Okay...Hitting in General

[JoJo]

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.

Fair enough, I will give you that duelling with the consent of both parties is certainly preferable to an unconsenting attack, I'm not one for telling consenting adults what they can and cannot do with each other. Still, you're effectively deciding an argument with an arbitrary method, in which case why not chose a method that doesn't risk injury or death? A coin flip, chess game or pokemon battle would be just as effective for duelling out your problems without the potential for damaging or losing a life, I can't see any benefit to either party of duelling with swords, guns or fists.

Your second example though, I can't really condone. An adult should have a strong sense of self-esteem that doesn't depend on the opinion of random people, especially not the sort of idiot who would badger someone like that. That and in the eyes of the law, you would have just committed assault and I'd rather not have that charge appearing on my permanent record for the rest of my life, personally.

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.

Okay. I think the main difference between us is that I can't think of any words outside of extreme examples, like in the hypothetical case if someone taunted me about a relative of mine they murdered, that I would see fit to attack them. I've got a fairly thick skin though which the Internet has helped develop, knowing that a large number of people in the world would see me dead of my lack of religious beliefs and my sexuality is a good incentive to stop caring about other people's opinions. But anyhow, your explanations have been satisfactory so cheers for that and have a nice day.

 

[Flames66]

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.

Fair enough, I will give you that duelling with the consent of both parties is certainly preferable to an unconsenting attack, I'm not one for telling consenting adults what they can and cannot do with each other. Still, you're effectively deciding an argument with an arbitrary method, in which case why not chose a method that doesn't risk injury or death? A coin flip, chess game or pokemon battle would be just as effective for duelling out your problems without the potential for damaging or losing a life, I can't see any benefit to either party of duelling with swords, guns or fists.

I can give no specific reason why dueling would be better than playing pokemon, it just feels more honourable to me. I'm not talking about dueling to the death with swords, but the risk of some actual damage being done emphasises the importance of taking it seriously. My personal preference is a duel with bokken, with either first successful strike winning or a system based on rounds.

I'm not going to debate the second example because I don't see it getting us anywhere. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Neither of us is right or wrong, it's just a different values system.

 

[wulf3n]

Dude, this isn't just physical violence, your position appears to be advocating you'd take a beating solely because you could hurt them by fighting back.

I should make this very clear. Self defense is OK.

What this thread is talking about however is never considered self defense. It's not about "taking a beating" but rather don't be so sensitive and let words get to you.

If someone's talking shit about you shattering their nose is more likely to make the situation worse, not better.

And THIS is the problem! Because how, exactly, are you going to be comfortable with yourself if every day you tacitly accept what they're saying?

Ignoring it != accepting it.

You can say they're unimportant and emotionally stable full-grown adults can often see it like that but children? Teenagers? People who are still forming their identities? They can only be told their worthless so many times before they believe it.

Why do you think full-grown adults get emotionally stable about themselves? They learn as teenagers.

They can't just ignore it and because they're always told responding will make it worse they're afraid to even do anything.

They can ignore it if they're taught to be confident in themselves. "Responding" as you call it is just going to make them more emotionally unstable as it can set someone in the alpha dog bull shit mentality that any offence to their superiority is a serious issue.

They don't have to solve their problems with fists, that's entirely dependent on what bullying is occuring. But you're denying it's a problem, I'm willing to bet first hand you know how much this sucked.

No I'm saying "solutions" that a person can instigate that requires their fist isn't a solution, it's just changing the problem.

I'm going to go out on a limb guess the people who advocate "violence" as a solution haven't seen "real" violence. The kind that leaves a person seriously maimed or dead.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I should make this very clear. Self defense is OK.

I'm actually somewhat relieved to hear this because you've always seemed reasonable in other discussions and the fact you attributed any form of violence as equal to manslaughter was worrying me.

Ignoring it != accepting it.

I'm gonna assume that's meant to be the line-through the equals thing. But I disagree. And you do too because whenever someone says something you disagree with you don't ignore it, you write a reply. If you could just ignore it while knowing it's wrong, you wouldn't have multi-post arguments (what we have here being a discussion since we haven't hit the point of swearing or insulting each other). Obviously, this isn't the same as socking someone in the face, but clearly if something you qualify as 'wrong' is said you feel a need to respond, I'm just saying it happens in real-life too and that accepting these things is difficult.

Why do you think full-grown adults get emotionally stable about themselves? They learn as teenagers.

Yeah, by standing up to themselves, and some of them don't make it because they get told not to.

They can ignore it if they're taught to be confident in themselves. "Responding" as you call it is just going to make them more emotionally unstable as it can set someone in the alpha dog bull shit mentality that any offence to their superiority is a serious issue.

Right, but just telling someone to 'toughen up' isn't doing that, saying "If someone crosses that line you need to stand up to them" does. Blankly ignoring things you don't like isn't confidence. Learning to stand up for yourself doesn't require being an alpha asshole, just actually having some confidence in yourself.

No I'm saying "solutions" that a person can instigate that requires their fist isn't a solution, it's just changing the problem.

I'm going to go out on a limb guess the people who advocate "violence" as a solution haven't seen "real" violence. The kind that leaves a person seriously maimed or dead.

Again, this is one of those things where it's entirely relative. Slapping someone is not equivalent to curb-stomping someone. Not all acts of violence are equal. Escalation can certainly occur but it isn't a certainty.

 

[wulf3n]

I'm actually somewhat relieved to hear this because you've always seemed reasonable in other discussions and the fact you attributed any form of violence as equal to manslaughter was worrying me.

I wasn't necessarily saying all violence is equivalent to manslaughter, I just know how easily actions that would be seen as trivial lead to that end.

I'm gonna assume that's meant to be the line-through the equals thing. But I disagree. And you do too because whenever someone says something you disagree with you don't ignore it, you write a reply. If you could just ignore it while knowing it's wrong, you wouldn't have multi-post arguments (what we have here being a discussion since we haven't hit the point of swearing or insulting each other). Obviously, this isn't the same as socking someone in the face, but clearly if something you qualify as 'wrong' is said you feel a need to respond, I'm just saying it happens in real-life too and that accepting these things is difficult.

Like you said this situation is different. I know your position isn't trying to belittle or demean the other. If it were I would have just ignored it.

The idea that you need to address accusations isn't inherently wrong, but you have to take into account who you're trying to convince. It's pointless making a rebuttal to the instigator because they should mean nothing to you. If rational people you like start believing what is said then you address them on how it's wrong.

Yeah, by standing up to themselves, and some of them don't make it because they get told not to.

I wouldn't think many are told not to stand up for themselves. I'd argue it's more along the lines of "Don't start fights" and "Don't feed the trolls".

Right, but just telling someone to 'toughen up' isn't doing that, saying "If someone crosses that line you need to stand up to them" does.

The phrase toughen up is used in general and not something I would consider advice. Toughening up is what said person needs to do, how it is done is dependent on the individual.

Blankly ignoring things you don't like isn't confidence. Learning to stand up for yourself doesn't require being an alpha asshole, just actually having some confidence in yourself.

It doesn't require it, but it can easily lead to it. Challenging every insult to nothing more than pride is an easy habit to get into, and likely if you're response to an insult is to confront the person on it.

Again, this is one of those things where it's entirely relative. Slapping someone is not equivalent to curb-stomping someone. Not all acts of violence are equal. Escalation can certainly occur but it isn't a certainty.

True, however the escalation isn't in any one persons control. When you start a fight you have no idea, or any real control for that matter, on how it's going to end. This is generally why people argue that instigating violence of any sort is the wrong answer.

 

[chikusho]

Right, but just telling someone to 'toughen up' isn't doing that, saying "If someone crosses that line you need to stand up to them" does. Blankly ignoring things you don't like isn't confidence. Learning to stand up for yourself doesn't require being an alpha asshole, just actually having some confidence in yourself.

Saying "If someone crosses that line you need to stand up to them" is saying "it's your fault this happens because you can't stop it". If you are ever in a position to give advice to someone who's the victim of bullying or unfair treatment, you already know enough to take a better course of action than suggesting any kind of fighting or violence.

 

[sumanoskae]

Ethically speaking, I agree completely; there's plenty of shit you can say that warrants a smack in the face. But speaking rationally, you can usually more easily avoid trouble if the other person strikes first.

I'd say you're better off manipulating and talking your way into a superior position. If it comes to blows and they deserve it, fine. But it's not worth the legal trouble just to get the first hit in. You don't really achieve anything tangible by getting into a fight.

Fighting is a perfectly justifiable response to many things, it's just not often a practical one.

If someone needed their ass kicked and I thought I could get away with it, sure I'd throw down. But I haven't come across that situation yet.

 

[mistahzig1]

I worked as a bouncer for 5 years. Been involved in over 200 fights in that time.


Here are my thoughts:

1) In all these fights, I've only seen about 5 fights that were "honorable", 1-on-1 "gentleman fights". These rest were not even or fair fights. So the success stories you hear are a minority.

2) Fights RARELY end when the fight ends. Sure, you've won that time, but I garantee you will experience a certain level of paranoia after the fact, which isn't fun to live with. Looking over your shoulder for sucker-punches from the bully or his friends for months on end will add weight to your shoulders

3) ?He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster . . . when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you?
¯ Friedrich Nietzsche
Once you fight, you will forever be on that slippery slope and that's not a nice place to be.



That being said, when ALL other options have no effects, go nuts. A victim should NEVER let the bully win.

Winning a fight isn't what matters when you come down to it; it's HOW you win/lose your fights in life. A real fight is the same thing. Maybe you win; maybe you lose, but you'll do it on your own feet and not on your knees

 

[chikusho]

I'd say you're better off manipulating and talking your way into a superior position. If it comes to blows and they deserve it, fine. But it's not worth the legal trouble just to get the first hit in. You don't really achieve anything tangible by getting into a fight.

Here's a better strategy: leave.
If you have the time to start "manipulating and talking your way to a superior position" you can just as easily leave and get help, or just leave and not return. Fight averted, everyone wins.

 

[sumanoskae]

I'd say you're better off manipulating and talking your way into a superior position. If it comes to blows and they deserve it, fine. But it's not worth the legal trouble just to get the first hit in. You don't really achieve anything tangible by getting into a fight.

Here's a better strategy: leave.
If you have the time to start "manipulating and talking your way to a superior position" you can just as easily leave and get help, or just leave and not return. Fight averted, everyone wins.

Why should I have to leave? If somebody else as endeavored to start a conflict, if I'm in the right, why should I just walk away when I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to lose?

Like I said, it's generally not smart to start a fight, but that doesn't mean you have to avoid one no matter the circumstances.

 

[chikusho]

I'd say you're better off manipulating and talking your way into a superior position. If it comes to blows and they deserve it, fine. But it's not worth the legal trouble just to get the first hit in. You don't really achieve anything tangible by getting into a fight.

Here's a better strategy: leave.
If you have the time to start "manipulating and talking your way to a superior position" you can just as easily leave and get help, or just leave and not return. Fight averted, everyone wins.

Why should I have to leave? If somebody else as endeavored to start a conflict, if I'm in the right, why should I just walk away when I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to lose?

Like I said, it's generally not smart to start a fight, but that doesn't mean you have to avoid one no matter the circumstances.

Well, first, how do you know you are in the right? The other person is quite likely just as convinced that he's in the right. If a fight breaks out you'll still both be equally convinced of your positions. Only now there's much more anger, hate, pain, stress and possibly physical injury in the world. You might feel better from winning at violence, but the kind of people who get pleasure from hurting other people are really not the ones we should embrace or encourage as a society.

Second, you should avoid it because you're mature enough to not get triggered into a physical conflict over some bullshit. Leave the offending party to his delusions rather than achieving nothing by hurting him over it.

Also, maybe because you're smart enough to know that whatever it is, it isn't worth the risk of escalation. That something which could be solved by just leaving turns into a fight, which could turn into injury, death and prison.

Saying that someone deserves a punch to the face might be true in a figurative sense. It still isn't justifiable to do it. Maybe you can explain why you had done something like that, but the only cases where people get off from assault are under circumstances where he can't be legally responsible for his actions. And at that point he still might get stuck with a punishment, because the kind of people who flip out and attack people when provoked are not the kind of people we should embrace or encourage as a society.

So, in essence, leaving is usually the best option. Hell, in self defense situations you should always work towards getting out of it and as far away from the aggressor as possible. Because at the end of the day, it's not worth it to fight.

 

[DoPo]

Why should I have to leave? If somebody else as endeavored to start a conflict

Wait...somebody else? Didn't you just say "you better provoke the other party into attacking"? That doesn't seem like "somebody else" trying to start a conflict - this does seem like you yourself.

if I'm in the right

By provoking them into a fight? Geez, that's a big "if" there.

why should I just walk away when I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to lose?

And you have SO MUCH to gain. Like...yeah - all that stuff. And that other thing. By punching people in the face and being punched back. Right. OK.

Like I said, it's generally not smart to start a fight, but that doesn't mean you have to avoid one no matter the circumstances.

Ah, sorry, I'm still new to this binary brain stuff in debates - I keep imagining that apparently nonexistent gulf between "fight no matter the circumstances" and "avoid fighting no matter the circumstances". I imagined there was a middleground around there but...my apologies for having stupid analogue delusions. You are right - since all situations are either fight or flight, you must always fight.

 

[Johnny Impact]

I have never hit anyone who didn't physically assault me. Several people who did physically assault me got clean away with it.

YOUTH
In school you can't choose who you spend your days with. This means you are going to spend four years stuck with the same ratbag assholes who pick on you regardless of whether they hit you, or you hit them, or it's all verbal, or any other permutation. These fucks will be in your face every day, every second that they can be. You are their entertainment. They don't respond to reason. Reason is just something else for them to make fun of. Walking away isn't an option, because you're going to be back there tomorrow and have to face them all over again.

No matter what they do to you, consequences within the rules are a complete joke. In my school fighting was a three-day suspension. That isn't punishment, it's a vacation. The only real chance you have to make it stop is to teach the asswipes about consequences. Show them messing with you means pain: immediate, brutal, psychotic assault until someone drags you away. Bullies don't want to fight, they want to hurt you without getting hurt themselves. It's the lack of consequence they're really looking for. Give them consequences and they'll move on. Even if you have to take a pounding or two getting your message across, nobody will mess with you after you bite chunks out of a couple people.

Please note, I did not call this a solution. There is no solution. I do not recommend the path of violence, I simply said it is your only chance to make it stop. The only other thing you can do is bow your head and take it and take it and take it. Having done this myself, and consequently spent the next decade trying unsuccessfully to cope with the bottomless self-hatred and world-shattering rage I was left with, I can't say I recommend the path of the victim either.

ADULTHOOD
Things are pretty much opposite when you're an adult. Hitting not only stops being a viable path, it can easily land your ass in jail and keep it there for a good long time. Legal proceedings against adults carry many more consequences than they do against minors. For starters, records are no longer expunged. Spending time in jail (and you will if convicted of assault) will haunt you for the rest of your life.

Self-determination kicks in in a big way. Hopefully you are now engaged in a career you enjoy (or at least a college major of your choice) instead of merely drudging through the prison that is public education. The people around you are probably more stable and mature. There's a lot less abuse to begin with, plus you no longer have to take it. Walking away or taking it to HR really are options and they're no longer the jokes they used to be. People can get fired -- as in "clean out your desk, you're never coming back," not just a three-day suspension -- if harassment doesn't stop. You can even change jobs yourself to get away from it if you feel the need.

The whole idea of bullying is to make you feel helpless. Mature, intelligent adults aren't helpless and what's more, they know it. The power of adulthood renders hitting obsolete and the majority of bullying ineffective.

EDIT: This started as a hitting post and ended up a bullying post. Not sure how that happened. Going to leave it alone as I do talk about hitting quite a bit.

 

[DugMachine]

We are not wild animals. If somebody is saying rude shit then ignore them or walk away, it's that simple. If you beat without them laying a finger on you then you've lost all respect from me. You're not manly or tough for fighting when there's no reason to. Defend yourself if someone hits you first, sure but even then if you can avoid it you should at all costs.

 

[II2]

If in your culture solving your problems with violence is okay, I'd say your culture has issues.

Can you name a human culture that has existed, in history, that didn't employ violence and make allowances for it, even while speaking to a greater state of peace and civilization?

I'm not trying to be snide, I literally ask if there has ever existed a human culture where a minimal-to-no threshold regarding sanctioned or condoned violence? When I say culture, I use the term specifically to mean the prevailing culture of anything from population 150 tribes to nation states. I'm curious if anthropological examples exist.

The best I can come up with is the prevailing attitudes of certain pacifist subcultures (like hippies in the 60's) that don't really count, owing to being a soluble social entity and more a movement (which had it's share of bullshit; look up hells angels at woodstock). Outside that... Mahayana Buddhist monks? The ones best known for burning themselves alive for peace?

Our great ape cousins the Bonobo chimps somehow found a way to high peacefulness by substituting sexual interaction as a placeholder for violence in many of their social functions... I'm kinda reaching here...

 

[Lieju]

If in your culture solving your problems with violence is okay, I'd say your culture has issues.

Can you name a human culture that has existed, in history, that didn't employ violence and make allowances for it, even while speaking to a greater state of peace and civilization?

No.

Doesn't mean it's all right. Or that the level of violence and when violence is considered an appropriate response don't wary.
The OP said you shouldn't 'belittle some else's upbringing or culture.'
But that's not something that should free you from criticism.

 

[Raikas]

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.

I fail to see how hobbies have anything central to say about conflict resolution. I mean, I'd don't give a shit about cars, but I hunt, and like you I'm into lifting, hiking, and climbing (and frankly, I see plenty of women doing all of those things too, so framing it as masculinity strikes me as rather questionable). But I still have zero desire to encourage anyone over the age of 12 to solve their problems with their fists instead of their brains. Yeah, kids wrestle, but mature adults don't, unless they're doing so within the rules of a sport.

The OP started this with an example of not being able to hold back when someone insults his mother. Back when I was in grade 9 (so we're talking 13 and 14 year olds) I remember people having "mother cut" (hey, it was the 90s) contests - the goal was to see who could come up with the cleverest insults. If someone responded by punching the other guy out, he'd be showing weakness, not strength. Strength was coming up with a come-back. Getting physical would just be pathetic.

The idea that solving your conflicts with your fists is somehow weaker than solving them with your brain just makes me laugh. Have I gotten into fights before? Yeah, I have (although not for years now) - but I'm ashamed of it, not proud of it - letting someone get to me to the point where I made it physical was weak, regardless of whether or not I came out on top, y'know?

 

[IndieGinge]

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.

One, I'd like to say that you, by far, have one of the best points on this thread.

Hurting people sucks, there's no invisible scale that's "balanced" because X Douchey comments = 1 broken nose. If you knock somebody out because they said something shitty, you just knocked somebody out because you didn't like what they had to say. That's not a way to make anything better, and now you're also in the wrong, as nobody's actually fought you. Not mention that some people who are willing to escalate things to blows won't stop with their fists, you don't know if you're fighting a stereotypical bully who's gonna cry at the first black eye, or a guy who's gonna widen your smile with a blade if you even try to slap him. I mean, sure you can kinda see if somebody is that fucking nuts, or just a pussy, but I doubt anyone reading this can read minds, and if you live like OP advocates, you might one day pick a fight with a psycho, or a thug who's got one hell of a lot of really pissed off friends. And it's been said before, if this isn't self defense, or an "honorable street duel" wherein both parties agree to rules and abide by them (an idea I actually kinda advocate, at least it's something that's not sucker punching a guy who's talking shit) then you are being a child.

Anyone who talks about "honorable violent death" has been reading waaaaaay too much mythology or playing too much Skyrim. I find it baffling that, in a world where the phrase "War is Hell." is essentially memetic that we still can glorify such a death outside of fiction, which is a place made of a lot more abstracts and metaphors than our reality.

One final thing, I've seen a few people claiming that physical abuse isn't as bad as verbal abuse, because verbal abuse "damages the mind". Stop being naive. Beating the shit out of someone doesn't just break a few bones, or leave cuts and bruises. It'll scare the shit out of you, and leave your mind with as many scars. I've got a family member who was held down and beaten like a dog by a posse of douchebags, and this 40 year old man had trouble watching high school wrestling of all things because it reminds him of that incident, along with a few other bad things. Saying that you heal from physical abuse is like saying that all physical abuse is black eyes. It can, and does, get one hell of a lot worse than that. Hell, rape is physically abusing someone, but I doubt that any of you will be brave(stupid) enough to claim that people can just "get better" once all the physical trauma from being raped is gone.

 

[II2]

If in your culture solving your problems with violence is okay, I'd say your culture has issues.

Can you name a human culture that has existed, in history, that didn't employ violence and make allowances for it, even while speaking to a greater state of peace and civilization?

I'm not trying to be snide, I literally ask if there has ever existed a human culture where a minimal-to-no threshold regarding sanctioned or condoned violence? When I say culture, I use the term specifically to mean the prevailing culture of anything from population 150 tribes to nation states. I'm curious if anthropological examples exist.

The best I can come up with is the prevailing attitudes of certain pacifist subcultures (like hippies in the 60's) that don't really count, owing to being a soluble social entity and more a movement (which had it's share of bullshit; look up hells angels at woodstock). Outside that... Mahayana Buddhist monks? The ones best known for burning themselves alive for peace?

Our great ape cousins the Bonobo chimps somehow found a way to high peacefulness by substituting sexual interaction as a placeholder for violence in many of their social functions... I'm kinda reaching here...

No.

Doesn't mean it's all right. Or that the level of violence and when violence is considered an appropriate response don't wary.
The OP said you shouldn't 'belittle some else's upbringing or culture.'
But that's not something that should free you from criticism.

Sure, I can get behind that. To me, violence has always stuck me as a fundamental failure of imagination and patience. A systemic or interpersonal cheat or shortcut to a solution that can't be reached through communication. A dysfunction, in it's utility; whether it's the police dropping a ax-crazy murderer, or a state mobilizing for defense, the net result of those actions is only death, injury and a propagation of violence. The same energy preparing for or acting on violent intent seems like it would have tremendous positive potential if it could be redirected into something constructive for the indiviual, group and species... But, how do we GET there?

I think criticism is a good start, don't get me wrong. But in trying to conceptualize a true, practical end to violence, it would require a great degree of creativity and imagination, in addition to the practical side of implementing and 'selling' the notion to people who've already 'degenerated' to relying on violence.

I've enjoyed playing with the idea of bio-engineering physical alterations or a "pacemaker" for the paleo-mamalian amygdala structures of the brain that helped us to survive in caveman days, but cause so many of our problems in sentient, peaceful civilization. That's a rather outlandish notion - science fiction idea, presently. But with so much unknown, perhaps we could stumble towards something like that initially through research on volunteers from groups of people already committed to anger management treatment?

Why I'm on about all this is just that declaring, "violence is self-propagating problem we can try to fix" is a true statement and one most people will agree with. But what next? Simply saying that and agreeing and doing it again isn't useful. I've tried to think on it and come up with a few crude, nebulous ideas as described above, but I honestly can't even remotely fathom how to either realize them or propagate them across a planet of 7 billion humans, as they currently are.

 

[Lieju]

Sure, I can get behind that. To me, violence has always stuck me as a fundamental failure of imagination and patience. A systemic or interpersonal cheat or shortcut to a solution that can't be reached through communication. A dysfunction, in it's utility; whether it's the police dropping a ax-crazy murderer, or a state mobilizing for defense, the net result of those actions is only death, injury and a propagation of violence. The same energy preparing for or acting on violent intent seems like it would have tremendous positive potential if it could be redirected into something constructive for the indiviual, group and species... But, how do we GET there?

In a lot of cases it might more be the failure of the culture and the situation. It doesn't absolve people from the responsibility, but just telling people 'don't do it' is not useful.

For example:
Would you punch a man to steal their piece of bread?
Would you do it if that piece of bread was the only food you had seen in days and your child was dying of hunger?

Would you punch a guy for calling your mom a ho?
Would you do it if you were afraid not doing so would negatively impact your image and result in real danger and loss of status?

Would you attack a neighbouring country?
Would you do it if you had reason to believe they were going to attack you?

Would you punch a black man for talking to your girlfriend?
Would you do it if you had been told your whole life all black men were rapists after the white women and that it was your duty to protect your woman?

I think criticism is a good start, don't get me wrong. But in trying to conceptualize a true, practical end to violence, it would require a great degree of creativity and imagination, in addition to the practical side of implementing and 'selling' the notion to people who've already 'degenerated' to relying on violence.

Or you could aim to take away the reasons behind the violence.

Such as the lack of options for solving your issues non-violently, aiming to provide people with security, not glorifying violence, educating people on things like childcare, breaking down gender-roles that support views that 'real' men should be able to prove their manliness via violence, that women are property that can be 'disciplined' etc.

And that's all stuff we as humans have done, for millions of years, really.
We have laws, so if you are wronged, you don't have to go and solve the issue yourself, we form societies and relationships with other societies.

True, we have also invented new reasons for being jerks for people, but overall I'd say we are making progress.

I've enjoyed playing with the idea of bio-engineering physical alterations or a "pacemaker" for the paleo-mamalian amygdala structures of the brain that helped us to survive in caveman days, but cause so many of our problems in sentient, peaceful civilization. That's a rather outlandish notion - science fiction idea, presently. But with so much unknown, perhaps we could stumble towards something like that initially through research on volunteers from groups of people already committed to anger management treatment?

There certainly are people with anger-issues and outright mental issues, which can also be treated. So that's another approach.