Huhgh- I'm sorry what was this thread about again, i was busy challenging a bear to fisticuffs.
Have at you, hairy barista (punching noises)
Have at you, hairy barista (punching noises)
Why the hate for violence.
- Thread starter Donbett1974
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That got a laugh out of meMittens The Kitten said:
But OP, I really don't get what you're saying. Without violence there would be no sun, and no sex? It just doesn't make sense, sorry.
Violence is a possible solution, but I firmly believe that it should be a last resort. Hell, there are animals that resolve conflicts without resorting to violence, why can't we?
The biggest problem a lot of people have with violence today is that it's glorified. Violence is made to seem not only acceptable, but cool. It also seems that the more brutal and gratuitous the violence, the cooler it's supposed to be.
I'd just like to know why sex is somehow still more taboo to glorify than violence.
The biggest problem a lot of people have with violence today is that it's glorified. Violence is made to seem not only acceptable, but cool. It also seems that the more brutal and gratuitous the violence, the cooler it's supposed to be.
I'd just like to know why sex is somehow still more taboo to glorify than violence.
For those who ask about the sun it's a big engine consuming hydrogen to put out heat, radiation, and many other things the act of consuming, heating, radiating are the acts of violence. Violence comes in many forms isn't just about hitting.
Wait...How?Donbett1974 said:
Wait..What?Donbett1974 said:
No rape maybe, but no sex?Donbett1974 said:
I'd say people hate violence because it's so damn violent.
Edit:
You can't equate a natural process to an act like rape or murder. You can go and say it's technically violence, but that's not what people think of when they hear the word violence and I think you know that.Donbett1974 said:
No one is against the sun continuing to burn.
People are against murders.
No one is against the type of "violence" you're referring to in your original post.
I lol'ed myself a bit.Catalyst6 said:Well God is supposedly omnipresent, right? So it would be... flagellation? Self-abuse? By the stars and heavens, God is emo.jthwilliams said:Isn't that child abuse? I mean threatening his Sun like that.Catalyst6 said:
TROLL ALERT!! The reference to sex being inherently violent makes it obvious. DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
That said, I guess our cells are committing violence every mintue of every day against bacteria and viruses, but that isn't what most people think of when they think of violence. At any rate, I believe we play violent videogames for the same basic reason kittens and puppies play hunter, and the same basic reason kids would play cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians- because most boys, and some girls, have an inherent instinct to play "warrior", possibly in preparation for adulthood, and the trials and dangers of adult life in the Stone Age.
That said, I guess our cells are committing violence every mintue of every day against bacteria and viruses, but that isn't what most people think of when they think of violence. At any rate, I believe we play violent videogames for the same basic reason kittens and puppies play hunter, and the same basic reason kids would play cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians- because most boys, and some girls, have an inherent instinct to play "warrior", possibly in preparation for adulthood, and the trials and dangers of adult life in the Stone Age.
Violence has been human's answer, thus far, for nearly everything it has done and has solved most of the major issues the world has come to know.
For those that say violence shouldn't be an answer, please put yourself in a room with Sun Tzu, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hannibal, Zhuge Liang, Leonidas, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great, William Wallace, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell and try to imagine how the conversation would go. Assuming, of course, the atmosphere would be calm enough for words, not the dismembering of body parts, and that everyone could communicate and understand one another verbally.
That's not to say that violence SHOULD be the answer, either. Sadly, as human history has taught us, those who have strived for non-violent answers to worldly concerns have rarely met with success, and those that have succeeded, in whatever form, were either killed in the process or killed after the non-violent resistance.
For those that say violence shouldn't be an answer, please put yourself in a room with Sun Tzu, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hannibal, Zhuge Liang, Leonidas, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great, William Wallace, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell and try to imagine how the conversation would go. Assuming, of course, the atmosphere would be calm enough for words, not the dismembering of body parts, and that everyone could communicate and understand one another verbally.
That's not to say that violence SHOULD be the answer, either. Sadly, as human history has taught us, those who have strived for non-violent answers to worldly concerns have rarely met with success, and those that have succeeded, in whatever form, were either killed in the process or killed after the non-violent resistance.
And an AKA isn't violent in the sense used by the OP: Shooting someone with a AKA is, but Shooting say a target wouldn't really be. I realise this could be honestly confusing because something canse be violent in 3 or 4 different senses of the word at the same time.TestECull said:
But ask yourself this. If you pop'ed the hood, turned on a car engine and put on TV for 5 hours do you really think people would be complaining because it was so violent.
So basically you are practicing straw man here. you are taking the arguement and turning it into something it clearly isn't to say it is ridiculous.
Then you sir need to refine your understanding of our hate, for nobody except the clown that lives in the dark void connected to all closets hates the chemical forms of violence.Donbett1974 said:
But you already knew that, didn't you? Of course you did, you just pointed out that violence isn't just hitting, which means you knew all along people are against the hitting kind of violence. So instead of just sitting back and doing something more constructive you started a thread on a bogus premise for the premise of getting people riled.
You sir, are a troll.
[edit]
...or an idiot.
It sounds like the OP was trying to make a comment about chemical reactions and fusion, but didn't have the intelligence to articulate it. He just made himself sound like a jerk...
TestECull said:
So what you are saying is that you think people who complain about violence in video games and TV are concerned about quick motion and chemical reactions? That there are a significant number of people in the world who find nondistructive but energetic movement disburbing and potentially an issue when children are exposed to them?
Because if you do believe that than, you are incorrect and can stop worrying. When they talk about violence on TV and in games, they mean the type that cuase harm to simulated living beings and/or is distructive and meant to be distructive. More over they gernally attach intent as accidental violence is usually exempt from peoples concerns except when talking about very small children.
If not, than you're clearly building a strawman to suggest there is hate out there for chemestry.