5 ms·

The fact that you gave an example of a situation where violence isn't necessary doesn't preclude situations where violence is still necessary. Suppose somebody

The fact that you gave an example of a situation where violence isn't necessary doesn't preclude situations where violence is still necessary. Suppose somebody decides that they want your house, and they don't really want to share it with you. It's much nicer than the one they have now. You ask them to reconsider, and they politely decline. Now they are pushing you toward the door. What do you do? You can pretty much either let them do what they want, or not let them do it. "Not letting people do what they are determined to do", is, in some sense, the definition of violence. In this scenario, you could either enact it yourself, by pushing them out the front door, or you could leave it to professional violence-doers, such as the police. Either way the result is the same - the person is no longer able to do the thing which they still very much want to do. The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary - there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people. I fully support a restorative and rehabilitative approach to justice, but no amount of rehabilitation will let us release the golden state killer back into society. And as long as you keep him locked up, you are doing so through violence. The prison walls aren't really the thing keeping him in there - those can be subverted with enough patience and planning - ultimately it's the people in uniforms who will tackle him and drag him back in if he tries to leave.

soperj 6y ago
> is, in some sense, the definition of violence No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. >professional violence-doers, such as the police That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise. >The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary. It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals. >there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people Then how does the threat of violence help? It doesn't.
- bccdee 6y ago
  > Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So do you think that forcibly abducting someone and locking them in jail isn't violent?
- vladTheInhaler 6y ago
  > No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. I was eliding what I thought was the obvious conclusion. But let me be more explicit. If someone is determined to do something, and you are determined to stop them, the result will be an escalation that leads to taking actions that hurt, damage, or kill the other person. > It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals. You just restated the original assertion I responded to, again without evidence or argument. Why not try responding to the ideas I presented? > That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise. That should be their only role. The biggest problem with police is that they are doing a ton of other jobs that they are not qualified to do. A firefighter is trained to put out fires. A paramedic is trained to perform lifesaving medical procedures. Pretty much the only thing a police officer brings to an emergency is a gun. And most emergencies cannot be solved with a gun. A car accident can't be solved with a gun. A cat stuck in a tree can't be solved (except in the loosest sense) with a gun. A psychiatric emergency can't be solved with a gun. But a handful of emergencies can only be solved with a gun - an armed bank robbery, a terrorist attack. And many more situations can only be resolved because the authorities can wield the threat of violence. Consider a criminal investigation for instance. When the feds show up at your business to request financial records, they don't usually carry guns. But even though you may not want to give them documents that will incriminate you, that's still preferable to the investigators calling the police and seizing the files themselves while you sit in the back of the police car.

soperj 6y ago

> is, in some sense, the definition of violence No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. >professional violence-doers, such as the police That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise. >The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary. It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals. >there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people Then how does the threat of violence help? It doesn't.

bccdee 6y ago
> Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So do you think that forcibly abducting someone and locking them in jail isn't violent?
vladTheInhaler 6y ago
> No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. I was eliding what I thought was the obvious conclusion. But let me be more explicit. If someone is determined to do something, and you are determined to stop them, the result will be an escalation that leads to taking actions that hurt, damage, or kill the other person. > It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals. You just restated the original assertion I responded to, again without evidence or argument. Why not try responding to the ideas I presented? > That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise. That should be their only role. The biggest problem with police is that they are doing a ton of other jobs that they are not qualified to do. A firefighter is trained to put out fires. A paramedic is trained to perform lifesaving medical procedures. Pretty much the only thing a police officer brings to an emergency is a gun. And most emergencies cannot be solved with a gun. A car accident can't be solved with a gun. A cat stuck in a tree can't be solved (except in the loosest sense) with a gun. A psychiatric emergency can't be solved with a gun. But a handful of emergencies can only be solved with a gun - an armed bank robbery, a terrorist attack. And many more situations can only be resolved because the authorities can wield the threat of violence. Consider a criminal investigation for instance. When the feds show up at your business to request financial records, they don't usually carry guns. But even though you may not want to give them documents that will incriminate you, that's still preferable to the investigators calling the police and seizing the files themselves while you sit in the back of the police car.