Morning all,

 

This is not something that I've ever thought about in any depth. Your comments are interesting, but I wonder if the point is defined correctly. Is it really violence that is "bad" or the way violence is used, most often in large scale planned occasions, that is being discussed? Declaring violence as bad, in my opinion, is like declaring breathing bad. Violent aggression is a physical capability that every single human on earth, and most other life forms, will perform at some point in a lifetime. It's a reaction to a hormonal spike from adrenalin, usually called a fight or flight reaction. In the most personal sense, violence that protects oneself, or one's family, why is this even in the most objective sense, a point of discussion? It is not an equal right, to protect oneself as the aggressor's perceived right to attack your safety? Personally, If attacked in a physical sense, I will quickly turn violent with varying levels of force, and would have no problem with total destruction of the aggressor, should that be what I feel is appropriate. But that could be a result of training. Violence is always something that falls into individual belief of level of appropriateness, which is why war is ambivalent to most. Unless the reason are extremely clear and personal, then the many questions of motives stack up. Unchecked violence by cultures, individuals or groups, I think, need to be dealt with, sometimes with equal violence, at least to gain a situation of agreed restraint. I would compare these situations either to a hormonal imbalance, or a situation created by environment. Take for an example, the junkyard dog. That 99.9% of people quickly understand this term, is perhaps an indication of the propensity of humans to brutalize through violence to create violent tools. But the dog is merely a product of the environment it was raised in most cases. But in most cases, the parties can be brought to compromise, as the dog can be calmed to at least an uneasy peacefulness. I, like any sane person, would prefer to never have to resort to violence, but I think it unwise to remember that it exists in all of us. How many non-violent cultures can one point to just within recorded history that have been virtually wiped out by an invading violent culture? The culture and relative peace you now are experiencing, was more than likely won through a violent occurrence. Even if through some evolutionary miracle, the entire planet becomes non-violent, I would not wish to become a docile food source in the event that another, more violent, lifeform presented itself.

 

Another point that just occurred to me is greed. While greed exist, violence must. Violence offers the instability that life's equation needs to hold greed in check. I don't personally feel that ego, in the normal sense, is bad. But an ego that leads to unchecked greed would not be stopped by non-violent protest. I can think of many examples of this, as I'm sure many of us can.

 

That's my thoughts for the moment, but as I turn this over, I'm sure a different opinion could present itself.....