Violence....

On a recent post on a friends FB page (a self defense instructor), we traversed the topic of violence, whether one hated it and what one can do about it. Well, let's break it down:
I find it funny because there are those who believe that "self defense" is really nothing more than teaching violence to deal with violence and that violence doesn't solve anything... Blah, blah, blah, MEOW! ... Me personally? Do I hate violence? It's going to depend. Done unto me and mine? Absolutely... It's intolerable. Done to others because it was done to me or mine? They deserved it. There are different parameters of "violence" and what would be considered acceptable or not acceptable.... It really is going to depend on the situation. Not all "violence" is bad.

The other side was brought to my attention by a mutual friend who says "I  beg to differ on the matter in general. All violence is indeed bad, even justifiable violence. It's still 'violence' and violence on any level, regardless how defined, perceived, or personally justified and warranted, it is still a product of ego and negative energy and the results are always 1 or more people getting hurt, maimed, crippled or killed. This more often than not results in a chain of events that never serve either parties involved." It still falls in the very realm of what the core definition of what violence is.

"It's not a matter of liking or hating violence, sometimes it is most definitely a necessity, it's a matter of fundamentally understanding the nature of violence and hence, how to avoid it at all costs and tending to it accordingly only when it becomes a choice-less choice. I never equated "violence" as "self defense", not ever, not once.... they are 2 different animals, that's why they have 2 different meanings and 2 different words for em. You're confusing and or mixing the 2. I was strictly referring to violence."

So be it. In his opinion, violence is bad... There are times when violence can't be "avoided". Then what? Am I going to allow the violence to happen or am I going to bring hell on Earth to the best of my abilities to ensure that MORE violence isn't done by the one or ones perpetrating the violence. I know that violence exists. The caveman instincts are innate in every human. It's more "on the surface" with some more than others. You can study violence, the chemistry of the brain, the nature of different people, and KNOW the violence textbook from cover to cover. Are you still going to be able to avoid it? Not unless you have ESP and know NOT to be somewhere at any given time when something might occur. Is it really "ego" when a woman being attacked violently actually defends herself? Which would be considered the "violent act". The man attacking, raping and beating the woman almost to death or the woman fighting back and tearing pieces of her attacker off his face or shot him or managed to beat him enough to get away... To say that that "violent act" committed by that woman didn't serve a purpose is rather callous. The violence brought by the woman was also a survival mechanism, not a nature of violence, but of human nature. And doubtful that the woman went out her door and thought, "I'm NOT going to avoid violence and see what happens!"

Then another gentleman added that  "It has been my observation/experience that the outcome of violence is never entirely positive, regardless of the circumstances that led to the violent act - ie. repelling a violent attack with violence. Yes, you are still alive - a decidedly positive outcome, I think we can all agree - but this violent incident still becomes the epicenter of a wave of fear/disgust/anger/outrage​ that spreads outward in concentric circles, throughout our society, and - in many cases - across the globe. As a sworn peace officer, I accept that I may, in the line of duty, have to take a life to save another (maybe my own). I know I will do what needs to be done - but I do not look forward to that moment, because I know it will create bad vibes in our society, and establish a "new normal" - one flavored with a little more fear, uncertainty, etc. - for everyone who is touched by the incident.

See, having BEEN there, I didn't exactly "look forward to" the moment I was attacked either. I'm not being argumentative here. :) <See? Smiley face! I would much rather be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. The incident happened and passed and went. Done. I learned a valuable lesson and I am a bit more aware of things around me. It is an unfortunate thing that we live in a world where we have to be a little leery. It's sad to me that "violence" has to be argued as being "good or bad". But the fact remains, we are not that far removed from the cavemen that we once were. We kill things and eat them. We fight and argue and hurt and wage wars because "we're right, you're wrong". We hurt others because "That's yours, but I want it!" or "I want that so I will make it mine by any means necessary!" Instant gratification, selfish, whiny-baby, over medicated society... We make excuses for everything and everyone... Yes, I try to "avoid violent situations". I'm not looking for them, whereas police officers have to... Part and parcel to the cop gig. Puppy Guts has me worried all the time when he's on the road. Although we hope that nothing happens, one can never say it won't.
 Well, let's define "violence"...

Okay, violence by definition is the use of physical force to cause injury, damage or death. Therefor, incurring injury, damage or death makes a person be a recipient of violence by its very definition of the word. Whether it was done in self defense or not. Strictly referring to violence? Same animal, different classification. The definition of "violence" and what started that day's  game of semantical nightmare. One guy defined it as "any unwarranted or unjustified harm against another human being whether it be physical or verbal". Another upped the ante by adding "Don't forget psychological, emotional, behavioral, and societal".  

Okay... We agreed that the very definition of the word "violence" is the use of physical force with the intent to cause injury, damage or death or any unwarranted or unjustified harm whether it be physical, verbal, psychological, emotional, behavioral, and / or societal.

Now we have to further define "violence" in it's Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species and determine what are acceptable forms of violence and what are not by stipulating sense and purpose, necessity, justification and logic. (Semantic Slip-n-Slide! WOOT! Keeps the mind sharp though!

 Follow here.... Yes, you hate violence or Yes, you hate violence, but... or You hate violence sometimes or You might hate violence in some applications, but I like it in others or You kinda like it or You like it or Violence ROCKS! Can't exactly say that there's a black or white. Use of the full range of the gray scale to paint the background... But to say one way or the other? 
My "argument" wasn't so much about right answer vs. wrong answer. There really isn't a "right or wrong". I just like to stir the pot and get into semantics wars because it amuses me. It boils down to this (in my OWN opinion): I don't like violence in its definition when it is perpetrated without sense and purpose, necessity, justification, warrant, merit and logic in any of its forms be it physical, verbal, psychological, emotional, behavioral, and / or societal. 
On the other side of that if "violence" by its very definition is what gets the bacon in my tummy, venison burgers on my plate, frustrations taken out on a training partner, a good fight (the sports kind) on tv, well then I'm going to have to say I like it. The meat being on the table.... Have you EVER gotten into an argument with a vegetarian/ vegan? Meat is murder? Well then, I take my murder rare, thank you darling...

 Now about the topic of no worldwide violence? Impossible. Where there are sheep, a wolf will... appear. And when the wolf appears, will the sheep be okay to fall prey to them through the violence that will undoubtedly be perpetrated on them or do they rise up and do something... An escalation in violence to prevent other violence from happening?  I don't live in a third world war torn countryside, so in "my world", there is no violence. I don't need to imagine "my world to be with out violence". It's not like violence is part of my every day life. Could there be a potential for it if I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Of course. Do I hate violence? Of course. When there is no need for it? No. Absolutely not. When I have to call upon it, it is my best friend and my lover and I will use it like a cheap hooker. Hard, well and repeatedly until I am done with it. Again, by the very definition of what violence is, well, I am a meat eating carnivore. (Ever been to a slaughterhouse?) There are SO MANY different classifications to what "violence" is. Can I say I hate it in every one of its forms? No. I can't. There are those who will say, "Fight fire with fire" and others who will argue, "Violence begets violence"... Is there a clear cut answer? Of course not. 
The counter argument came as: "I hear ya, but nothing of what you said makes violence 'good' or 'likable'. Imagine a world where violence didn't exist for a day or two... then come back and tell me if violence, regardless of when, or how justified is a good or likable thing. Necessary, yes, but the question Chris asked was do you 'hate' violence, not do you think it is sometimes justifiable and necessary. Again big difference and it is very interesting to me how people in general jump to these defensive conclusions.... Immediately people defend their right to defend themselves using the worst possible scenarios such as rape and pedophilia for instance... now re-examine the question.... "DO YOU HATE VIOLENCE?" Isn't rape and pedophilia very acts of violence? Do you not hate these things amongst many others classifies in the similar vein? How would a world be without that? How do we minimize that? How do we ensure that never happens to us or anyone we love? What are the origins of this, the true ancestry? Once again, the question was Do you hate violence, and if so, do some shit about it" My answer is yes. I hate violence. Wish it didn't exist. But it does, I'm sure as hell prepared for it, look at what I do for a living. Why would anyone think I would be against defending one's self when I fuckin came up with the SHREDDER of all things lolol :`)"
Well, to me, the lovely notion of a world without violence is moot. (Fine... For the bible scholars out there.... God's Kingdom, return of Christ, everything is honky dory, we'll all be Adam-y or Eve-y with no sickness and won't die and no violence and YAY, God! So noted.) Again, I AM ONLY STIRRING THE POT by straddling the borders here and asking the questions because it's what I do.... KICKING THE HORNET'S NEST, potatoes, potahtoes, tomatoes, tomahtoes... I have to hate all violence because there are some types of violent acts that I don't like? i.e. pedophilia and rape among others.... To say the origins of these acts stem from a "certain place"? The hypothalamus and then the limbic system and also the amygdala or hippocamus as they are somehow responsible for emotions... Would I like to see no more violence of any sort in the world? That would mean no more contact sports of any type, sparring of any kind, hunting, fishing, meat eating... And if we're going by the "Hate violence? Do something about it..." thing, well then, how should it be handled now that there are established "rules" that there are certain types of violence that "normal" society doesn't like? Are other types of violence that people have agreed were "acceptable" okay to use? In which case to say one "hates" violence.... Makes one kind of a hypocrite...

 Justifiable or not, violence is violence is violence. By the very definition of the word, there is no slicing it. It's violence whether the physical force to cause injury, damage or death is done to defend or offend. That part we agree on. But am I going to say I hate it all? No. Do I hate violence? Well, by the true definition of the word, any contact sport could be considered violence. Think about it. Would American football be the same? ... Hunting and ultimately eating meat? I for one, WILL NOT live without bacon. There are clearly defined "intents" to cause injury, damage or death there. 
So, therefore, to draw a line by saying all violence=bad therefore I hate all violence, but only by these definitions here do we qualify what "violence" is okay and what isn't because despite the fact that by the true definition of the word it is in fact "violence" which as stipulated is violence, but "not really" because it's okay because I deemed it to be such... It starts to sound like politics to me and that's when I tune out and eat some beef jerky and go watch me some UFC.

Now, the original question posed by, and reiterated by another to attempt to bring the point home was "Do you hate violence?" and depending on the answer, one needed to outline a means to an end to defend the conviction of their words, so to speak.

One came in with: "Wow! Lots of comments. Since I am a simple man, all I will say is that violence in and of itself is disgusting, but if it is the ONLY tool left to avoid someone getting killed, then it is being used in a justifiable manner! Violence is a tool that is used mostly as a disgusting tool, but may also be used as a disgusting tool to save the life of someone who is innocent."
So to use violence as a tool when necessary becomes okay, but it disgusting, so no, he doesn't like violence in that respect.
 

Yet another explanation yielded: "Perhaps the best way for me to explain my view on this is to say that I hate "senseless" violence. Defending yourself against an attack when there is no other option to prevent harm (either to yourself or another) is not senseless. Doing so... when non-violent options were available is. Violent sport is not senseless as long as everyone is doing it for the right reasons. Consenting adults testing their abilities, etc etc. Hunting is not senseless so long as the hunter intends the prey to be eaten (by himself, his family or others). However, hunting for sport and leaving the carcass to rot or strictly for the fur/ivory/etc is senseless... unless of course it is kill and skin this animal or freeze to death.

See what I mean? Nature doesn't work without some kind of violence, even if only in the form of killing prey. Personally I also enjoy combat sports because it speaks to a long-dormant part of my evolutionary self that, as a 21st century male, I don't get to express in other ways. I also would go crazy if someone told me the only available food source was plant based.HOWEVER, senseless violence (that being violence that is unnecessary, unjustified, or without a logical purpose)... that I hate. ;) Let the semantics continue!

Thanks! .... :sigh:

There will always be the arguments for and against dark/ light, violence/ peace, black/ white, potatoes/ "potahtoes... Unless one is faced with a situation and is confronted with reality, there really is no way to determine how one is going to react and act and do regardless of principals and beliefs and blah. One won't know how they will deal with its aftermaths either. I will prepare to deal with things violently should it escalate to that. It's not to say that I like violence, but on the other side of that, I'm not going to say I hate it either. How I'm going to deal, whether peacefully or violently, with whatever is going to be strictly situationally dependent. But one thing is for certain: Si vis pacem, para bellum..