Does violence solve problems?

[Handy007]

NO! All it does not all it does is make new problems to solve!

[Boris-4-U]

I punch you in the face, you shut up. Problem solved.

[yurgenburgen]

Yes, it ended the Second World War. And the first one. And every war until some prick starts it up again.

[tankbuster781]

At 4/3/09 05:27 PM, Boris-4-U wrote: I punch you in the face, you shut up. Problem solved.

c:

[BigJimmy08]

voilence does solve problems ...I punch Carol Vordamen to get my soduku puzzel solved

[Melkarid]

What, you thought giving Hitler counseling would end WW2?

Naive... too naive..

[Handy007]

At 4/3/09 05:28 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Yes, it ended the Second World War. And the first one. And every war until some prick starts it up again.

yes it did, but would the wars ever start without violence?

[1Tyla1]

Only because that's the only negotiable language some people understand.

[JohnnyWang]

At 4/3/09 05:28 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Yes, it ended the Second World War. And the first one. And every war until some prick starts it up again.

It also started them.

But yeah, it solves problems, but also causes them. I believe in violence when necessary, but in general, a more peaceful attitude.

[Lost-Chances]

At 4/3/09 05:32 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: But yeah, it solves problems, but also causes them. I believe in violence when necessary, but in general, a more peaceful attitude.

Hit the nail on the head.

[lightblob]

Well, sometimes it does.

If the guy who uses violence is nice, usually it won't start problems.

If the guy who uses violence is a jackass, then there would be problems.

[JohnnyWang]

At 4/3/09 05:34 PM, Lost-Chances wrote:

At 4/3/09 05:32 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: But yeah, it solves problems, but also causes them. I believe in violence when necessary, but in general, a more peaceful attitude.

Hit the nail on the head.

The problem with topics like this, is that people tend to think in binary vision. Either all or nothing, with us or against us, etc.

[Lost-Chances]

At 4/3/09 05:37 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 4/3/09 05:34 PM, Lost-Chances wrote:

At 4/3/09 05:32 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: But yeah, it solves problems, but also causes them. I believe in violence when necessary, but in general, a more peaceful attitude.

Hit the nail on the head.

The problem with topics like this, is that people tend to think in binary vision. Either all or nothing, with us or against us, etc.

Yeah. When you mention that sometimes you need a bit of violence to maybe reinstate some fear into criminals, people imagine you torturing the hell out of innocent people, stringing them up to rot and ruling as a dictator. It's a pathetic misconception and one that should be dropped if certain crises are going to be avoided and deteriorated. To be more precise, crime.

[deathofghosts]

chuck noris

proof that violence solves problems

[lowiehimself]

War proves that violence can solve alot. Just bully the other side into submission, or just remove that side of the conflict from the face of the earth.

Also, i'd get a boner when a mod lockes this with; Yes.

[JohnnyWang]

At 4/3/09 05:41 PM, Lost-Chances wrote: Yeah. When you mention that sometimes you need a bit of violence to maybe reinstate some fear into criminals, people imagine you torturing the hell out of innocent people, stringing them up to rot and ruling as a dictator. It's a pathetic misconception and one that should be dropped if certain crises are going to be avoided and deteriorated. To be more precise, crime.

Actually, I'm going to disagree, I think that violence is an innefective tool to fight crime, it usually just provokes more. If the police are allowed violent methods against suspects (remember the basis of the justice system; everyone is innocent until proven otherwise), there's always the risk of innocents getting brutalised, and that raises objection. Even innocent people stop trusting the police. Why do you think "Stop Snitching" is so popular within the American Black Community?

[carlosbarn]

At 4/3/09 05:26 PM, Handy007 wrote: NO! All it does not all it does is make new problems to solve!

I are too stupid too think logicamly!
Wry does youse get ta be alawys rght?
*punches you in the face*
Nouse Iem right biatch!

Short term-
"If I can't think of another way to prove myself right,
I'll shoot you in a dark alleyway without any lights,
With red the evil coming from you we expel,
You won't have any say to turn MY words stale!"

Best way to say it -
Violence is for people who are not intelligent enough to solve it otherwise.

[Lost-Chances]

At 4/3/09 05:46 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: Actually, I'm going to disagree, I think that violence is an innefective tool to fight crime, it usually just provokes more. If the police are allowed violent methods against suspects (remember the basis of the justice system; everyone is innocent until proven otherwise), there's always the risk of innocents getting brutalised, and that raises objection. Even innocent people stop trusting the police. Why do you think "Stop Snitching" is so popular within the American Black Community?

The question is, what is an effective tool to fight it then? Police have followed things by the book, we've taken every precaution to make sure people don't turn to crime; we're even trying to help improve concentration via drugs (Ritalin) with little to no effect. While yes, it's stupid to do it to prevent petty things but when citizens in a country are scared to go out, I doubt they'll be fighting against the police any time soon. They'd be congratulating if anything while still too scared to get annoyed if they accidentally hit an innocent person.

One idea I had was to cut spending for prisons. Let standards sink. Although that's my personal opinion.

[JohnnyWang]

At 4/3/09 05:54 PM, Lost-Chances wrote: The question is, what is an effective tool to fight it then? Police have followed things by the book,

The sour memories do last. But you know, it's a long process, you can't magic crime away overnight, or even in a few years. Some points of what create crime:
1. Poverty, no-brainer, if you don't have money but still need to eat, what are you going to do?
2. Alienation, people who are left out of the loop of society, like kids who get expelled in school and constantly singled out by the teachers, then turn to the society outside the organised one.
3. Peers/population. Ghettoes as constructs create crime, well establshed fact. Whenever a bunch of poor people are crammed into a bunch of cheap houses in a small area with limited oportunties, crime ensues.

While yes, it's stupid to do it to prevent petty things but when citizens in a country are scared to go out, I doubt they'll be fighting against the police any time soon. They'd be congratulating if anything while still too scared to get annoyed if they accidentally hit an innocent person.

See, here's where you're dead wrong.

Murder rates, aside from the occational spike, have been on the steady curve downwards for as long as history has been recorded, really. There was a talk about a rise in murder in the early 90's (in the US), which was connected to the new drug problem, but it was mostly dealer-on-dealer violnence, not gangsters-on-innocent-bystands, and mid-90's, it kinda just stopped.

One idea I had was to cut spending for prisons. Let standards sink. Although that's my personal opinion.

Remember the point about alienation. Take, for example, an 18-year-old kid, who's arrested for some small stuff, and sent to jail. There he has to fend of death in prison fights etc, which are hard enough to curb as is, imagine with less funding, and when the kid gets out a year or few later, you think he's scared straight and will become a productive member of society? Oh wait, people don't hire people with records. Whoops.

[K-RadPie]

At 4/3/09 05:46 PM, carlosbarn wrote: Best way to say it -
Violence is for people who are not intelligent enough to solve it otherwise.

And I suppose "intelligent" people like yourself could have solved WW2 without violence, right?

[Harris0n]

"only use necessary force" the general thing when enforcing the law in my country.

we dont shoot unarmed people. plus the majority of the policeforce here dont have guns. but we do have steel batons.
knive vs baton, baton kicks ass, a rule is dont hit baton across head.

violence has to be the answer sometimes. ah well.

[Lost-Chances]

At 4/3/09 06:09 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: The sour memories do last. But you know, it's a long process, you can't magic crime away overnight, or even in a few years. Some points of what create crime:
1. Poverty, no-brainer, if you don't have money but still need to eat, what are you going to do?

UK has low poverty. At least prior to the economic fuck up.

2. Alienation, people who are left out of the loop of society, like kids who get expelled in school and constantly singled out by the teachers, then turn to the society outside the organised one.

Question though, why do they start getting expelled? It's not as though the teacher rolls a dice and see who he/she will pick on as well.

3. Peers/population. Ghettoes as constructs create crime, well establshed fact. Whenever a bunch of poor people are crammed into a bunch of cheap houses in a small area with limited oportunties, crime ensues.

There's that fact, but I also blame the media partly. The media helps breed social trends.

Murder rates, aside from the occational spike, have been on the steady curve downwards for as long as history has been recorded, really. There was a talk about a rise in murder in the early 90's (in the US), which was connected to the new drug problem, but it was mostly dealer-on-dealer violnence, not gangsters-on-innocent-bystands, and mid-90's, it kinda just stopped.

In the UK, it's often you'll watch the news or open the news paper and witness another beating, stabbing or shooting by the same social trend. Maybe it's the media making it worse and worse, maybe they're influencing behaviour by not only putting people into irrational fear but by also giving ideas and giving people in those social trends a self-forfilling prophecy?

One idea I had was to cut spending for prisons. Let standards sink. Although that's my personal opinion.

Remember the point about alienation. Take, for example, an 18-year-old kid, who's arrested for some small stuff, and sent to jail. There he has to fend of death in prison fights etc, which are hard enough to curb as is, imagine with less funding, and when the kid gets out a year or few later, you think he's scared straight and will become a productive member of society? Oh wait, people don't hire people with records. Whoops.

That is due to fears of reoffending. Plus, not only would it work as punishment of "don't do it again" but also a deterrent to persuade people that time in prison would not be easy. It would also help allow the funding to be used on things that, at least viewed by people who follow the law, are more important.

[Freetos]

LOL, of coarse violence solves problems. When someone is giving you shit, whack'em in the back of the head, and BAM, problem solved.

[JohnnyWang]

At 4/3/09 06:21 PM, Lost-Chances wrote: Question though, why do they start getting expelled? It's not as though the teacher rolls a dice and see who he/she will pick on as well.

That's not the point. Yes, kids misbehave, some of them a lot, but that doesn't mean they should be made outcasts.

There's that fact, but I also blame the media partly. The media helps breed social trends.

Media, as well as pop culture, are easy targets to blame, but this has been under a lot of study over the past century or so. In short, yes, there is a slight effect, but the so does so many other factors.

In the UK, it's often you'll watch the news or open the news paper and witness another beating, stabbing or shooting by the same social trend.

You don't think this never happened before? It's like with football hooligans, there were organised, violent rows pre-WWII, the papers just didn't write about them.

That is due to fears of reoffending.

Short statistical digression; most criminally inclined people might repeat once, some twice. But after the third strike, the amount of repeat offenders drop. Yes, people make mistakes.

Plus, not only would it work as punishment of "don't do it again" but also a deterrent to persuade people that time in prison would not be easy. It would also help allow the funding to be used on things that, at least viewed by people who follow the law, are more important.

I'm not saying they should be let walk without punishment or anything, but the proisons main function isn't punishment, or some sort of revenge, it's rehabilitation. They should be wake-up call, but most of the time, prisons are university of crime; you graduate as something more than you were.

[Lost-Chances]

At 4/3/09 06:34 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: That's not the point. Yes, kids misbehave, some of them a lot, but that doesn't mean they should be made outcasts.

I agree, but it doesn't mean they should be allowed to behave with soft punishment while their disruptive behaviour affects others.

Media, as well as pop culture, are easy targets to blame, but this has been under a lot of study over the past century or so. In short, yes, there is a slight effect, but the so does so many other factors.

Of course, social class for instance affects achievement dramatically. However, in terms of easy to fix things, media might be one of them. Social class, on the other hand, isn't.

You don't think this never happened before? It's like with football hooligans, there were organised, violent rows pre-WWII, the papers just didn't write about them.

These aren't organised though, they're, apparently, beating random people for no good reason at all. No provoking, just violence for no reason.

Short statistical digression; most criminally inclined people might repeat once, some twice. But after the third strike, the amount of repeat offenders drop. Yes, people make mistakes.

Twice or third time are still too much though. Granted, people make mistakes but you can't accidentally commit the same crime twice. First time you do it, you can say you did it in rage or jealous, second time though it's just pushing it.

I'm not saying they should be let walk without punishment or anything, but the proisons main function isn't punishment, or some sort of revenge, it's rehabilitation. They should be wake-up call, but most of the time, prisons are university of crime; you graduate as something more than you were.

Maybe, but they need a feeling of punishment out of it otherwise they haven't learnt anything. A case of conditioning, in a sense, to conform to society.

[WeHaveFreshCookies]

Yes. Violence starts wars, but as I like to put it:

Any problem that can be caused by a tank, can be solved with a tank.

[dobo69]

yes, violence definetly solves problems
violence freed america for example
violence also solves problems in school when people talk shit on you

[LocoJoe]

shut up handy violence does solve problems if i want money all i do is shoots someone and i gets cash

[WeHaveFreshCookies]

At 4/3/09 06:46 PM, FatJoe214 wrote: shut up handy violence does solve problems if i want money all i do is shoots someone and i gets cash

Big man.

I wish I was as tough as you.

looks up in awe and drools

[bdash1990]

At 4/3/09 05:30 PM, Handy007 wrote: yes it did, but would the wars ever start without violence?

wars can start with violence but usually with someone being dick, such as hitler. he wanted more territory.