Gwazi Magnum

Answer violence with violence?

So I'm really liking the replies going here on both sides, unlike on the original place this debate was on I'm actually seeing decent arguments from the side in favor of fighting back and not things that simply boil down to "I'm angry and want an excuse to punch people".

Though I feel I should clarify the 1st post a bit, by Parent abusing a child I'm not suggesting the child fighting back/beating up the parent. I'm suggesting say you're a third person witnessing the child abuse take place? Would you step in and beat up that parent, or you would protect/save the child in another way?

---

Now sadly the past 2 days I ended getting overfilled with stuff which made me lose track of this thread until now... and it's damn late now and I have to wake up early for plans tomorrow so I don't got time for a long response now (though I did read everyone's reply). I'll come back later with a full blown response.

Just a few notes I want to say though for now:

-> When people in the old debate argued beating up an abusive adult prevented abuse they meant to the point of say breaking their arms in two so they have no means to beat the child up with. Would anyone here suggest such a response to abusive parents?

-> Jorick, don't ever worry about sound too barbaric. Your bluntness and willingness to be honest and call shit out for what it is, is one of the things I like about you so much! :P

-> Mostly what I've seen here (Majority, Jorick was an exception here) was people either going "You need violence to solve these problems" with no mention of other means or people going "You need words, understanding, love, therapy etc. to stop bullying. Violence makes it worse".

Now, although I mainly agree with the latter point (I'll go more into why when I come back later and give people proper replies) do people here feel that there is more of a balance we need to reach? Or is it more strictly do violence or avoid violence?

Answer violence with violence?

Basically the question is, in cases such as bullying and parents who physically abuse their children is the best response to beat up the bullies and parents right back? Or are we better off trying to find more peaceful ways to solve the problem?

--The rest of this is background on why I'm posting it here and why the last one elsewhere got sour. If you don't wish to read that and just answer the question above them stop reading now--

This was a debate I originally got into in a group I'm in, but the people who supported beating up the bullies and parents (and there case, to the extent of breaking limbs) the three of them waited until all the others who would disagree were offline and them bombarded the topic with just me left. And they basically resorted to pointless insults and that "The only way to stop abuse and bullying is by beating kids up" over and over again with no proof outside of self-claimed experience or using fear.

Now, I'm not telling people this to suddenly paint anyone here who may take the solve violence with violence option as bad or evil. I'm actually explaining this because:

1) I want to give people who are actually able to give proper arguments a chance to defend this side before I dismiss is as 100% wrong

2) Because although I left the debate with them because it was clear these three specifically cared nothing for fact but rather letting out their anger on others, I'm still rather irritated and annoyed at their ignorance, cheap tactics and frankly just very poor debating skills. So this is kind of a pre-explanation/warning that if I seem to get too hostile or aggressive to those who may advocate to using violence that my reaction is not on purpose, I don't mean it and will work my best to not let such hostility slip in.

^With that said though, my general position/opinion has already been given though.
I'll go into more specifics once some responses get flowing though.

Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

Curious as to what the results are for people here.

I got INFJ

Introvert(67%) iNtuitive(12%) Feeling(12%) Judging(22%)

You have distinct preference of Introversion over Extraversion (67%)
You have slight preference of Intuition over Sensing (12%)
You have slight preference of Feeling over Thinking (12%)
You have slight preference of Judging over Perceiving (22%)

I think the feeling over thinking was due to the fact I said Yes to having empathy and sympathy to other's situations and stories.
Which is fine, I get how that makes me more feeling. But at the same time a kind of feeling like that shouldn't make me any less thinking.
You can be empathetic and still think about it rationally.

The Isla Visa Shooter, Elliot Roger, was disturbing to the highest level

ShonHarris said Sexism isn't just about women. That's the problem here. Sexism is about the expectations and crazy amounts of pressure place on our people to fit certain gender roles. The same expectations that tell a boy he must have sex to prove his manhood, that speaking a certain way makes him effeminate and therefore weak. The same pressures that tell parents if the boys play with dolls they'll turn gay and that little girls wouldn't have any interest in knights or nerf guns. These expectations, which we create and choose perpetuate, limits what is acceptable in a person. So if the boy doesn't have sex there's something wrong with him. So if the girl wants to go paintballing she's just some dyke. These expectations cause so many to hurt themselves and to commit suicide. These expectations turn instances of verbal abuse into 'boys will be boys' and makes rape against a man some guy's lucky day. The traumas faced aren't validated and the pain hangs deep. We don't acknowledge it, we won't help. So yeah, when someone already delicate of mind, someone who already thinks a bit differently, when this person meets these extreme expectations and pressures -- no shit they're going to break. Sexism is as much a problem for men as it is for women. We all suffer. Worse, paired in this case as it is with mental illness, we see two serious issues that are largely ignored in America. If a person straps a bomb to their chest and ignites it, we focus very hard on what is best politically. A bomber there was a Muslim Extremist, a bomber here is just mentally ill, despite the say religious fervour. Personally, I say screw the political interpretations. I say let's acknowledge the fact there are two BIG problems at play, and it doesn't mean two-shits if someone believes one trumps the other, they're both clearly issues here. These are messages being spouted off by both the ill and the 'sane'. Do we really need this argument on if something is an act of sexism or mental illness as if the two are mutually exclusive. Gods Forbid we see both as problems and try to change them.

Note how in my post that you replied to I noted both sexism and discrimination against women separately. I didn't lump them as the same thing, I am well aware that sexism effect's both men and women. My position on that is fairly clear on just about any thread here that isn't about Religion.

As for multiple issues, to blame sexism here is to look at the base act. Not the actual mentality/trigger behind it. He was motivated by greed, jealousy and envy. He wanted sex and being a heterosexual male a woman represented sex to him. That's not sexism, that just happened to be the sex he was attracted to. So it was women he demanded to have sex with, and men who had sex that he despised.

The Isla Visa Shooter, Elliot Roger, was disturbing to the highest level

That's what I was trying to saw when the Laci Green's video equating this to sexism was posted.

But I seemed to be executed my wording very poorly this time (More than usual, my wording has never been the best :/).
The whole hating vagina's were meant to be more direct quotes of him, where he's outright said both in his video and his journal that women do not deserve sex or enjoyment cause they wouldn't give him anymore. Even when not claiming sexism and treating it as the mental illness it is, that part is still relevant cause it played a big role in his thinking, his reasoning, his views etc.

Put simply I agree, this is not a case of sexism, discrimination against women or anything. It is a case of a man who is very clearly mentally insane and an example of how the mind can snap and how the human mind can become so disturbed and deranged.

The Isla Visa Shooter, Elliot Roger, was disturbing to the highest level

He expected to get everything that he wanted, it just so happened the thing he wanted most was sex with a woman. This as a lone individual with entitlement issues, if it was misogynist there would far more men like him acting like getting sex from a woman was a birth right and willing to kill all women and men who have sex if they don't get it.

And yes this is an issue that effects everyone, and teaching our men to act in a specific way is harmful to those men and society at large. It is a universal problem, so Laci's claim that this is basically an attack/issue against woman are unfounded from a motivation/reasoning standpoint and from a standpoint on how people at large are effected. If it was a feminist issue it would have to be something attacking women specifically, which it isn't.

The Isla Visa Shooter, Elliot Roger, was disturbing to the highest level

I'd prefer TheAmazingAtheists take on the situation.



He actually bothered to dig into the reports, the stats and his personal history/journal rather than simply look at the basics of "Wanted sex, killed for not getting it" and then turning that into a feminist movement. First he shared mutual hatred for both the women he didn't sleep with and the men who did get sex, he hated both men and women and wanted anyone who either refused what he wanted or had what we wanted to suffer. That's not sexism or misogyny, that's jealousy and envy. Even looking at the statistics of the shooting, 4 men died and 2 women. If twice the number of men die than women it's not exactly a case you can claim was sexist or against women. Hell, using stats like that is bad practice in general because it can highly be based on location. Such as what if he did it at his old boys only school? Then it would of been basically just men who died, but that would give us no grounds to say sexism against men. He could of done it at a store whose products tend to attract more than one sex than the other.

To determine if it was sexist we'd have to look at outside factors such as motivations, reasoning etc and info like that we do have all points towards jealousy and entitlement.

The Isla Visa Shooter, Elliot Roger, was disturbing to the highest level

Ok, I watched some of his final vid and god damn that guys is messed up!

Before I continue though, to address the OP a bit. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they're life is good and happy. There can still be a lot of issues with one lives that causes them to become depressed, snap etc. I mean, ask most people you know who have depressed, are suicidal etc. Unless if they are in that state strictly due to poverty issues I'm pretty sure they would not say they'd suddenly feel better if they became rich.

Back to the topic on hand, he blames his issues on things entirely irrelevant to those he blames, and give's himself a false image of superiority.
I mean hell, even then arguments he makes for what makes his life sad is laughable.

22 and still a virgin - I know people older that are still virgins, I'm 20 and still a virgin. But I don't see me or them blaming women for it and saying we should get revenge. Hell if anything my experiences in relationships taught me it's better to just live to enjoy your life rather than worry about having a girlfriend or being in a relationship.If this guy honestly got a girl friend he'd probably snap even sooner cause something would not happen the way he wanted and he'd only have heart break and relationship issues to add to his reasoning/motivations.

I think this guy is a clear example of the saying "You should not be in a relationship until you do not need one to be happy".

What is OT/Spam/Member's Longue even for?

Jorick said
Oh, you're confusing Lillian Thorne with Contra Fates. I went and looked at Contra's recent post history and saw nothing at all related to that, thus my confusion and question. Lillian's not an admin, she's a mod. Bit of a difference, but a mod is a site authority figure worth listening to nonetheless.I figure it wasn't a miscommunication between mods/admins and the members, but rather a few people getting the wrong idea about what goes in OT just because that happens to be predominant. The place might be 90% politics/religion/other serious topics now, but that doesn't mean that's the only stuff that belongs here. An understandable misconception, I suppose, but still a misconception.The moral of the story is that generalizations and pointless territorialism are bad, kids. Try to avoid it.

Derp, must of just skimmed by the pics when I was tired and made the confusion. :/

As for the rest of the stuff said, true story.
It get's tricky to forget when some things are just the result oft he members around and not actually the main thing a certain place is meant for.