Zero Tolerance

[vision]

You just don't give a **** about about your family or kids and you would be more concerned about the stranger trying to harm them. You are the most pathetic person on this board.

You have reading problems. I hold my family and friends in the highest regard. However, I also do my best to raise up strangers to that level, not above, but equal whenever I get a chance. Strangers are human beings capable of loving and being loved. All of your friends were strangers at one time.

Vision, would you purposely limit the effectiveness of your methods, and likelyhood of success, to subdue the attacker in order to avoid causing him harm? Or would you maximize your efforts to prevail putting success and the health of the victim above your concerns for the attacker?

And which is the proper path according to your philosophy?

Both the victim and the attacker deserve the same amount of consideration and neither of them should come to harm. But we are really talking about three people here, myself included, who should also be without harm. Each situation will be different and the only thing you can do is maximize peace to the best of your ability. Sure, you can come up with dozens of moral dilemmas most of which are like setups from fictional super-villains and have almost no relation to real world situations. But adhering to non-violence means just that, don't hurt people and stop people from hurting others whenever possible.

[Ferno]

And remember, this thread is about children and violence.

nooooo, this thread is (supposed to be) about a legislative act passed to prevent schools from pulling boneheaded zero-tolerance decisions based off a childs' way of play. Try and keep that in mind.

How exactly do people need to act violent again? I must have missed that in school. If I understand you correctly, pretend violence is something we do in order to pacify our urges, like masturbation does for sex? Well I must say you have definitely cornered me because I've never heard this before. I myself don't have any violent needs at all, nor urges. If someone is asexual they don't have sexual desires. I must be... aviolent?

Since you invented the word, I suppose that's an apt description.

I can't explain it exactly because I'm not a behavioural scientist, but I can say -- we invented sports and more specifically competition to address such a need. So instead of beating each other over the heads with axes we beat each other over the heads with points and medals.

Engaging in pretend violence does nothing but normalize violence. Stick out your index finger and raise your thumb into the shape of a handgun. Now point it at someone or yourself. It is a symbolic act. Think about what it means to shoot someone. Really think about it. Isn't it a horrible thing? Why would you want to make a gesture that symbolizes killing another person, or hurting them, or even threatening them? The way we lead our lives and the things we do have meaning. Real or imaginary violence should never be entertainment (are we ancient Rome?). If you want to lead a good life you need to free your mind of poisons, and violent thoughts are very poisonous. Of course this is hard for most people to understand because, as I mentioned, violence is normalized. Your complete dismissal of this point of view proves my point completely (thank you). But hey, if you want to keep with the status quo, please feel free to teach your kids the valuable lessons and skills that come with pretend gun-fighting. I on the other hand will teach my kids compassion, empathy, and skepticism.

Depends on your perspective really. Sometimes if there is malicious intent, then it's horrible. If it's for defending ones life, then it's warranted.

Violence really isn't absolutely good or absolutely evil. It is a tool. and tools, no matter what they are designed for can be used for both good and ill. Like the gun is a tool. It can be used to harm, or survive. I can almost conclusively say, we would not have our lives (even yours) if it wasn't for the gun. Since you're teaching your kids to be skeptical, be prepared for them to question you. especially your viewpoints.

Here's a (realistic) example. Say you were hunting. Not as a hobby, but for survival. And the last time you ate was two days ago, and you were presented with a weapon (it doesn't have to BE a gun, but say it was) and a rope. And you have no training aside what you already know. What would you do in that situation?


As for the parent thing: I am absolutely confident that viewpoint will change when you do become a parent, you would do anything, including resorting to what you perceive as horrifying to defend your children. It wouldn't be group-ism. It would be parental instinct and the urge to protect your children taking over.

[Will Robinson]

Vision, I would suggest that if the only way to ensure the safety of a potential victim is to put the attacker into harms way then that is the proper choice because the attacker has, in effect, hurt himself by creating the situation where you are forced to compromise the victims safety if you don't proceed with maximum effectiveness in your intervention to stop the attack.

In that situation he has made you the sword that he impaled himself upon. To put yourself or child into greater risk of harm to try and spare him from his fate is the same thing as you directly delivering harm onto yourself or child.

[vision]

nooooo, this thread is (supposed to be) about a legislative act passed to prevent schools from pulling boneheaded zero-tolerance decisions based off a childs' way of play. Try and keep that in mind.

I will keep in mind the thread started with that subject and immediately took off in a different direction. I also think the law is idiotic.

...we invented sports and more specifically competition to address such a need. So instead of beating each other over the heads with axes we beat each other over the heads with points and medals.

I have to disagree, though I have no body of knowledge to draw this assumption from. I imagine sports and competition probably had much friendlier origins and relate more to sex than violence. This is something I will look into another time, but a good topic for study for sure.

Violence really isn't absolutely good or absolutely evil. It is a tool...Here's a (realistic) example... [T]he last time you ate was two days ago, and you were presented with a weapon (it doesn't have to BE a gun, but say it was) and a rope.... What would you do in that situation?

Unfortunately, I'm pretty much a vegetarian. I have eaten meat prepared for me on occasion, but I've never in my life purchased meat and cooked it at home. I mostly think it's kind of gross. Also, I'm fairly sensitive to the suffering of animals and I find it unlikely I would kill one for food. Then again, I am lucky to have never been close to starving so I can't say for sure. But there is another distinction in here. You say violence is a tool. I say killing is a tool. Violence comes from intent to be abusive and cruel, which can also include killing. But you can kill living things humanely, in the case of mercy killing and killing for sustenance. I understand living things eat other living things to survive and sometimes those living things are sentient. The best course is to approach situations where life is in danger with a non-violent demeanor and consider the suffering of others, human or animal.

In that situation he has made you the sword that he impaled himself upon.

Like I said, each case is unique and needs to be considered separately. Simply asking "someone is attacking your child what do you do?" does not enough to evaluate the situation correctly. And as I said above you can create infinite numbers of these types of moral dilemmas. I won't make a blanket statement about them except by saying I take a non-violent approach. Of course, all you gun happy people would have the simplest answer, which is "yeehaw I'll just shoot the s.o.b wit me pistol!"

[Spidey]

Yup, if I’m on the street and someone attacked I might choose some kind of nonviolent response, but if you break into my home in the middle of the night, when I have very little chance of doing some kind of kungfujujitsu, on your ass, I’m going to plant a 38 caliber slug into the largest body mass.

I’m sorry but my body just doesn’t work well enough to defend myself in the middle of the night. So I will choose my weapon instead and just “shoot the s.o.b wit me pistol!"

[vision]

Zen Master Ryokan lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon."

[woodchip]

You just don't give a **** about about your family or kids and you would be more concerned about the stranger trying to harm them. You are the most pathetic person on this board.

You have reading problems. I hold my family and friends in the highest regard. However, I also do my best to raise up strangers to that level, not above, but equal whenever I get a chance. Strangers are human beings capable of loving and being loved. All of your friends were strangers at one time.

No reading problems at all. You said, " Secondly, while I do experience great love for the people I hold dear I don't suffer from the same level of attachment most people have . I'd say your attachment is not great enough to save their lives if it meant harming the person trying to injure or kill them. Being kind to strangers is something we all do...up until they start doing something bad.

[woodchip]

Zen Master Ryokan lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon."

Later that night the Master got a chill from not having any warm clothes and fell sick. He was heard to lament, "I wish I could also give that damn thief my illness also."

[Will Robinson]

In that situation he has made you the sword that he impaled himself upon.

Like I said, each case is unique and needs to be considered separately. Simply asking "someone is attacking your child what do you do?" does not enough to evaluate the situation correctly. And as I said above you can create infinite numbers of these types of moral dilemmas. I won't make a blanket statement about them except by saying I take a non-violent approach. Of course, all you gun happy people would have the simplest answer, which is "yeehaw I'll just shoot the s.o.b wit me pistol!"

What was that about you not making blanket statements?

Poor fellow, I wanted to know where you draw the lines in your philosophy so I could understand but you were too busy trying to keep me squeezed in a box to have a discussion....

[vision]

I'd say your attachment is not great enough to save their lives if it meant harming the person trying to injure or kill them.

Again, you have reading problems. I'm trying to save both of their lives and my own. I know life is easier in the black and white world of good guys and bad guys, so I wouldn't expect you to meet the challenge of thinking that bad people can actually be good and worth saving.

Poor fellow, I wanted to know where you draw the lines in your philosophy so I could understand but you were too busy trying to keep me squeezed in a box to have a discussion....

I'm not sure what is left to understand. Do your best to be non-violent. There isn't a solid line for every single situation because of uniqueness. Each solution is dependent on a myriad of factors. But using violence to stop violence is not a zero-sum game. Also, people are very, very rarely thrust into those classic moral dilemmas (like the trolly problem) and debating them is less important than emphasizing a cultural shift toward non-violence instead of our current culture that glorifies it. But then again, if you are happy with the world as it is, the by all means retain your line of thinking.

[woodchip]

You know vision, I saw a documentary on the conscientious objectors that were drafted in WW2. They were all made medics and surprisingly (or not) the lengths they would go to protecting the wounded. Some would cover them with their bodies and died in the process. Some went so far as to pick up a weapon and shoot the enemy. I guess the point is, you can theory craft all you want but how you react to a threatening situation may be far different than what you think you will do. I suspect vision, even your primitive end of the brainstem may very well take over and cause you to do things you think you wouldn't.

[vision]

I suspect vision, even your primitive end of the brainstem may very well take over and cause you to do things you think you wouldn't.

You are right, and that is why I refuse to answer classic moral dilemmas with black and white answers. I only have a good idea what I would do in each situation and not an absolute idea, again because of the myriad factors involved. But this does not change the fact that acting in a dedicated non-violent fashion is absolutely the best way to go about life. Identifying threats is essential to living a life free of violence, but it is also important to go beyond simply identifying them to finding solutions that increase the well being of everyone. This means giving up the "shoot the bad guy" perspective.

[flip]

I said it first! I agree Vision

[Pumo]

Me too. Vision's philosophy is pretty interesting, and quite similar to some elements of Buddhism.
But it's true it's hard to adhere to this philosophy in this (unfortunately) very competitive society.
If we humans learn to be less focused on the "I" we may be able to live better and nearer to Vision's views.

[Ferno]

We'd still end up "beating each other over the heads with points" even if life was like that.

[woodchip]

As I oft said, if we all lived by the Golden Rule, life would be a lot nicer.

[Krom]

As I oft said, if we all lived by the Golden Rule, life would be a lot nicer.

We do live by the golden rule: "The one who has the gold makes the rules."...

[Will Robinson]

[.. But then again, if you are happy with the world as it is, the by all means retain your line of thinking.

So your aversion to inappropriate application of zero sum game conclusions isn't absolute. Maybe its a right you reserve for just yourself.

[sigma]

When I was younger than today , I was fond of sambo and judo. I helped unbalanced against peers.
Now I no longer take part in competitive sports . But I can say that no matter what kind of martial arts do you have, you feel much more confident in what that street conflicts. Criminals feel your confidence in your strength . They see a confident person who can repel or even harm their health . 90 % of potential criminals abandon the idea to attack you if they feel your inner strength. I had an experience as inadequate communication with people , such as drunk or very excited people. I believe that the best weapon for self-defense is a literate conversation. The words you speak into the conflict situation helps a lot better than having melee skills or shooting to kill the enemy of your weapons. Although always carry pepper gas canister never more than if you live in the criminal area or travel a lot by car. Especially women need it , in my opinion .
I do not know how abroad, but in Russia it is very often attracted to criminal liability is not criminals but citizens who protect themselves or their loved ones with the help of martial arts techniques or using weapons. If you inflict injury even criminal who attacked you with a knife , you could be imprisoned for exceeding the limits of necessary self-defense. Such cases in Russia very much.
I think the best weapon of self-defense skills to avoid conflicts. It really helps even against inappropriate people or people who are much stronger than you physically. If you can not resolve the conflict peacefully, sometimes much smarter will recognize the enemy's strength and shamefully run, but maintain their health. Fools a lot , and you have one health .



Zero tolerance is a fair, but often the wrong method of self-defense.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I question whether some folks here distinguish between strangers and violent strangers. Not everyone you meet is just an idiot who doesn't know any better than to behave a certain way. There are people who are hardened and do not care for the life or well-being of others, but only about what they can get for themselves. Wishing that these people would not do what it is they do is either cowardly or naive.

[vision]

There are people who are hardened and do not care for the life or well-being of others, but only about what they can get for themselves. Wishing that these people would not do what it is they do is either cowardly or naive.

Since when is wishing for a better world cowardly and naive? Such a negative outlook! We are not talking about wishing away violence. We are talking about how to handle violent situations and how to reduce future violence (note: the world is less violent today than in the past). I advocate treating violent actors with compassion, aiming to neutralize their actions when possible and seek reformation of character.

[Sergeant Thorne]

First, I understand people who commit violence are themselves compelled by the world around them. Each of their stories is unique and those experiences move them to make decisions, violent or otherwise.

This is not an accurate statement. People are not merely compelled by the world around them--sometimes they are compelled by their own desires at the expense of the well-being of others as an established habit--something they've embarked on at some point, and then built upon. I believe these people can see the error of their ways, but at present their will is set towards harming others in order to feed their own pleasures or desires. From what I've read here I don't think your world-view accounts for this sort of person, and I also don't think it deals with us as equals. If you owe a man non-violence regardless of his determinations toward you, what of his debt? Where is the fairness or equality--where is the equals sign?

[woodchip]

We are talking about how to handle violent situations and how to reduce future violence (note: the world is less violent today than in the past). I advocate treating violent actors with compassion, aiming to neutralize their actions when possible and seek reformation of character.

The question is how you would neutralize their actions when they are committing violence upon those near and dear to you.

[sigma]

I can say one thing. I am a law abiding citizen and I do not like serious conflicts with anyone whatsoever . But if one of my relatives would suffer serious harm from criminals , I'm not sure that I can fully comply with the law . I am willing to go even murder to avenge his brother .
Once upon a time in my youth, I found and severely beat the guys who hurt my little brother. There were several such cases. Now we know that we can help each other at any price , so we try to avoid serious conflicts with aggressive and stupid people, not to expose each other.

[vision]

People are not merely compelled by the world around them--sometimes they are compelled by their own desires at the expense of the well-being of others as an established habit--something they've embarked on at some point, and then built upon.

This is where we will disagree because I don't believe in free will. Even our own desires are often the result of countless physical processes. Also, I don't owe anyone non-violence and they have no debt to me. I freely give non-violence away from a never-ending well.

The question is how you would neutralize their actions when they are committing violence upon those near and dear to you.

Right, we have been over this before. It depends on a myriad of factors in each unique situation. The path of non-violence involves much more work and more thinking than a "point and shoot" solution, but the long term benefits outweigh the short term. This is evidenced by the continued reduction in violence in the world around us due to increased education and empathy. The average person today is a genius compared to their ancestors and, as much as some hate "political correctness," it does increase sensitivity to others including the recognition and handling of mental health issues.

[Spidey]

Funny how you can do something different than the rest of us, having no free will, and all.

[Top Gun]

If you owe a man non-violence regardless of his determinations toward you, what of his dness or equality--where is the equals sign?

*cough*turn the other cheek*cough*

[vision]

Funny how you can do something different than the rest of us, having no free will, and all.

We all make decisions, but the underlying nature of those decisions are determined by countless forces in a never ending chain of influence from one person to another. In a sense, I made decisions, but I'm mistaken about who I really am. Descartes gave humans a firm philosophical footing for which to stand. Newton accidentally broke the foundation.

[Sergeant Thorne]

*cough*turn the other cheek*cough*

Smartass. Turn the other cheek only applies if you ascribe the ultimate authority to God. It puts God at the other side of the equals sign. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay", God said. It's an even equation. Apart from God, and Christ's sacrifiice, no violence toward the violent is not a satisfactory equation.

[callmeslick]

*cough*turn the other cheek*cough*

Smartass. Turn the other cheek only applies if you ascribe the ultimate authority to God. It puts God at the other side of the equals sign. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay", God said. It's an even equation. Apart from God, and Christ's sacrifiice, no violence toward the violent is not a satisfactory equation.

can't have it both ways, though, Thorne.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Thank you, slick. What are you suggesting?

[woodchip]

Funny how you can do something different than the rest of us, having no free will, and all.

We all make decisions, but the underlying nature of those decisions are determined by countless forces in a never ending chain of influence from one person to another. In a sense, I made decisions, but I'm mistaken about who I really am. Descartes gave humans a firm philosophical footing for which to stand. Newton accidentally broke the foundation.

And if you take the time for all this analysis, your child is raped and dead. In short in certain situations you don't have time for psychoanalyzing the attacker.

[Top Gun]

*cough*turn the other cheek*cough*

Smartass. Turn the other cheek only applies if you ascribe the ultimate authority to God. It puts God at the other side of the equals sign. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay", God said. It's an even equation. Apart from God, and Christ's sacrifiice, no violence toward the violent is not a satisfactory equation.

Um, Christ made that statement in pretty unequivocal terms. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." That's a pretty damn far cry from "violence towards the violent." For someone who claims to be religious, you have a really piss-poor interpretation of the Bible.

[vision]

And if you take the time for all this analysis, your child is raped and dead. In short in certain situations you don't have time for psychoanalyzing the attacker.

Again, the path of non-violence has much to do with forward thinking. You do your analysis before the situation arises. In certain situations you don't have time to run upstairs and load your gun either.

[Will Robinson]

And so if you have one in your holster you don't have to run upstairs to get it, nor do you ever have to pull it out if non violence is the proper course.

You do, however, have to put up with some people calling you names for having prepared for the situation if you let them know you have done so.

[Sergeant Thorne]

TopGun, callmeslick, you are both approaching the topic from the intellectual perspective of a kindergartener. Let me ask you, did Christ come to bring justice? "Turn the other cheek" is not justice. Just let that sink in for a while.

[Top Gun]

TopGun, callmeslick, you are both approaching the topic from the intellectual perspective of a kindergartener. Let me ask you, did Christ come to bring justice? "Turn the other cheek" is not justice. Just let that sink in for a while.

Let me ask you, just how hard do you have to try to willfully misinterpret a direct unambiguous quote? "If someone does wrong to you, do not retaliate against them in kind. Forgive them." There's no waffling around that. So if you don't think that represents "justice," then Christ apparently didn't come to deliver your version of "justice," because otherwise you're ignoring what he himself said on the subject.

[flip]

Sure, he came to bring justice and truth and words to live by. He tells those who wait on Him to not resist an evil 'man' and that vengeance is His. We are to overcome evil with good. God told satan He would defeat him with His very own nature. As soon as light advances, darkness dispels.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Arguing scripture with someone with a Catholic background is like running in the special Olympics anyway, but why don't you find where Jesus said he came to bring justice on earth instead of just assuming Christ = good = justice (because "justice" is just another word for "good", right?).

[flip]

"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

The whole Law and Prophets is summed up in those simple 10 Commandments. When man couldn't even love each other, God piled burden and burden on them to condemn us all. Then, He sent His son to free our consciousness from sin and now we walk this Earth fulfilling and establishing the Law of God, which is to love Him and our neighbors. When love is made perfect, the 10 Commandments are a very light burden. Jesus came not to abolish that law but to fulfill it by setting us free from guilt and sin in our minds so that we can start fresh. We will not be perfect, but love will cover over the multitudes of sin.

EDIT: There is no excuse for not loving each other.