Greetings steemians! Today I want to talk to you about violence and defense. This seems to come from the misconception that force is equivalent to violence. Force can be defined as the capacity to do work or cause physical change. Violence is the immoral use of force to coerce someone to do something that is contrary to their free will. Anything that impedes the ability of someone to act according to their will so long as they harm none is an act of violence. When an act of violence is committed against an individual it is not only that person's right but their moral duty to act with sufficient force to get that person to stop.
If one person is verbally abusive to another then the one who is being verbally abused has the moral obligation to try to get that person to stop. They may try to calmly explain why they should not be treated in this manner but if that person refuses to let them speak then they might have to raise their voice. This is not abuse. Indeed, that person has the moral obligation to persist in their efforts until their voice is heard to prevent further abuse.
If someone is physically abusive to another then that person has the right to strike back with sufficient force to make the other person stop. Really, if someone has resorted to physical violence to escape hearing the other's defense against their verbal abuse then that is a particular vile form of violence. If that person did not respond to those acts of physical violence with equal physical force then that person has exercised a remarkable amount of restraint and should be commended for their patience.
Dishonesty is also a form of violence. While this certainly includes blatant lies, it is not limited to this. Selectively telling the facts in order to get someone to act a certain way while omitting those that would lead to a different perspective is an act of violence and is abusive to everyone that it effects. This is particularly relevant when someone tries to present another's use of defensive force as an act of violence by omitting the abusive actions that the person was defending against. When this happens the dishonest person has committed an act of violence against the person they presented this misleading information to and the person they painted a false picture of as well as anyone else that would be affected by this.
Removing monetary rewards from someone with no explanation is an act of violence particularly if they were going to use those monetary rewards to benefit others. Then the person who committed the act has committed an act of violence against everyone who would have benefited from those rewards.
When these acts of violence occur they don't just happen to one person, they happen to everyone that is affected by them. This means that all of those people have the moral obligation to respond with sufficient force to correct the situation and prevent further acts of violence. These are not acts of violence. They are the right and the duty of those that have had these acts of violence occur against them.
I've ranted enough for one day but I will leave you with this thought provoking video by a man who has done more than almost anyone to expose how people have been manipulated to have false impressions, the great Mark Passio.
By flagging, we DO NOT remove any reward but avoid the potential reward from pilfering out of the reward pool. Just by looking at the figure of potential reward, it's wrong to assume one's right over that sum. Potential figure is NOT real and can change in any direction. And you have not removed any monetary reward as it was never there.
On the contrary, not removing/flagging an undeserving post/comment is violence as it is a theft due to your negligence. And the theft is of common property i.e. common reward pool. It is your moral responsibility to protect the common reward pool.
The bigest form of violence is tray to present yourself as victim ................
Yes false victimhood especially when it is from someone who is the actual abuser is the worst type of deception. The people who do this are the worst kind of scum especially when they try to benefit from it personally.
True!
well, if anyone would know....
resteemed, upvoted and followed.
I disagree only in your definition of violence. All violence equates to is force that is designed to cause physical injury or damage, up to and including lethal force. For example, self-defense is violence, particularly if it's in response to violence initiated against you. I've spent a lot of time and consideration on this topic, and semantics in general, because having a clear, precise explanation - being able to precisely articulate your message - is vitally important.
The distinction that makes some violence moral and other violence immoral is whether or not it was initiated. Reciprocal violence is not immoral; that's self-defense. Initiatory violence, on the other hand...
I think the definition of violence here is specific only to this article, for philosophical reasons.
Not sure though. Sometimes I'll define a term at the beginning of an essay, to ensure that the use of that term has been defined already, so there are no misconceptions.
I blame English, and its limited amount of words. When will Lojban be popular...?
The other issue I have is that his definition isn't even internally consistent. Words are not force. Neither is fraud. Neither of those are uses of force. What he's describing, using different and ambiguous language are acts of trespass, of which words still don't qualify.
Sure it is... I defined force as the capacity to do work or cause physical change. Verbal abuse such as yelling at someone if they don't do what you want is you trying to cause the physical change of them doing what you want and is therefore an (abusive) use of force. Misleading someone to take a particular action is causing the physical change of them taking the particular action and is therefore a use of force and since that person wouldn't take that action without being mislead it is a form of violence.
Your equating physical violence and verbal abuse, for example. These two are qualitatively different things, and confounding the two allows one to draw the conclusion that verbal abuse can be met with physical force in retaliation. In other words, I can beat you because your words "harmed me." How do you quantify harm from words? What measure could you possibly use?
Financial losses are one way that comes to mind. Words can also be used to incite physical attacks. I did qualify it with "sufficient force to get the person to stop". It's not an open-ended excuse for the use of force.
But that's an overbroad qualification when it comes to words and speech. Does it have to be an imminent threat of attack? Or can it just be violent speech. Would a phrase like "all X should kill themselves" warrant a physical response? What metric can you use to determine what warrants physical violence and what doesn't?
Lozban! Never heard about this language before. Interesting! Do you speak this language? How difficult or easy it is to learn?
A cartoon by xkcd. Click this link for English version 😊
Thank you post amazing I like
The perfect explanations as to Violence and Coercion. There are a ginormous number of people who're abused everyday in form of verbal, moral and monetary violence and people don't take action on these because they only consider physical abuse is a violence.
But violence has no fixed rules and shape, everything which violates the law is VIOLENCE. It's time people should know and act against it.
You portrayed it perfectly @jphenderson . A big thumbs up for you :)
There's nothing wrong with violence. It's amoral. Self-defense is violence, reciprocated against the person trying to do you harm.
Yes, it is. But I wrote about the immoral ways of violence and violence for selfish reasons @anarcho-andrei. There's always wrong with this violence.
Monetary and verbal sleights aren't violence though. Even according to this article, violence is force used to coerce. Words are not force. If you start categorizing words as equivalent to physical force, you open the door to using physical force in response to words.
Precision of expression is essential.
I agree in that anything that violates the Natural Law principle of free will is violence. Governmental laws violate this principle all the time however. If our legal laws were in harmony with natural law then we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today.
Interesting post.
"If someone is physically abusive to another then that person has the right to strike back with sufficient force to make the other person stop."
I don't agree with this statement. Legally talking, the only individuals allowed by law to use physical or mental violence are the army and police. Anybody else is allowed to use violence only in a defensive way and not on revenge.
Of course, we are talking from a legal point of view in a western country. Upvoted and following. Cheers!
That's literally what he described in your quote. Not sure what the disagreement is.
from what is my understanding, in the post it is written that if someone receive abuse it has the right to use violence against the abuser until the abuse stop. That is revenge and making justice by yourself and not self-defense.
No, it's not. If someone strikes you, are you saying you don't have the right to respond in kind?
if you respond for self defense because otherwise that person would keep striking you, you have the right to respond. If that person strikes you one time and then walk away, you don't need to exercise any violence but you should call the police or the institutions to legally protest and ask for defense against the violence that has been used against you.
So the whole "if they turn their back to you, your hands are tied" schtick? No. Doesn't work that way. Ethically, once someone violates your body through force, you are ethically excused from liability for responding in kind.
I'm not going to delve to deeply into it, but this is a philosophical discussion. You have the ethical right to defend yourself against an attacker, even if they hold their hands up immediately after attacking you. The police or other "legal" institutions in place that claim dominion over the provision of security don't change that.
I agree and the reason for this is that it prevents future violence and is not just vengeance. If someone hits you and then sticks their hands up so you don't do anything then they got away with it and will likely do things like this again.
Governments are by definition violent. They are that which has a legal monopoly on violence in a particular region.
Are you sure the governments are by definition violent? According to which definition?
Yes the definition of violence used is the use of force to coerce people to do things that they would not do of their own free will. How many people would voluntarily pay taxes that they have little to no say on how they are spent? What happens if you don't pay those taxes? In many countries cannabis, a harmless plant with medicinal applications, is illegal. The people who use this harm noone by doing so but are coerced by the threat of force to not use it. The list goes on and on how government exercises a monopoly on violence.
TheWalrus has got its own definitions for several words. Every word deserves an article like this. Perhaps governance would be next. 😉
(Do you want upvotes exchange go to https://steemfollower.com/?r=1133)
meep
fair enough - violence is a shocking thing in a world where we need to cooperate more in a spirit of loving kindness to all, however of course retaliation is another thing and defence is only a logical response. I like your writing and considered thought -David
Good point... there is a difference between defense and vengeance or retaliation. Vengeance serves no purpose and only perpetuates violence.
You got my vote and a resteem :)
nice write up but I'm with @anarcho-andrei on this. words are not violence and sometimes, self defence can be violence on it's own.
Let me give you a quick example.
Here in Nigeria, people believe in what is called Jungle justice. if someone steals from somewhere or rapes a woman and he's caught by the people of the community, he will e severally beaten if not killed before the police gets to the crime scene.
what do you call that? defence or violence?
Good post thank u for sharing :-)
A wealth of photos makes this post stunning,
One of your follower who always upote....
I work on poetry have alook hope you like @funnystuff really need your support my friend 💓
Takecare😊
Mr@jphenderson .. I like the way you wrote at the beginning of paragraph
Greetings steemians! Today I want to talk to you about violence and defence. This seems to come from the misconception that force is equivalent to violence. Force can be defined as the capacity to do work or cause physical change.
I found your article very informative. We sometimes do get into discussion about the use of self-defense in a country where the criminal is often more protected than the defender in violent crimes. Now I can add these insightful remarks to my arsenal for debate. Thank you. Followed.
I'm confused, you say reacting against violence is a moral obligation, but that clearly isn't the case.
I'm in my mid 40's, let's say I'm walking in the park and three 12 year olds start making fun of me; you think it's best to go and have an argument with them? Surely, recognising the hormonal imbalance of these young people, and not engaging them will lead to better outcomes for them, and probably for you.
Sometimes it's better to recognise other people's behaviour as irrational and just give them a pass, being obliged to respond will make the world much worse.
Sometimes the best defense is not to aknowledge the attack. When it comes to children then it is particularly relevant that we should lead by example. Plus, when it comes to children then it is not your responsibility to correct them. If their parents are around then they should be informed of their childrens actions.
Defending against an attack is by definition, acknowledging and reacting to it. Thats not the same as ignoring the attack. In the example of the kids, defending would be explaining to them that they are being unkind, or putting your fingers in your ears. Ignoring them is walking on by with no response.
It need not be children in the park, it could be a person in a car hooting their horn at you in traffic, you dont need to respond to that, just mark that person up as a nutter. You could start honking back, give them some gestures, or even get out and start remonstrating with them, but none of those choices will have any significant effect on the heavy traffic, or that persons impatience, which are the root causes of their behaviour. Should they be attacking you for situations beyond your control, no absolutely not, but there isnt a damn thing you can do about it.
Im just concerned with the statement of 'obligation', we are not obliged or duty bound to defend against attacks. If we all start responding to all attacks, the world will go to shit pretty quickly.
Im not tearing down your post, honestly. I just cant stand by and see people told they are obliged to attack others in response to violence, and that that is a morally acceptable solution.
Very interesting post! Especially because of all the violence in this world nowadays... in Europe there are a lot of countries, where people have to be scared to go to, because they're afraid of terrorists and random people who commit murder, abusive acts, etc... (not only in Europe)! This post is very informative and I'm glad I read through it! Thanks for sharing :)
Thank you! That means a lot coming from you. I think it's interesting that I am about to go to Europe and I am going to Eastern Europe as that is safe right now while Western Europe is not. An interesting reversal from not so long ago and very relevant to this discussion.
Mark Passio, ay?! Have you seen his videos on "order followers"?
Indeed I have... I've seen and/or listened to almost everything by him... He knows things I don't but I know things he doesn't..... I was never a satanist but I have studied the rosicrucian tradition, mystical christianity, Martinism, Hermeticism, Kabbalah, Taoism, and most middle-to-right leaning traditions beyond the comprehension of most. I even know the darkside I just know enough to know that it is a problem to be resolved and not a force to be used.
I like the way you think!!!
Great minds think alike... and so do ours.
Intellegent article...True talk....
La violencia tiene varias formas... gracias por la información no había tenido el tacto de analizar el concepto pero fue bueno leer tu post. Saludos
Nice post
I agree with you that violence is not always physical, and there is also some moral responsibility to "resist" violence; however, I do not think I agree that the answer is always returned force. Nonviolence can be the manner in which violence is resisted.
I really expect an upvote from you and help my post
Https://steemit.com/happy/@farahanjira/my-birthday-201785t212124323z
This is an extremely simplified reactionary response and is incredibly dangerous when amplified to a societal level.
I would suggest approaching the question from a larger historical perspective while not defining "violence." Violence is much more than an act.
Self defense is surely the right of every person.
Awesome post I had to re-post. Still getting used to the steemit platform. More writters like this and I will be hooked.
Dishonesty and omission is absolutely abusive.
Great write up. Thank you <3
totally agreed with your word. even if there had an accident while you defending yourself then it will be taken in mind to help you in law.
Congratulations @jphenderson! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPSir, please vote for us. We are very grateful to this. You continue to have success in the same way. @ahlawat
Natural Law is so simple even I can get it, ha.
Mark Passio gets me too angry at everything though.
Thanks, my anarchist side needed a wakeup call.
Well put together. I cannot agree more, but this is the world we live in today, everything is up-side-down. Immorality goes beyond imagination, manipulation and dishonesty go hand-in-hand, and who's to blame?? Well for once is the governments, but we, the people cannot excuse ourselves, because we went with the lies telling ourselves that we have to conform to the rules. But that's not the case, it was actually more comfortable to say "well, that's the law" instead of acting and taking position against abuse. Well, people are starting to realize that we cannot hide behind what's comfortable and we have to account for our own (in)actions. it's time to step up and do what's right instead of what's convenient.
did u email me @jphenderson?
yes
Have a nice day, good morning
Congratulations @jphenderson! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPHello, how best can someone reach you ?
Got a question about chainbb . Thanks!
probably on discord but best to tell me how to get in touch with you. Not the best person to ask about chainbb though.