Quote:
Originally Posted by Narfle
Out of curiousity, can you defend that statement or is it just your random unfounded opinion?
I dont mean defend it in a fist fight, i mean you should form a logical argument proving your statement correct.
Im just curious really, because I personally belive you are wrong. Violence is simply a tool (dont confuse it with 'rage') and as a tool it has pros and cons.
And therefore, given the correct situation violence would be the first resort of the intellectual. Its only logical.
But ofcource its not a catchy slogan that you can spout and if people disagree you say it again louder 
Were you raised by bumper stickers by any chance? |
Yes, I was raised by bumper stickers... unlike the pure brilliance it requires to come with a phrase like that.
Let's use the war
child (appropriate name) as an example. If I say something to him, and it makes him mad... is he able to handle it? Cope with it? Come up with something to say back? No... he has to resort to violence in order to force me to come up with an apology simply because he knows no other way to do it.
Violence, even as a tool, is used when all other options are exhausted. A leader (not the make shift ones like Bush) should consider all options... from negotiation, politics, cohersion... what have you, and have violence as one of those options. But it's only the first option of those who are incapable to even consider any of the other options first.
But even Bush had issued warnings and other such things to Iraq before invading. So thus, you could say, even then their first option wasn't violence.