3 ms·

Just because an individual opines on something doesn't somehow turn it into a sudden irrefutable fact. And that wiki article is completely devoid of examples as

Just because an individual opines on something doesn't somehow turn it into a sudden irrefutable fact. And that wiki article is completely devoid of examples aside from giving a number of other views on the topic - in which literally every single one disagrees with him. It's no different than arguing that the key to solving violence is violence. Wrapping a layer of specious logic around it makes it no more reasonable a suggestion. It's interesting too in that I think everybody can see that violence inherently breeds violence, yet many remain blind to the fact that intolerance too breeds intolerance. We have two ends of political extremism today. The many things they have in common include the fact that they both are completely intolerant of the other side as they consider the other side completely intolerant. And as the mutual extremism grows, so too does the self righteous intolerance. That's going to end well...

icebraining 9y ago
It's interesting too in that I think everybody can see that violence inherently breeds violence On the contrary, we created an official group tasked with dealing out violence (the police) because it's generally accepted (whether it's true or not) that some violence must be met with violence.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- indubitable 9y ago
  The police obviously are not tasked out with dealing violence. They stop violence and are certainly capable of defending themselves when necessary. In the US this line between defense and aggression is becoming blurred, but that's more of a deterioration of a society than the actual role of police. And that blurring supports the point. As police face more regular violence, they themselves tend to become more violent, leading to even more violence against them, and vice versa. In countries where the police face no violence, they often are not even armed. Take for instance Iceland which may have an even greater percent of their population armed than the US (our per capita ownership rate is so high because many gun owners own many guns) - yet their police are unarmed. 2013 was a sad year for Iceland. It was the first year that their police fired a gun at a civilian, ever [1]. It always leads to sort of 'which came first the chicken or the egg' type question, but the point is absolutely clear that intolerance breeds intolerance in much the same way that violence breeds violence. And it's quite sad watching people fall into this. People don't seem to understand that nearly all the evil in this world is and has been done by people who felt they were the 'good guys.' "No no, it's different this time. We really are the good guys! History will prove us right!" Said everybody, ever. [1] - https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/1203/Lots-of-guns-little-violence-Shooting-highlights-armed-but-peaceful-Iceland https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/1203/Lots-of-gun...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    The police is tasked with physically restraining and imprisoning certain people. That's violence, whether they do it with a gun or not. Litla-Hraun is not an hotel. Considerations about the aggressiveness of the US police force specifically are certainly an important topic, but wholly irrelevant here. I'm not from the US, nor was their brand of policing on my mind when commented.
    - indubitable 9y ago
      Right they meet even violent offenders with "physical restraint" so long as they are not met with violence. And "physical restraint" is little more than asking a person to turn around and cuffing them, and in some cases - that's not even involved. We could discuss the ethics of imprisonment, and I expect we'd agree. But you certainly can't claim that police's task is to deal out violence - particularly preemptive.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        You have a funny concept of violence if abduction and imprisonment under threat of physical force don't count. I guess the robber that steals at knifepoint is also non-violent if he doesn't actually plunge it when the victim complies?

icebraining 9y ago

It's interesting too in that I think everybody can see that violence inherently breeds violence On the contrary, we created an official group tasked with dealing out violence (the police) because it's generally accepted (whether it's true or not) that some violence must be met with violence.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
indubitable 9y ago
The police obviously are not tasked out with dealing violence. They stop violence and are certainly capable of defending themselves when necessary. In the US this line between defense and aggression is becoming blurred, but that's more of a deterioration of a society than the actual role of police. And that blurring supports the point. As police face more regular violence, they themselves tend to become more violent, leading to even more violence against them, and vice versa. In countries where the police face no violence, they often are not even armed. Take for instance Iceland which may have an even greater percent of their population armed than the US (our per capita ownership rate is so high because many gun owners own many guns) - yet their police are unarmed. 2013 was a sad year for Iceland. It was the first year that their police fired a gun at a civilian, ever [1]. It always leads to sort of 'which came first the chicken or the egg' type question, but the point is absolutely clear that intolerance breeds intolerance in much the same way that violence breeds violence. And it's quite sad watching people fall into this. People don't seem to understand that nearly all the evil in this world is and has been done by people who felt they were the 'good guys.' "No no, it's different this time. We really are the good guys! History will prove us right!" Said everybody, ever. [1] - https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/1203/Lots-of-guns-little-violence-Shooting-highlights-armed-but-peaceful-Iceland https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/1203/Lots-of-gun...
- icebraining 9y ago
  The police is tasked with physically restraining and imprisoning certain people. That's violence, whether they do it with a gun or not. Litla-Hraun is not an hotel. Considerations about the aggressiveness of the US police force specifically are certainly an important topic, but wholly irrelevant here. I'm not from the US, nor was their brand of policing on my mind when commented.
  - indubitable 9y ago
    Right they meet even violent offenders with "physical restraint" so long as they are not met with violence. And "physical restraint" is little more than asking a person to turn around and cuffing them, and in some cases - that's not even involved. We could discuss the ethics of imprisonment, and I expect we'd agree. But you certainly can't claim that police's task is to deal out violence - particularly preemptive.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      You have a funny concept of violence if abduction and imprisonment under threat of physical force don't count. I guess the robber that steals at knifepoint is also non-violent if he doesn't actually plunge it when the victim complies?