• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Violence Ever Necessary?

Is violence ever necessary?

  • Yes, it is necessary on some rare occassions.

    Votes: 55 94.8%
  • Violence is never necessary, no matter what.

    Votes: 3 5.2%

  • Total voters
    58
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?
 

cherokee

Devil Dog
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
789
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ManOfTrueTruth said:
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?
Yes sometimes it is very necessary.
WWII would have never been won with big words.
I still believe Rwanda could have been stopped by less then 1000 Marines.

sometimes it’s the only Language people will listen to.


Some might say “Violence is never a solution to a problem”

No, its is a solution, it’s a permanent solution;)
 
Last edited:
F

FallingPianos

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?
necessary to accomplish what?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ManOfTrueTruth said:
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?
Of course it is.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cherokee said:
Yes sometimes it is very necessary.
WWII would have never been won with big words.

Some might say “Violence is never a solution to a problem”

No its is a solution, it’s a permanent solution;)
Violence in and of itself is not a permenant solution. Violence can certainly create long term problems or problems that will have to be dealt with again, with violence, in the future. The combination of violence along with some sort of honest justice is a permenant solution, depending on the circumstances. For example, violence, in and of itself by the US in Iraq doesn't seem to be offerring much of a permenant solution for the US or the world for that matter. But skillful diplomacy that has some honest justice, after some extreme violence might be able to offer a permenant solution.
 
F

FallingPianos

ManOfTrueTruth said:
I don't know, can you think of some scenarios?
violence is necessary if you wish to murder your neighbor.

but that statement is pretty meaningless, which is why I ask: "necessary for what?"
 

cherokee

Devil Dog
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
789
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ManOfTrueTruth said:
Violence in and of itself is not a permenant solution. Violence can certainly create long term problems or problems that will have to be dealt with again, with violence, in the future. The combination of violence along with some sort of honest justice is a permenant solution, depending on the circumstances. For example, violence, in and of itself by the US in Iraq doesn't seem to be offerring much of a permenant solution for the US or the world for that matter. But skillful diplomacy that has some honest justice, after some extreme violence might be able to offer a permenant solution.

Well let me get my fireproof suit on first....

Iraq is not a good example. I feel the US fought with the gloves on.

Rule #1 In war. Do everything you cannot to go.
Rule #2 If you must go to war then CRUSH your enemy by all means necessary! PERIOD.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cherokee said:
Well let me get my fireproof suit on first....

Iraq is not a good example. I feel the US fought with the gloves on.

Rule #1 In war. Do everything you cannot to go.
Rule #2 If you must go to war then CRUSH your enemy by all means necessary! PERIOD.
I agree with you. However, let's say we threw the gloves off and nuked all of Iraq, would this really be a permenant solution? Or could it possibly backfire and create terrorists that seek out retribution against the US in the future?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ManOfTrueTruth said:
So when would violence be necessary for you?
To protect against a violent act. Was violence necessary after Japan attacked the US and proceeded to try and take over the rest of the Pacific? Of course it was. Was it necessary to rid the world of the Nazi's, yep.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ManOfTrueTruth said:
I don't know, can you think of some scenarios?
YOU posed the question, how about YOU thinking of some scenarios. Your question is overly broad to begin with, so why not try and narrow your premise.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
To protect against a violent act. Was violence necessary after Japan attacked the US and proceeded to try and take over the rest of the Pacific? Of course it was. Was it necessary to rid the world of the Nazi's, yep.
Can't argue with you their, you bring up an interesting point though, to protect against a violent act. Do you think the US has ever committed an unprovoked violent act upon others?
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ethics requires violence to repelled by the least means. If the least means of self defense is violence, then it is ethically imperative to act violently.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphamale said:
Ethics requires violence to repelled by the least means. If the least means of self defense is violence, then it is ethically imperative to act violently.
So you think violence is ethical or is it a necessary evil in order to assure one's own survival?
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
YOU posed the question, how about YOU thinking of some scenarios. Your question is overly broad to begin with, so why not try and narrow your premise.
I thought your scenario of "to protect against a violent act" was a good narrow premise. I will go along with that.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ManOfTrueTruth said:
So you think violence is ethical or is it a necessary evil in order to assure one's own survival?
When necessary for self-defense, it is not an evil but rather a virtue, and it is imperative.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphamale said:
When necessary for self-defense, it is not an evil but rather a virtue, and it is imperative.
I agree that people have a natural right to self defense, but I wouldn't think that violence is a virtue. It's a necessary evil at times in order to defend one's self against an aggressor who is using violence. It's rather interesting to hear that you think violence is a virtue. I wonder if most people in this country think this way?
 

cherokee

Devil Dog
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
789
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree with you. However, let's say we threw the gloves off and nuked all of Iraq, would this really be a permanent solution? Or could it possibly backfire and create terrorists that seek out retribution against the US in the future?
Why did you bring up Nuking Iraq? Is that how you see taking the gloves off?
Do you feel its ok to destroy an entire population to eliminate a military?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
When words fail, violence unfortunately becomes closer to becoming necessary. If someone has decided they will kill you and has a weapon drawn on you, the fact is you have only one recourse that will increase your chance of survival, end the threat with a justifiable violent act. This fact doesn't change within the larger scope of things as has been proven by the Nazis, Iran, Al-quaida, etc.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sure. I'm starving, I've got a rock, and there's a deer. Only one effective way to get the deer to stay put over the fire, I'm afraid.

Someone threatens my children's safety, say a bunch of towelheads living in caves in some shithole arab country. Not having a need for any shithole arab countries, violence in the form of a sterilizing nuclear storm over the shithole arab country is perfectly acceptable and since it's probably the most efficient way of ending the problem, it's necessary as well.

There's lots of gradations between feeding my belly and protecting my family that I find acceptable.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cherokee said:
Why did you bring up Nuking Iraq? Is that how you see taking the gloves off?
Do you feel its ok to destroy an entire population to eliminate a military?
Well you mentioned taking off the gloves, nuking Iraq would be taking off the gloves. Besides, you or your fellow marines are not fighting a military in Iraq, rather, you are fighting the local population.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LaMidRighter said:
When words fail, violence unfortunately becomes closer to becoming necessary. If someone has decided they will kill you and has a weapon drawn on you, the fact is you have only one recourse that will increase your chance of survival, end the threat with a justifiable violent act. This fact doesn't change within the larger scope of things as has been proven by the Nazis, Iran, Al-quaida, etc.
Al-queda would say that they had no choice but to use violence, since the US used unprovoked violence first and words fell on deaf ears in America. Al-queda would say they are fighting for their freedom (which in their viewpoint, Islam and freedom go hand in hand) against the tyrannical, violent oppression of the United States. Bin Laden stated that civilians dying are part of the process of waging war in much the same way we justified bombing civilians in World War II and currently today in Iraq and other places. Is Bin Laden anymore wrong than we are? We do the same thing.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Another interesting point I would like to make was that one poster stated that violence becomes an imperative that it is a virtue. Bin Laden believes his acts on September 11 were an imperative and a virtue.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
ManOfTrueTruth said:
Al-queda would say that they had no choice but to use violence, since the US used unprovoked violence first and words fell on deaf ears in America.
The problem with that is that the U.S. had good reason for any military action in the region, the fact is that terrorists kill as a political statement, no one ever brought up diplomacy first in that movement to the best of my knowledge, and that is a big part of the difference.
Al-queda would say they are fighting for their freedom (which in their viewpoint, Islam and freedom go hand in hand) against the tyrannical, violent oppression of the United States.
And they would either be lying or mistaken. First of all, the modern terrorist movement started in the 1940's or 50's depending on what you consider to be terrorist violence, naturally the attacks weren't as big or organized, but nevertheless it was violence in retaliation for the U.N. creating the Israeli state in the "holy land" of Islam. Killing innocent Jews and others in the name of religion is NOT acceptable, unless you want to pardon every abortion clinic bomber as well, I could make the case that they carried out god's sentance against abortion doctors, but I would be wrong.
Bin Laden stated that civilians dying are part of the process of waging war in much the same way we justified bombing civilians in World War II and currently today in Iraq and other places.
First of all, Bin Laden's opinion is that of a murdering coward, so to take anything he says as a debate point is a losing strategy, I don't see much more point in expounding.
Is Bin Laden anymore wrong than we are? We do the same thing.
I don't know why you can't see the difference, and I am sorry that you don't, first of all, we don't justify killing innocent civilians, unfortunately collateral damage is a sad fact of war, Osama and his followers TARGETED civilians, even the Japanese army attacked a military base, even though it was a surprise attack.
 
Top Bottom