Is it wrong to use force?

steddyeddy

Could be controversial but every time I see someone on after hours say something like "republicans resorting to violence again", violence never solves anthing ect I have to disagree. In my mind violence is sometimes essentiall. Im all for pusuing objectives by peaceful means first but if nothing else works I think is it not wrong to continue to let the powerful mistreat the weak ect.

Violence has saved the mountain gorilla from extinction were talking didnt work, violence helped catholics gain civil rights in the north were talking failed and violence helped free the africans from slavery. Its never desirable to have violence but is there anyone who thinks it was never nessacery?

The_Minister

In a functioning democracy, if you are resorting to violence then you are almost certainly a minority trying to subvert a system the majority support.

Tom Cruises Left Nut

Of course not, the Star Wars movies would have been sh*te without it

deise go deo

Context is everything.

While in normal cuircumstances it is unacceptable in extream conditions where the state for example is clearly abusing its power and peacefull meathods are failing to prevent such
abuse......



*Checks Forum Name*



Your Ma!!

Dravokivich

er... while waiting on the side of the street for a lift home...

Violence wasn't nessecary then...

Dravokivich

t|nt|n wrote: »

Of course not, the Star Wars movies would have been sh*te without it

in fairness... they are shíte...

Tom Cruises Left Nut

Dravokivich wrote: »

in fairness... they are shíte...

You take that back !

steddyeddy

The_Minister wrote: »

In a functioning democracy, if you are resorting to violence then you are almost certainly a minority trying to subvert a system the majority support.

well in a functioning democracy what if something like slavery was in place, would it not be right to subvert the majority?

The_Minister

Dravokivich wrote: »

in fairness... they are shíte...

Sir, your mother was a goat of dubious pedigree.

Dravokivich

t|nt|n wrote: »

You take that back !

No take backs!

smokedeels

Dravokivich wrote: »

in fairness... they are shíte...

only half of them are.

Tom Cruises Left Nut

Dravokivich wrote: »

No take backs!

I can never remember all those rules !!

Brendog

Serious Answer: Violence should only be used when you're physically in danger..


AH Answer: If its wrong to use Force then Luke made a biiiiiig boo boo

Wolfe Tone

Violence has always been a necessity imo. It really depends on context.

Ste_D

steddyeddy wrote: »

violence helped catholics gain civil rights in the north were talking failed

...sounds like "republicans resorting to violence again"

Dravokivich

The_Minister wrote: »

Sir, your mother was a goat of dubious pedigree.

Actually... I think she likes them.

Kimono-Girl

Dravokivich wrote: »

in fairness... they are shíte...

you take that back or i'll.....



use force

gurramok

The_Minister wrote: »

In a functioning democracy, if you are resorting to violence then you are almost certainly a minority trying to subvert a system the majority support.

If you and your mates who form a majority are violent towards me, I reserve the right to be violent against you...all in a functioning democracy.;)

biko

No rights were ever given by the grace of god.
No rights were ever given by some United Nations clause.
No rights were ever given by some nice guy at the top.
Our rights they were bought by all the blood and all the tears of all our grandmothers and grandfathers before us.
NMA

Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst.
Jean Rasczak

Sea Sharp

The_Minister wrote: »

In a functioning democracy, if you are resorting to violence then you are almost certainly a minority trying to subvert a system the majority support.

Ya see there's where the problem is. Nobody in this country voted for a few corrupt politicians to piss away the country's future to help their buddies.

That said, if violence erupts it won't do the country any favours.

stovelid

A democracy where innocent people are not blown up for abstract political aims cannot call itself a democracy imo.

steddyeddy

stovelid wrote: »

A democracy where innocent people are not blown up for abstract political aims cannot call itself a democracy imo.

Or where children are denied rights based on their religion

stovelid

steddyeddy wrote: »

Or where children are denied rights based on their religion

I guess blowing them up and denying them their rights just about covers all bases of depravity.

steddyeddy

biko wrote: »

No rights were ever given by the grace of god.
No rights were ever given by some United Nations clause.
No rights were ever given by some nice guy at the top.
Our rights they were bought by all the blood and all the tears of all our grandmothers and grandfathers before us.
NMA

Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst.
Jean Rasczak

I wish you wrote my op this is exactly were im coming from, there are numerous people who commit non violent atrocities on other people eg deny rights, slavery ect yet when some of the oppressed get violent some people paint them as physchopaths!

Misanthrope

The_Minister wrote: »

In a functioning democracy, if you are resorting to violence then you are almost certainly a minority trying to subvert a system the majority support.

That's in a functioning democracy.Do you think you live under a functioning democracy?

Violence is what got the British out.Violence does solve certain problems but indiscriminate mob violence solves nothing.When Collins charges went on a spree of executing Mi 6 top brass, it got results.And if violence solves nothing why did the Brits retaliate in Croke park.

If violence is to be used as a tool, it needs to be visited on those at the top who are creating the problem.Killing ordinary civilians is akin to shooting oneself.Spare the footsoldiers and torture and kill the officers, that's how you do it.

Misanthrope

steddyeddy wrote: »

well in a functioning democracy what if something like slavery was in place, would it not be right to subvert the majority?

If it endorses slavery then it is not a democracy.When true democracy is realised then violence will have no place.

steddyeddy

Misanthrope wrote: »

If it endorses slavery then it is not a democracy.When true democracy is realised then violence will have no place.

well if the majority voted for slaverly is that not democratic? the term democratic does not mean moral!

Pherekydes

Violence is never necessary!

When putting up shelves I coax the nails into place.

When changing wheels I tease the wheelnuts open.

When getting the kids to go bed I persua...

Hang on, violence IS necessary sometimes. :mad: