27 replies to this topic

[Duderonomy]

Since IRON has far superior analytical capabilities than my brethren at NG, they are a perfect community to consider my hypothesis "Violence never solves anything".

 

So I challenge all IRON members to post any problems they can think of that can have violent solutions, along with the solutions themselves.  I will periodically drop by to refute all solutions posted in order to further debate and insult the intelligence of those posing them.

 

Quick addition:  Any that I cannot refute will be rewarded with hippie girls or guys (depending on the preference of the poster).

 

Edit: My definition of violence-An act that purposely causes physical harm to a sentient being.  For our purposes, we'll stick to humans and fictional aliens/races defined as sentient.  I really don't want to argue over animal rights ATM. Also, I'd like to stick to physical harm (blows that cause injury) rather than mental harm, which I get at NG on a regular basis.

[d3mon]

The Joker problem for Batman

[Crusty Juggler]

How many punches to the face can I take before being knocked out?

[Davian]

How many punches to the face can I take before being knocked out?

Depends how strong of a jaw you have. Most people have perpetual glass jaws, but that is definitely an argument that he can't refute.

[iSocialism]

How do you when a game of mafia (if you are scum) without using any violence?

[onbekende]

what falls under "violence" for you? any and all acts that have the means or desire to cause physical harm?

 

 

also, not sweet talk us...

[killgor]

i have one, trying to resolve a conflict without the use of violence (say a drunk friend wants to pick a fight with you or something like that)

[Blade 619]

First of all you need to define violence. I'm going to start with anything which causes physical harm to an individual or a breach of human rights.

 

Winning a TDM on an FPS / WT.

 

Successful genocide.

 

Pretty much any major surgery.

 

A good slasher.

[Fox Fire]

Violence is not a solution. But according to chemistry, alcohol is....

[Duderonomy]

The Joker problem for Batman

Given the amount of history between those two, I'd need to know which specific problem. If it's Joker bothering Batman in general, Batman just has to relinquish the cowl and donate his money and gadgets to the Gotham police.  Then Joker would get bored and go after someone else.

 

How many punches to the face can I take before being knocked out?

We can easily answer this without resorting to any violence.  All it takes is one punch, done the right way by someone trained in combat. Most knockouts come from rotational forces, not pure power or amount of strikes.  It might be kind of a cop-out, since I'm using data that was previously discovered through violence, but you could also use accident information to determine this as well.

 

How do you when a game of mafia (if you are scum) without using any violence?

Since Mafia is a game, there's no real violence happening.  Please see my definition of violence below.

 

what falls under "violence" for you? any and all acts that have the means or desire to cause physical harm?

 

 

also, not sweet talk us...

I will go with a strict definition:  An act that purposely causes physical harm to a sentient being.  For our purposes, we'll stick to humans and fictional aliens/races defined as sentient.  I really don't want to argue over animal rights ATM. Also, I'd like to stick to physical harm (blows that cause injury) rather than mental harm, which I get at NG on a regular basis.

 

i have one, trying to resolve a conflict without the use of violence (say a drunk friend wants to pick a fight with you or something like that)

Generally, the solution to most conflict is more alcohol.  Offer him shots until he passes out.  Unless he's got a bad liver, then offer him some weed. 

 

First of all you need to define violence. I'm going to start with anything which causes physical harm to an individual or a breach of human rights.

 

Winning a TDM on an FPS / WT.

 

Successful genocide.

 

Pretty much any major surgery.

 

A good slasher.

We'll start with the FPS/WT question.  I believe both are types of video games.  No sentient beings.  No violence.

 

Successful genocide, i.e. destroying an entire race.  Happening right now in Japan, the U.S., & Europe thanks to birth control, porn, TV, and video games.  So, you just set an impossible ideal living standard for everyone, and then make it easy not to have kids.  It'll take a while, but it's still happening.

 

Major surgery isn't intended to cause harm, but I'm willing to give out a hippie for this one anyway.  Please specifiy if you want a chick or dude.  No more medical gimmies for anybody else, though.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about movies, in which case almost every one is simulated violence at best.  Theatre blood and fake screams are not violence.

 

Keep 'em coming guys.  I've got plenty of hippies to give out for nefarious purposes.

[iSocialism]

As a general how do you storm the beaches of Normandy (which are being heavy guarded by Nazis, who have endless supplies of goods, such as food, water, ammo, weapons, medical, electricity, light bulbs, night vision, tanks, nukes, force fields in which will not be disable unless you kill all the Nazis, Dvd series of lost, and meth but only one T.V and enough meth for a quarter of the men, so not that endless in the tv and meth department) leading your man who only listen to you commands. In order to defeat the Nazis and progress inland towards German to defeat the great leader himself..... President Barack Obama in which the Nazis will only listen to and follow regardless of what you give, tell, ask of them. The only way to defeat these meth loving, lost fanatics, nuker able, technology advance Obama following Nazis is through Death.

[Duderonomy]

As a general how do you storm the beaches of Normandy (which are being heavy guarded by Nazis, who have endless supplies of goods, such as food, water, ammo, weapons, medical, electricity, light bulbs, night vision, tanks, nukes, force fields in which will not be disable unless you kill all the Nazis, Dvd series of lost, and meth but only one T.V and enough meth for a quarter of the men, so not that endless in the tv and meth department) leading your man who only listen to you commands. In order to defeat the Nazis and progress inland towards German to defeat the great leader himself..... President Barack Obama in which the Nazis will only listen to and follow regardless of what you give, tell, ask of them. The only way to defeat these meth loving, lost fanatics, nuker able, technology advance Obama following Nazis is through Death.

The key is that Obama is actually a communist as evidenced by his health care plan. Any scholar of history knows that fascists (like Nazis) and communists (like Obama) are actually symmetrical antiparties of each other. So all you have to do is wait for Obama to accidentally collide with his Nazi servants, and both will be annihilated in a shower of energy. The Nazis will be dead, so the force field will turn off.

 

The tricky part is that this collision will spark a detonation so intense that it turns the beaches of Normandy into glass.  I recommend anyone storming the beach wear one-inch sole boots to shield the wearer against the sharp dunes.  

[Fox Fire]

OK, heres a serious response:

Violence is the solution to nearly every problem. Why?

Just look at nature and try to tell me life as a chemical reaction, resulting from from the fractalization of existence is wrong....

IE:

Wolfpacks as well as countless animals assert dominance through violence. But why? Because among inteligent life, dominance and strong leadership is essential to the survival of the group and or species. This is exactly why governments were formed. This is exactly why governments kill eachother. Because their basic living nature demands they do so. Their nature also demands enemies. Good cannot exist without evil, simply because opposites define each other and thus one cannot possibly exist without its opposite. That being said, as long as the idea of good exists, evil must exist simply to define what is good.

So if everything you thought was evil quit existing, whats left? Good? No. Because then, anything less good simply becomes evil.

The nature of......

[Fox Fire]

Yin and Yang defines existence. You cannot reason with it. It doesnt care how you feel. It doesnt care what you think. It just is, and we all are part of it, neutral as we may think we are.

 

Violence is an essential part of existence. So long as pacifism exists, so too shall war and vice versa.

Opposites cannot be denied or debunked. As long as we are defining anything, we must be also able to define its opposite, or its very existence would be meaningless.

 

Such is the nature of Yin and Yang...

[Iron Helix]

I think the previous posts asking to define terms were right.  Violence needed to be defined, but also the term solution needs more context, for instance, a matter may be considered to be resolved by one party in a two party interaction, but not by the second party.  If we are interpreting resolution from the perspective of both parties, it is not resolved, but if we're just taking the position of the first party (for instance this party may be the one perpetrating violence) then the position may seem resolved.  

 

OP defined violence as physical aggression for the purpose of this discussion, so I'll use it in that context.

 

The other thing to point out is that many problems have multiple ways to resolve issues with physical aggression being just one option out of many.  Violence in an instance where there are multiple ways for one to resolve a problem may be a choice, but it is often the least preferred choice due to the risks and consequences associated with it.  This is largely the realm of ethics and principles.

That being said, when another party has already opted for a violent resolution, the use of ethics is largely inapplicable.  These situations are commonly called "lifeboat scenarios" (I also call them rabid-dog scenarios), where the use of ethics and principles are most likely going to result in a situation where you are in mortal peril.  For ethics to be an effective tool requires there to be a choice. Choosing between living and dying is generally not a choice so much as it is an imperative.  However, often times a situation is treated as one of these lifeboat scenarios when it is in fact, not so.  This may be done out of ignorance or out of malevolence or sometimes out of laziness.  Politicians are the most well known example of this, most often treating a situation as do-or-die with their solution being the only one and all others resulting in catastrophe.

 

@Fox Fire

To be technical, good and evil don't exist.  Existence is something physical, something that can be measured and interacted with in a physical sense.  Hydrogen gas physically exists. The number 2 does not exist.  Humans may use concepts such as numbers and abstract properties like good/evil for various purposes, but we cannot say they exist simply because we think about it.  

 

You say opposites must exist simply because they define each other.  I would contend this is flawed.  To demonstrate: Reality exists.  It can be measured, interacted with, etc.  The opposite of reality is fantasy.  Fantasy does not exist.  It cannot be measured or interacted with. 

 

We can conceptualize of what is an opposite, but to say opposites exist, at least in a physical sense, cannot be said with validity.

You used the concepts of pacifism and war as an example.  We can conceptualize both, however in an interpersonal scenario we cannot have the physical expression of both at the same time.  I cannot be at war with you while simultaneously being at peace with you. Likewise a physically real bar of chocolate may have the conceptual opposite of a chocolate bar comprised of antimatter, but only one of those is going to exist in my hand at a given time (most often it will be neither).

 

As for governments, I would highly contend with the idea that they arose for the purpose of survival of the species or that they are essential (or even ethical).  It's not really the topic of the discussion, so as not to derail the thread, I'll leave it at that.  I will however say that cooperation (win/win scenarios) are generally considered preferable (except to human predators, sadists and sociopaths) compared to domination/violent scenarios (win/lose).  This is why when you go to a store the interaction you most often see is the voluntary exchange of goods (cash for groceries) rather than robbery.

Edited by Iron Helix, 29 September 2013 - 07:26 AM.

[Fox Fire]

No no, sir. Youre under the impression that in order for something to exist, it must be perceivable. This is certainly not the case.

IE:

You say things cannot exist just because we think about it, but you misunderstand existence. Existence is not reality. Its simply existence. Everything exists. And I mean, EVERYTHING. Even unicorns. Sure, they dont physically exist, but the simple fact you know what a unicorn even is proves its existence. Ideas, thoughts, and emotions are just as existent and real as anything you cam possibly comprehend and or perceive. Reality exists just as fantasy does.

Further more, reality, in all fact, is just as "non-existent" as fantasy. EI: How do you know you're awake right now? How do you know you're not dreaming? How would you know if dreams are actually reality, and reality is a dream? 

Or

How do you know you here? Well, you can touch your arm and physically feel your here. You can see your body is clearly there.... But how do you KNOW? Maybe you only think youre here....

[Fox Fire]

because you're expressing consciousness and consciousness purpose is to perceive. How can you say with absolute certainty that you existed ten seconds ago? That everything that is didnt just pop into existence ten seconds ago?

You cant. 

The one and only thing you know for certain is that you exist.

 

Now how can I possibly bring up such questions if opposites dont exist? How can I question reality as fantasy, if fantasy doesnt exist?

 

Now Im just rambling and you're pushing my soft spot for philosophy.

Point is, existence is a paradox. And in the realm of consciousness, opposites must always exist in order to rationalise the reality which we are perceiving through conscious thought.

Existence is not confined to what we can perceive. It just is.

[Iron Helix]

The colloquial use of the word existence usually refers to that which has a presence in objective reality.  Most definitions will abide by this.  It seems to be a more appropriate word for your use is "defined".  We can define what a unicorn is.  We can define what a thought is or what an idea is.  We can define what existence is and what non-existence is. We can define pretty much everything.  We can define good, evil, the number 2, or pretty much any concept.  One should avoid equivocating existence with 'a definition'.

 

If fantasy is defined as that which does not exist and you are saying it does exist, then that seems like saying that "non-existence" exists. The idea is self-refuting (See: Stolen Concept fallacy).  

 

Syllogistically we can read it like this:

A. Everything exists

B. If everything exists, there exists "non-existence"

C. If non-existence exists, not everything can exist

 

As for Descarte's "brain in a vat" scenario, objective reality and logic are the tools we have available to us to make decisions and conclusions.  Abandoning those leaves us with fantasy, imagination and insanity.  If we did not use the former, there wouldn't be a conversation here.  I might as well have just posted a wall of text that contained the word "banana" over and over again.  Logic and reality are what is relevant to the world we live in.  Believing that we are brains in a tank accomplishes nothing, other than as a reason to accept irrationality as on par with rationality.  There are other responses to the brain in a vat scenario, like a brain would have to have some experiences on which to base a dream, but frankly I just find the whole thing an excuse for ignoring reason and evidence.

 

BTW, opposites themselves are concepts, and as such can be defined, but do not 'exist' in the colloquial sense.

 

Sorry, OP, for hijacking your thread.

 

[Duderonomy]

Alright, no hippie chicks/dudes for anybody.    Just kidding. I was more interested in the crazy scenarios people could dream up, but philosphical discussions are fine in short doses.  I'd recommend you guys talk on IRC or start a philosophy thread in case others want to chime in.

 

My definition for violence is strict (I've edited my first post to include it) because the word gets hijacked for just about everything involving conflict (which can be nonviolent, such as MLK Jr. or Ghandi's efforts). Orwell wasn't too wrong about the direction of media. Also, I haven't smoked near enough wacky tabacky to start on philosophical discussions regarding the nature of reality. I'm happy to accept this world as real unless I have overriding evidence to the contrary, even if my sensory apparatus is flawed. My senses are the only input I get, everything else builds on them. Including abstract concepts.

[Icewolf]

How would you restrain a person who was suffering from a severe episode of mental illness and therefore incapable of rationality, and in severe danger of hurting themselves or others around them?