3 ms·

> It is not effective at producing well adjusted people with a healthy attitude to violence, nor is it effective at producing lasting compliance. I don't know

> It is not effective at producing well adjusted people with a healthy attitude to violence, nor is it effective at producing lasting compliance. I don't know what "healthy attitude to violence" is when there's a disagreement by what "violence" means. So I'll have to await some clarification, other than simply sharing your unspecified views. Police carry weapons in modern societies across the globe. Claiming violence does not produce lasting compliance is an interesting belief that is not shared by the majority of the world, so I find this claim uncompelling. There are exceptions ofc, like Japan, where a large part of the peacekeeping force patrols without weapons. While it is effective at times, the lack of efficacy can also be seen on Youtube. > That you seek to compare abuse with saving a child from being hit by a vehicle is a astonishing I did not compare them directly. I illustrated the use of the term "violence" is overly broad, as unconsented forceful action is not unwarranted. The question is degree, intent, and efficacy, as stated. Please don't misrepresent my statements. You are imagining I meant "abuse", which is another broad term that is dishonestly equated to "corporal punishment" or "violence". I have trouble teasing out what you specifically trying to communicate, other than a strong disdain for corporal punishment without qualification.

vidarh 4y ago
> Claiming violence does not produce lasting compliance is an interesting belief that is not shared by the majority of the world, so I find this claim uncompelling. It's a belief that is backed by the total absence of evidence of a lasting effect on compliance from the use of violence. That societies continue to condone the use of violence despite the total lack of anything to suggest it works speaks to the pathology of the political process, not to the efficacy of violence. There are situations where violence becomes necessary, such as self-defence or a defensive war, as a means to achieve short term compliance absent other alternatives, but anyone who believes in a beneficial long term effect on compliance is a fool.

vidarh 4y ago

> Claiming violence does not produce lasting compliance is an interesting belief that is not shared by the majority of the world, so I find this claim uncompelling. It's a belief that is backed by the total absence of evidence of a lasting effect on compliance from the use of violence. That societies continue to condone the use of violence despite the total lack of anything to suggest it works speaks to the pathology of the political process, not to the efficacy of violence. There are situations where violence becomes necessary, such as self-defence or a defensive war, as a means to achieve short term compliance absent other alternatives, but anyone who believes in a beneficial long term effect on compliance is a fool.