone else attacking you in that manner.

If you are going to die inevitably at some point, then what matters to me is not postponing that as long as possible but living and dying well. Some other poster suggested above that there was no such thing as a good death. Of course, instead of accepting that different people have different beliefs or values, he tried to disprove the concept with faulty logic (in short his argument could be turned around to justify almost anything).

For me a good death is a death that completes the life, that if a situation arises where to be true to oneself and the values that one has lived by it necessary to die, then one accepts that and dies.

But, back to the point at hand, there are simply some insults that may not be borne. It depends entirely on the situation, however, and I cannot really provide an actual example, for which I apologize.

I fear that that is the closest I can come to explaining it.

 

[Flames66]

I can think of several situations in my life where coming to blows was the appropriate response. They did not directly involve me, but if they had I hope I would have had the courage to break the guys jaw and accept the consequences.

One such incident involved a member of my family deciding they had had enough of a certain situation and walking for the door. Someone else in the room thought they should stay and blocked the exit in a somewhat threatening way. Personally, I would have said get out of my way, once, and jabbed them in the throat if they didn't (the person in question was large and physically imposing, not someone to be taken on with less immobilising methods).

...I really really really really hope there is more to that story than what you're telling us because if not, your family really needs to have a good long talk with one another (ideally with a cop or three in the area just in case).

Punching someone in the throat (which, unlike what the movies show you, could very easily KILL the person you just hit) because they won't get out of your way is not exactly rational behavior.

I know, I've done it in training (both as tori and uke).

I can't tell you the details of the actual situation as I wasn't there, but using the basic circumstances as a basis for a hypothetical situation would go as follows:

I am in an environment which is making me uncomfortable (due to how people are treating other people). I decide to leave at which point a large, tough looking man blocks my only exit. He is not directly threatening me at this point, but I don't have eyes in the back of my head and can't see what others in the room are doing. I can't push past him as he is too large and would probably break something I would need later (face for instance). I tell him to move once, and give him a few seconds to comply. He doesn't and says something with threatening implications ("you ain't goin anywhere" or similar). I jab him in the throat with my thumb at a diagonal angle so that it compresses his wind pipe and artery, forcing him to move and giving me time to leg it before he can give chase.

 

[Nathaniel Grey]

This is in response to Twattycake_Fancypant and Chikusho

Twattycake_Fancypant
I'm well aware that the city has a varying degree of cultures. That doesn't stop what I'm saying from being fairly true. Once again, this is a philosophical discussion. There are no absolutes, only generalizations. I'm not arguing that there are not alternative solutions to problems such as the bus situation. You could do all the things you named. But when you pop head phones in, or move ten seats down, you are inconveniencing yourself so someone can continue their bad habits. I simply pop my head phones in when I'm in that situation. I understand where you're coming from. I'm saying that if you were so obliged to say "that you are death incarnate and if he doesn't shut up,..." or even "Excuse me can you please be quiet." that will respond in tone. Which at that point you have two choices to either shut your face or punch theirs. Grinning Cat wanted an example of dealing with a violent situation as an adult and I gave it to her. My issue in the Original Post was that people were saying things (along the lines of) violence is never the answer, fighting should only be a last resort, fighting only causes more problems, or looking down on acts of violence (this case fighting) in general. That is the point I disagreed with. I find that there are situations in life where sometimes the only way to deal with a person is to beat their ass. NOW, please don't take what I said as "It's okay to beat up anyone who doesn't agree with you." I'm not making a blanket statement like that. I'm saying that individual's have the ability to make that call when it is necessary. We should not look down on others who go there quicker than others.

Chikusho
No, when you are put in a position where you deem it is necessary to take action. You take action.

 

[Flames66]

Snip.

Maybe it would help if you provided situations where physical violence would be an appropriate and necessary response, and again don't just list self-defense examples.

You say that there are situations where you would view it as appropriate and you don't understand us who don't see said situations where it's appropriate. As the creator of this thread, the burden of proof lies on you to provide us with a situation in adult life where physical violence would be needed as a proper retaliatory position.

If you want to convince us that physical violence may be necessary, actually try and prove it. Don't just be vague and open-ended, hinting at situations that may or may not exist. Provide some substantial evidence to the claim that you're trying to make.

The world is unpredictable, indeed in retrospect sometimes violence leads to a better result. I stand by my personal code though that violence should only ever be used in self-defence, or in the defence of others. There are too many negative consequences of violence in my opinion to risk using it in situations where no violence has arisen. You have said violence can be appropriate quite a few times but never given any solid examples of situations where it would be, would you mind providing some outside of the obvious self-defence/defence of others ones we all agree on? I've asked it to a couple of other people on this thread so far and no-one has delivered yet :-/

I'll see if I can come up with any.

Firstly, let's go back to the concept of dueling. Two people of opposing beliefs (one thinks he should have a particular thing, the other thinks she should) get no where discussing their differences. One challenges the other to combat with the winner being victorious in the argument (getting the thing). They battle (preferably with swords, but in todays society fists are more likely and less lethal), and one wins. Problem solved.

Secondly, someone is badgering someone else, insulting their mother, brother sister, face, walk, jacket, taste in music, preferred brand of underwear and hat. One of the insults touches a raw nerve and the attacker senses weakness. they keep pushing. The defender snaps and breaks their nose. They fall to the floor, shocked at the sudden change from docility to violence, cease their verbal attacks and rethink their situation.

In the second example, the outcome is not the only possibility. It is one option that is mainly positive.

 

[Nathaniel Grey]

Sorry for the double post but Tippy2k2 just did exactly what I'm arguing against.

See Tippy when you said:
Punching someone in the throat (which, unlike what the movies show you, could very easily KILL the person you just hit) because they won't get out of your way is not exactly rational behavior.

You just devalued/marginalized Flame66's action. At the time, even now maybe, he believed that what he did was necessary. It was the rational course of action to him. Are unable to fathom why he did that? That doesn't make what he did irrational. Why? Because it solved his problem. My post are philosophical in nature. There are no rights and wrongs. Only what can be proven and what can't. It's logistics. There can be an infinite number of solutions to the same problem. I want everyone, not to accept others trains of thought, but to understand them. Understand why someone would do something different from what you might have done. Understand that because they did something different and "Harsher" doesn't make what they did necessarily wrong. I'm arguing that sometimes there will be situations where we deem it necessary to fight. I don't want be people to look down (which many have done) on others who deem it necessary but you don't.

 

[tippy2k2]

I know, I've done it in training (both as tori and uke).

I can't tell you the details of the actual situation as I wasn't there, but using the basic circumstances as a basis for a hypothetical situation would go as follows:

I am in an environment which is making me uncomfortable (due to how people are treating other people). I decide to leave at which point a large, tough looking man blocks my only exit. He is not directly threatening me at this point, but I don't have eyes in the back of my head and can't see what others in the room are doing. I can't push past him as he is too large and would probably break something I would need later (face for instance). I tell him to move once, and give him a few seconds to comply. He doesn't and says something with threatening implications ("you ain't goin anywhere" or similar). I jab him in the throat with my thumb at a diagonal angle so that it compresses his wind pipe and artery, forcing him to move and giving me time to leg it before he can give chase.

Now I don't know the exact situation (and it sounds like you don't either) but in certain situations, I consider a "direct threat" to also be an implied threat. I'll give a random example that should clarify my original thoughts in my first post.

Imagine if you will that I am sitting at a bar. Tippy2k2 is having a merry good time but all of his friends have gone home at this point. It's closing time and myself and a few other gentlemen are about ready to leave. As I get up, one of the gentlemen walks up to me and says "You got a real purty mouth" (or something, just roll with it ). I begin walking away and his friend is behind me, stopping me from leaving. "You ain't going nowhere with that purty mouth" he says (again, roll with it).

Nothing has actually happened yet but reading the room, I'm confident that this is not going to end well. Technically, no one has attacked me and I have remained unharmed. However, in that situation, throat jab away. It's clear that you have gotten into a pickle and you are not the aggressor, even if you throw the first shot.

Hope that clears it up a bit. Again, I don't know your exact situation but if I feel threatened and running isn't an option, I have no problem with throwing the first shot if it's going to be the only way I can get out of the situation.

 

[tippy2k2]

Sorry for the double post but Tippy2k2 just did exactly what I'm arguing against.

The situation he described in his first post and the situation he described in the second post (when he clarified what happened for me) were two VERY different situations to me. I have posted a response to him (I posted it as you posted your message so you never saw it since it didn't exist when you posted this message).

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Statistically, violent crime is at an all-time low in the Western world. For example, it's estimated medieval England percentage wise had 10 to 100 times more deaths by violence than the United Kingdom in the 21st century. Men have certainly become less violent over time, or 'pussified' as you put it, and that's absolutely a good thing in my opinion. What exactly would be the benefits to society of what you propose?

I never said I wanted anyone to die, nor did I say violence necessarily begets manliness. What I said was, that the modern male is a shadow of his former self. Male traits are no longer valued. Traditional male traits and activities, such as lifting weights, hunting, arguments, chivalry, body hair, etc. are looked down on as either intimidating or psychotic.

Do I want people bludgeoning each other in the streets? No. I just think it would be better if we applauded a kid who stood up to his bully instead of shamed and punished him. No one is taught to stick up for themselves, only turn the other cheek and be disrespected.

Agreed. First world societies have turned the modern mail into a posturing, preening, pussified version of what they once were. "Men" nowadays are supposed to be perfectly behaved little darlings who never fight or roughhouse. If more guys spent some time in the gym and away from their computer screens I think they'd be better off. If someone provokes you, or relentlessly mocks you, then they deserve to get hit. Maybe they should learn a little respect instead of me having to exercise restraint when they obviously aren't.

Well then, Oh Great Masculine Icon of Masculinity, may I ask you why you just took your time to write this in front of your little computer screen instead of spending more time at the gym or "roughhousing" like a real "mail" does?

I don't mean any disrespect, I assure you! I just hope that I'm not one of those people that deserves to get hit by your magnificent fists drenched in pure masculine manliness!!!!

Saying you don't mean any disrespect doesn't change the amount of sarcasm you used to address my post.

Anyway, it's cute that you noticed I had to type this on a computer. Congratulations. If you really must know, I lost almost 100 pounds and I lift 5 days a week. I saw this thread after returning from the gym, as shoulders are the last muscle group in my weekly rotation.

My point is, not everyone has to be into lifting, cars, hiking, and rock climbing like I do, but I think it's wrong to devalue male traits and activities as undesirable or unduly aggressive. Kids like to wrestle and play dodge-ball. Sometimes they get hurt. It happens. When some poor high school kid is getting pulled relentlessly and he finally stands up for himself, that should be applauded, not condemned. That's victim blaming.

 

[Flames66]

I know, I've done it in training (both as tori and uke).

I can't tell you the details of the actual situation as I wasn't there, but using the basic circumstances as a basis for a hypothetical situation would go as follows:

I am in an environment which is making me uncomfortable (due to how people are treating other people). I decide to leave at which point a large, tough looking man blocks my only exit. He is not directly threatening me at this point, but I don't have eyes in the back of my head and can't see what others in the room are doing. I can't push past him as he is too large and would probably break something I would need later (face for instance). I tell him to move once, and give him a few seconds to comply. He doesn't and says something with threatening implications ("you ain't goin anywhere" or similar). I jab him in the throat with my thumb at a diagonal angle so that it compresses his wind pipe and artery, forcing him to move and giving me time to leg it before he can give chase.

Now I don't know the exact situation (and it sounds like you don't either) but in certain situations, I consider a "direct threat" to also be an implied threat. I'll give a random example that should clarify my original thoughts in my first post.

Imagine if you will that I am sitting at a bar. Tippy2k2 is having a merry good time but all of his friends have gone home at this point. It's closing time and myself and a few other gentlemen are about ready to leave. As I get up, one of the gentlemen walks up to me and says "You got a real purty mouth" (or something, just roll with it ). I begin walking away and his friend is behind me, stopping me from leaving. "You ain't going nowhere with that purty mouth" he says (again, roll with it).

Nothing has actually happened yet but reading the room, I'm confident that this is not going to end well. Technically, no one has attacked me and I have remained unharmed. However, in that situation, throat jab away. It's clear that you have gotten into a pickle and you are not the aggressor, even if you throw the first shot.

Hope that clears it up a bit. Again, I don't know your exact situation but if I feel threatened and running isn't an option, I have no problem with throwing the first shot if it's going to be the only way I can get out of the situation.

That's pretty much what I was talking about. I would go for a throat jab or something equally dangerous/damaging with a larger opponent because I am not confident that anything less will be adequate and I know I can do it (I have in training). I would strike first for the same reason, if they hit me I probably wouldn't leave. If it was someone I thought I could restrain I would do that first.

 

[TheIceQueen]

I'll see if I can come up with any.

Firstly, let's go back to the concept of dueling. Two people of opposing beliefs (one thinks he should have a particular thing, the other thinks she should) get no where discussing their differences. One challenges the other to combat with the winner being victorious in the argument (getting the thing). They battle (preferably with swords, but in todays society fists are more likely and less lethal), and one wins. Problem solved.

I did not know you were about to get dark ages on me. This is the worst example imaginable. I'll even take the OP's example of punching an annoying "Don't Give A Fuck"s head in over this one. I'm just completely at a loss right now. If you're going to take an argument to the point of dueling, to the point where you cannot take any reconcilable action but to physically harm someone in an effort to declare yourself the victor of a debate. If a person needs the validation of winning that badly, the validation of being the victor of a debate, then I worry about that person more than I would worry about a person punching some annoying kid. I'll take the punching the annoying kid, but swinging fists or weapons over a debate is uncivil, immature, and reflective of low self-worth.

Secondly, someone is badgering someone else, insulting their mother, brother sister, face, walk, jacket, taste in music, preferred brand of underwear and hat. One of the insults touches a raw nerve and the attacker senses weakness. they keep pushing. The defender snaps and breaks their nose. They fall to the floor, shocked at the sudden change from docility to violence ceases their verbal attacks and rethinks their situation.

In the second example, the outcome is not the only possibility. It is one option that is mainly positive.

The second example is not as bad, but still not that good. An adult should have a thick enough skin to overcome the pathetic pissant without resorting to breaking their nose. This is a schoolyard, childish retaliation. And now you've just created a legal situation where you're in the wrong. You've assaulted a person without the banner of self-defense. You've broken their nose and that gives them enough liability to get you charged.

 

[grey_space]

In my mind, any attack, either physically, verbally, or emotionally, Is a form of violence, and can be responded to.

Any moralising about how physicality is wrong simply because it is physicality is disregarding the long-term effects that verbal attacks can do on a persons psyche.

And a society where only the most erudite rule has just as much a capacity for petty tyranny and abuse as one ruled by the most physically adept.

And as for those who ever suffered from any form of emotional abuse in their life (having lies told about them, rumours spread, being ignored or silently disrespected in their social group as a result) can tell you that it is a situation where it is possible to feel just as helpless, confused and afraid as one in which you were physically attacked.

We are combative, physical social creatures at the end of the day, constantly jockeying for a better position in our own social and inner mental hierarchy.


For us to deny that physical part of ourselves, is to deny a part of our humanity I feel.

I'm a pretty verbal guy, and I do tend to live in my own head a bit.

But I have no issues in responding to an attack of any kind in whatever form I deal appropriate at that time.

 

[alandavidson]

Well, it seems violence polarizes people here. Not surprising though.

I have been in a lot of violent encounters. Most of them were my fault, others I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And let me tell you from experience, violence sucks.

Growing up, my dad taught me how to fight, and fight for survival (he was in the military, and still works in that world). His rule on fighting was, "If you fight, win." He put great emphasis on the word "If", stressing that it was far better to talk your way out of a potential fight than to engage in combat. Those words were reinforced as I went through years of martial arts training, and later in hand-to-hand training in the military.

I have scars, and wounds that will never heal, mostly due to my own stupidity regarding violence. I have also caused people to have permanent injuries by battering them with my hands. I know exactly what blunt-force weapons do to a person. I have been hit with all manner of strikes and weapons, and it hurts. I've been stabbed, and it fucking hurts.

Sure, you can knock a bully out. I've done it. But it doesn't solve much of anything. There's just going to be another bully who you'll have "teach a lesson" later down the line. Unless they're actually trying to physically hurt you, beating someone up is nothing more than temporary catharsis. I've tried to solve my issues through violence. It only made things worse for me, and even more, made things worse for other people too.

OP, sure be a "tough guy". But know that it's easy to puff your chest out here on the internet. Hell, it's easy to act macho in person. But you don't know what tricks the other person has up his sleeve. Unless there is actually threat of physical harm to you, or someone near you, just walk away. Trust me, you won't be less of a man if you do.



One more thing before I go.

There is an idea that I've seen many times in these forums. The notion of a "good and honorable death", typically by means of violence.

That's bullshit.

Violent deaths are gruesome, terrible events. They are painful, slow, and horrific.

I pray that I am allowed to pass quietly away, at an old age, in a comfortable bed. I would much rather live in such a way that I my honor can never be tainted, no matter how I die.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Defending yourself or another from physical violence is fine. Again, it's a brutish, old form of conflict resolving that we should be past by now, but sometimes being old fashioned simply works. It did for me, twice, though once it only escalated it. (But then resolved it, somehow.)

I'll simply say it's the last resort, and to never be the aggressor. By no means is it off limits, but it should be option Z.

 

[Vareoth]

Quite simple, I don't like violence of any kind. Physical or verbal. I will go out of my way to make sure that I never hurt anybody just for myself. People can use me all they want but I won't stoop to their level. I just don't like to hurt anyone. But I will see if those morals hold up when I'm someday put in real danger.

The only exception to this is when I'm defending family or friends.

Also, don't underestimate the fact violence of any kind can very easily beget more violence.

And to the people talking about "dying a good death": grow up.

 

[EternallyBored]

Statistically, violent crime is at an all-time low in the Western world. For example, it's estimated medieval England percentage wise had 10 to 100 times more deaths by violence than the United Kingdom in the 21st century. Men have certainly become less violent over time, or 'pussified' as you put it, and that's absolutely a good thing in my opinion. What exactly would be the benefits to society of what you propose?

I never said I wanted anyone to die, nor did I say violence necessarily begets manliness. What I said was, that the modern male is a shadow of his former self. Male traits are no longer valued. Traditional male traits and activities, such as lifting weights, hunting, arguments, chivalry, body hair, etc. are looked down on as either intimidating or psychotic.

Do I want people bludgeoning each other in the streets? No. I just think it would be better if we applauded a kid who stood up to his bully instead of shamed and punished him. No one is taught to stick up for themselves, only turn the other cheek and be disrespected.

Wow, this post is full of weird interpretations of things. Weight lifting as a widespread sport or hobby is a recent thing, like within the last 100 years, take a look at what professional sports stars were like in the 40's, people like Babe Ruth made it to the pros with a beer belly and smoking cigars everyday, sports stars today are constantly lifting weights and working out to stay competitive. The popularity of weight lifting has only increased over the years, especially considering things like the Mr. Universe competition are still around and very popular. With people's increasingly sedentary lifestyle, weight lifting for health, hobby, and competition has been gaining in popularity.

Hunting? Do you even hunt at all? hunting licenses still sell out quickly in every state near me, and in increasing numbers, at last report more people have started hunting in the U.S. within the last couple years, as of last year, there are more registered hunters in the U.S. than in any previous year since the government started issuing licenses, hunting is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, and in the U.S. has been on the rise after being popularized and endorsed in the entertainment and political arenas over the last few years. Literally every friend I have is either an active hunter or has been hunting at some point in their lives, except in cases where licenses are limited for conservation reasons, hunting is alive, well, and growing in the U.S., especially with deer and other prey animal populations exploding. Hell, the last hunt I went on had 40 people in our group, not a single one over the age of 30, I don't know what country you live in, but here in the U.S. hunting is still pretty god damn popular.

What the hell do you mean by chivalry? The code of conduct used by knights has been dead since the 1600's, anything else is just a catch-all term that is mostly meaningless except as a way for people today to complain about how a nebulous concept of treating women no longer applies to today's society. Women killed that stupid form of chivalry 30 years ago, since it mostly had to do with them anyway, it was entirely within their right to kill it if society decided that wasn't what they wanted anymore.

Body hair? Dear god where do you live that body hair is suddenly not popular, sure unkempt messy body hair is still seen as a turnoff, but the neckbeard wasn't popular 50 years ago, and it still isn't today. A well kept beard or mustache is still considered a turn on by large groups of women, and chest hair is still considered a symbol of masculinity, just because people find messy ungroomed hair to be ugly doesn't make that a recent thing, unkempt hair was even more discouraged back in the 40's, and a full long beard and mustache would get you kicked out of a lot of places back then, social conformity was kind of a big thing until the 60's. Hell,even the scraggly full beard and mustache has been gaining popularity, ever since that stupid Duck Dynasty show took off. Coincidentally, duck hunting has also gained in popularity since that show came around.

I don't know what country you live in, but in the U.S., all of those traits are still popular, and considered positive, except maybe chivalry, but that's mostly because chivalry is a meaningless term that nobody uses except to complain about how a small number of women don't like it when you hold the door open for them anymore.

 

[Azahul]

If you are going to die inevitably at some point, then what matters to me is not postponing that as long as possible but living and dying well. Some other poster suggested above that there was no such thing as a good death. Of course, instead of accepting that different people have different beliefs or values, he tried to disprove the concept with faulty logic (in short his argument could be turned around to justify almost anything).

For me a good death is a death that completes the life, that if a situation arises where to be true to oneself and the values that one has lived by it necessary to die, then one accepts that and dies.

This is pretty fascinating for me, for quite a few reasons both personal and academic. My area of study is in militia and terrorist organisations in the Middle East, but I've also spoken to members of other groups outside of that particular area (ex-Viet Cong, for example)and the concept of dying for the cause is one that comes up a lot. These are often people that I consider to have the ultimate excuse to resort to violence. For all they get labelled terrorists for their actions, men in these organisations usually join for reasons that boil down to protecting their families from foreign invaders. This is obviously a level of violence way, way, way above anything being described in this thread, but I do find it interesting that many hold to roughly the same value as yourself. Their deaths are good if, by dying, they in some way prevent or reduce the threat to their families (generally by killing the enemy, although their definitions of "enemy" is usually where the morality begins to get a little more iffy).

Now, I bring this up because I like to pride myself a little on being able to understand their point of view. They live a radically different life from the one I was brought up in, under siege by foreign or domestic militaries where their friends and family have a much higher chance of dying in violence than what I was fortunate enough to experience growing up. However, I do struggle in seeing this mentality in a modern first world country. Outside of the defence of yourself or another person, events that should be reasonably rare (and will hopefully continue to get rarer), I can't see how a violent death is good. You describe a good death as being one that completes a life, but how can a death of violence be good except when attempting to resolve a violent, possibly even lethal, situation? Because I think many of this forum's pacifists, myself included, agree with you that violence when facing violence is acceptable, if unfortunate. I can't comprehend, and honestly, many of the combatants and members of groups the West considers terrorist organisations would agree with me here, how a violent death is in any way good if not involved in a situation that was already violent.

So yeah, I am struggling a bit with your argument. Is there a situation where you see a violent death being good in a scenario that wasn't already violent?

I'll also add that I have never seen a death I personally would consider good. My grandfather dying in his late 80s after a long illness wasn't good, but it looked a helluva lot better than injured fighters dying of infected wounds or internal bleeding, let alone the civilians caught as collateral. Pain and misery because of aggression between two lots of people who are, as individuals, kind and generous and intelligent. You may disagree, but the scenario (not the people) is just idiotic to me.

In my personal life, I have been pretty fortunate in only having had one death and one near-miss in my family. The death was my grandfather. It was sad, but it was expected. I bawled my eyes out at the funeral, but by the end of the day it was just a dull ache. It was pretty easy to cope with. Then I had a cousin, who was on the receiving end of some drunk fuckwit with a metal crowbar. Most of his teeth are now fakes, and he's had to have a significant chunk of his face reconstructed. And let me tell you, the tragedy in my cousin's case of something so stupid happening to someone so young is a lot, lot worse than my grandfather's peaceful death. The death of someone old is expected, and they've had a good life. The death of someone young, particularly to violence, is sudden, shocking, and means a life's worth of wasted potential. Two lots, if it was a violent death, because their attacker has functionally lost their life in the process as well.

What got me to open this discussion was that many have said that non-violence (except in self-defense) is better. I simply can't fathom that thought process which is exactly whey I'm interested in it. Continue.

If you're interested, my personal stance and my idea of morality around this debate is probably pretty firmly rooted in the fact that I'm an atheist. We've got one short life. There will be nothing after. We only have the time our biology has given us. With a place as incredible to live in as this world, surrounded by people as generous and beautiful as the ones I've been lucky enough to meet in my life, what idiot would want this life to be any shorter? Violence means a risk of me dying, and missing out on all the amazing things I have left to do and see, all the people I could yet meet, all that great potential. I don't like to gamble, and initiating any act of violence is a gamble with my life on the table. Sure, I put my life at risk with the places I go to and the people I talk to, but I don't need to add any more unnecessary risk on top of that (particularly when I'm at home in Australia where there isn't a civil war or something going on).

Whew. That ended up a lot longer than I was expecting.

 

[loa]

I never beat anyone up on purpose during my school life and I paid the price for it with years of constant abuse.
My parents kept telling me I would look back at my childhood years as the apex of my happiness or some shit but all I remember was being caged with sociopaths.