When is it okay or socially acceptable to resort to violence?
I'm not advocating violence, but some professions have a level of danger and violence that is inherently attached to it. When you leave the profession it's difficult not to view the world as a dangerous place in which if you don't respond appropriately either verbally, with a threat of violence, or actual violence, you and others may die. Recently I started thinking about what the rest of the population's violence threshold is. Meaning, is there ever an instance or scenario in which you would resort to the threat of or actual violence against someone?
Of course there is a time and place for violence unless one is a complete passivist or fool is more like it.
However, short of defending oneself or others violence of any kind is one of humanities greatest shortcomings. Unauthorized violence of any kind must be abolished but to accomplish that, it may take 100 years or so of strict and severe punishment for humanity to learn. A small price to pay comparatively speaking.
Lets get started solving this problem right now. Count me in...
Different degrees of violence is sometime needed according to different situation in dealing with man or beast. To kill or injure is extreme violence and should be used in life or death situations only.
The unrealistic answer would be never. It sounds good on paper to never resort to violence, but life sucks.
Realistically, only resort to violence when you yourself are a victim of it.
There is an adage, that perhaps some people might find cliche: It's better to be judged by 12 than carried away by 6. A person can use reasonable force to defend themselves and others against violence. I think good advice would be to avoid situations as much as possible that could involve violence against you or others and channel aggression into utilizing law enforcement to do their job as effectively as you can.
In self defense, of course, and to protect my loved ones, as well as my home, such as if a burglar intrudes. If, however, I presented a gun, baseball bat, frying pan, or whatever I could get my hands on and the intruder fled, I would let him go without hurting him, because property is only that. I could still be in danger if I tried to retrieve things he/she took. It wouldn't be worth it. I'd call the police. Only if he didn't flee when he saw that I was armed and willing to wield a weapon would I resort to violence, which in general I oppose.
Nadia those are all really good, rationale reasons to use violence, and I especially like that you would let the intruder go at the point where your family is safe.
Violence is not socially acceptable in general. However self-defense is within everyone's right and is generally understood by many.
Another instance might be a person wakes up in the middle of the night and discovers an intruder in their home. Ordinarily it would be unacceptable to go around shooting people but if someone breaks into your home you legally have the right to do so.
And if you live in Florida you have the right to "stand your ground" if (you) "believe" your life is in danger wherever you are. Personally I consider that one to be a little bit of a stretch. Too many people are paranoid and have an itchy trigger finger these days.
I didn't say that violence is "socially acceptable in general." I said I'm opposed to violence in general. Vast difference. How is an intruder "another instance"? A burglar IS an intruder when it relates to private property.
Nadia Ribadu, I never read (your) comment! My answer was in response to the overall question being asked. Maria's last sentence:"is there ever an instance or scenario in which you would resort to the threat of or actual violence against someone?"
I am pro-self protection but I am against stand your ground laws. I have had to use violence to save my own life and it is hard to put on the breaks when you're in survival, it's your life or mine mode, but when you value all human life it is easier
Maria, I with you regarding "stand your ground" laws. They're too subjective and anyone can claim (in their mind) they felt their life was being threatened. Such laws also do not require the "would be victim" to attempt to walk away.
Sorry, dashingscorpio, don't kill me! If I misread or you weren't addressing me, SORRY!
Definitely to defend yourself. People are less likely to attack you in the first place if they know you're going to fight back.
by dashingscorpio 7 years ago
Is it socially acceptable for a woman to propose marriage to a man?Even with all the gains women have made in terms of equality many of them view being “proactive” as being “desperate” when it comes to approaching men for dates, a dance, and especially marriage. According to many articles...
by Jan Lova 3 years ago
What is socially acceptable but shouldn't be?
by Rodric Anthony Johnson 5 years ago
Why is it socially acceptable in the US for women to wear men's clothing and not vice verse?If I wanted to run out to the store with my wife's leg warmers on or throw on a big house dress because it is hot shouldn't I have the comfort to without stares?
by SJ Rose 2 years ago
Why is cigarette smoking socially acceptable?Why is cigarette smoking socially acceptable even though it's been proven to kill people, yet other substances that are medically beneficial, natural and can cure health issues, are stated as illegal and frowned upon?
by Cristale Adams 6 years ago
Why are tattoos more socially acceptable than piercings?This seems to be the deal lately...
by Mahmo 3 years ago
Is it socially acceptable to tell somebody that his breath and mouth smell are not nice ?I do mean a person who is not a friend but he comes for regular meetings with me in a joint business.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|