[i_have_no_idea]

Bush rules.



That is all.



P.S. I HATE liberals

[NLJB]

That is very closed minded of you I_have_no_idea not mention discriminate.

-wink |wi ng k| verb [ intrans. ] close and open one eye quickly, typically to indicate that something is a joke or a secret or as a signal of affection or greeting : he winked at Nicole as he passed. • ( wink at) pretend not to notice (something bad or illegal) : the authorities winked at their illegal trade. • (of a bright object or a light) shine or flash intermittently. noun an act of closing and opening one eye quickly, typically as a signal : Barney gave him a knowing wink- THE DICTIONARY

[i_have_no_idea]

LOL dont worry i respect your opinions

[fidocancan]

quote:
But war works both ways - it is both a means of imposing oppression, but is also often the only effective way to rid oneself of the yoke of oppression.

... But, to stop this cycle, one would have to accept that there is no solution to many of those oppressed today.

your verbal patterns betray your logic statements. i can not challenge them with words alone. it would merely be a challenge of words, which occupies so much of discussion boards.

quote:
What do you regard as 'institutional violence'?

There may be differences of scale, but how is the violence of a police officer shooting a criminal, possibly with total justification, any less 'institutional violence' than a soldier killing an enemy soldier?

there is no difference, both are institutional. i have no need for either. i trust my fellow human beings. the reason why there is crime, is because of the injustice that a human being has to grow up in. if we have a pleasant childhood, there may not be a huge reason for resorting to crime. the institutionalisation of a police force is a result of the institutionalisation of eg poverty. get rid of one, we can get rid of the other.
the military works in a similar way at the national level.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by fidocancan

quote:
What do you regard as 'institutional violence'?

There may be differences of scale, but how is the violence of a police officer shooting a criminal, possibly with total justification, any less 'institutional violence' than a soldier killing an enemy soldier?

there is no difference, both are institutional. i have no need for either. i trust my fellow human beings. the reason why there is crime, is because of the injustice that a human being has to grow up in. if we have a pleasant childhood, there may not be a huge reason for resorting to crime. the institutionalisation of a police force is a result of the institutionalisation of eg poverty. get rid of one, we can get rid of the other.
the military works in a similar way at the national level.

Firstly, the only, and I stress, only, reason that crime exists is because the legislature makes criminal law.  We are talking here about violence, which may or may not be a criminal act.  In fact, most institutional violence will not be a criminal act, because the national legislatures will generally be careful to frame the laws to ensure that such violence as they deem necessary will fall outside of any legal definition of a crime.

As for whether human beings (or any other animal, since, below the social façade, we are still just animals) may be trusted: my own view is that most people will try to meet the expectations you have of them.  If you have low expectations of them, they will generally not expect more of themselves than you expect of them, but if you have higher expectations of them, they will in general seek to meet those expectations.  The trouble is not with most people, but with the small minority who do not fit into this pattern.  The thing one has to be careful about is that, while one must take precautions, and appropriately respond, to that minority; if one begins to expect, or respond to, the majority as if it were the same as that minority, then you will cause the majority to begin to meet your expectations that they are no different to the minority.

To say that you trust your fellow man would lead one to think that you have no locks on the front door of your house.  I think, in the modern world (at least in those areas where there is at least the modicum of sufficient affluence to have something worth steeling, and sufficient population density that most people passing before your house will be strangers to you), I think this an unlikely scenario.  Ofcourse, this thread is about violence, and the case I am describing here is caution against theft, and there are people who are predisposed to violence who still have a high regard for other people's personal property, and visa versa.  Nonetheless, I would think it imprudent to be so trusting as to offer no caution against the malice of the few (whether manifest in theft or in violence), but one has to balance that against being so distrustful of the many as to precipitate the very thing one is fearful of, as the many whom one distrusts act according to what they believe you expect of them.

The problem with your argument about injustice is that justice is very much in the eye of the beholder.

[fidocancan]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone
The problem with your argument about injustice is that justice is very much in the eye of the beholder.

your reasoning is correct, and your manner respectful. thank you.
given this relativity of perception (localised as it is to you, to me, to each an everyone one of us), the question i am asking is, does this necessitate institutionalised violence?

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by fidocancan

your reasoning is correct, and your manner respectful. thank you.

Thank you.  As Voltaire said “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it“. (hopefully I never have to prove that literally)

quote:
given this relativity of perception (localised as it is to you, to me, to each an everyone one of us), the question i am asking is, does this necessitate institutionalised violence?

Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes.

The problem is there must always be a point where, whether it be an individual, or it be a community, one must meet the needs of self defence, and if need be, the defence of others, with whatever tools one is forced to resort to.

The problem comes when institutional violence stops being a last resort, and starts becoming the automatic response to every problem the State faces.  In this respect, I include imprisonment to be every bit as much a form of violence as any other.  While violence can be an effective tool in some circumstances, one must realise that its effectiveness is limited, and it inevitably brings with it adverse side effects.

[thayo]

world peace actualization appears unrealistic, do someone agrees with me? every country eyes world power which definitely intoxicates the subject, whao lets someone talk to me.

lets keep trying the untried since the birth of science innovations have been like  toy but their impacts have rocked the world

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by thayo

world peace actualization appears unrealistic, do someone agrees with me? every country eyes world power which definitely intoxicates the subject, whao lets someone talk to me.

In principle, I do agree with you, and have said as much in my earlier posts.

The problem is deeper than how countries view power, but it is how people view power, and the way countries behave is just a manifestation of the nature of individual human beings.

There is one caveat I will apply to the above statement.  As you have pointed out, wars happen as a means of obtaining power, therefore, the only way to stop wars is if one can find a more effective way to allow people to accrue power than the use of war.

Within a nation, it is usually easier to accrue power through the manipulation of money, and so it is only those who are unable to adequately manipulate money who resort to violence.

Even in matters of international power, much power is brokered through big multinational business, and so averts the need for overt violence, while allowing the same degree of domination of one country over another.

[thayo]

who has the world power

lets keep trying the untried since the birth of science innovations have been like  toy but their impacts have rocked the world