(no subject)

[odanu]

QOTD: What is so important to your life that you would resort to violence to protect it?

Me: My family, the ability to read the books I want, the entire constitution.
You?

Comments

[polydad]

I have some issues with the question. Prior to my heart attack in '03 I was fairly good at physical violence and practiced it as a hobby (martial arts). Part of what I discovered through that is that violence is generally not the best solution to the problem at hand, no matter how willing one might be to employ it.

Having a bad case of 'engineer brain', I'm interested in finding the *best* solution, not in obsessing about the parameters used in constructing it; if violence isn't a good idea, I don't want to use it.

[odanu]

It is often not the right solution, but it sometimes is. I was parsing out that difference.

[polydad]

I understand; I am trying to suggest that your parsing parameters may be in need of revision.  Specifically, order revision; the question of "Is it acceptable to use violence" should IMHO come much further down the tree, and thus not be relevant at many higher levels of decision-making. 

F'r ex, I attend a lot of political protests and rallies.  At one in downtown Portland, OR last month, there were a gang of neo-nazis present. My willingness or not to engage in violence with them never became relevant, because we never got within a hundred yards of each other, and that was with a company of riot cops between us.  I do have to admit to a strong and ongoing temptation to grab a riot cop in full gear and waltz them around the square, and I suspect I might still be capable of so doing.  But I don't think that counts as 'violence' under the definition in immediate use.

[odanu]

Being willing to commit violence generally implies a belief (whether accurate or not) that something or someone is in critical danger and only violence will protect it. That's the answer I'm looking for. What is so important to you that its imminent loss would lead you to violence.