violence

[The Voice of Time]

because taking away a child's parent is obviously a phycologicaly neutral act, yes?

No, but the message must be clear, you cannot be allowed to continue hitting your children. Or do you have another way in mind that might better quell your taste for violence against your kids?

The message must also be clear to your kids, that this is not an acceptable way to behave.

[The Voice of Time]

You should grow up and live a bit of life before you give your opinion to people who clearly know better.

And who might that be? You the child-hitting father?

If your mum used to beat you

She never touched me except in gentle gestures.

and lock you in the cupboard

No, but once when I was in first or second grade my classmates locked me up in a room and I was forgotten there for hours.

, it sounds like it was an act of self preservation, there's possibly not an adult in the world that could remain placid around such an opinionated kid as you.

How many adults have you faced in your life? Does your life and your community entail a lot of aggressiveness?

If you was my kid, I'd smack you, take your computer, and lock you in the cupboard, or alternatively I'd give you the option, either except my right of authority in my house, and except my right to punish as I see fit, or phone social services and get yourself put into care, where you'll get the counciling you need.

Counselling for telling you that it's wrong to hit children? And you want to do all that nasty business to a kid? Are you reading yourself right? If you really want to do that, you belong in prison, and if it's a thing you'd want to do repeatedly and did not relent on, you should go to a mental hospital to get treatment for your aggressive and destructive behaviour.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Again we see your problem with not understanding definitions. Take note of the two below in

Please don't tell me you let the dictionary tell you what kiss is... that's so sad and so pathetic.

Your ignorance is surprising. A dictionary lists words and their meanings, as people have used them. Before I ever saw the definition for kiss, as I have used it, I heard many people use it in sentences. I grew up from 11 years old on, with a pool table (billiards) in my basement, and heard it used as in def's 9 & 12 constantly, as I was being taught how to play. I've also heard it used when mating two surfaces that require a gentle touch, or damage can result, this was in a work environment. But it really doesn't matter, as I used it as it 'has' and 'can' be used. That you failed to consider it, before labeling my words other than what was intended, is your fault, not mine. And that's why one should consult a dictionary, if they don't fully understand what's meant.

[The Voice of Time]

Maybe my mistake, but you have used words other than the ones I've used, to characterize my actions, as stronger than they were, to suit your own desires.

I called them violent. That's all I can remember to have said about it, that you think it sounds stronger than it is, is subject to your subjective opinion and taste. However, I'd like to offer you to give me a better word than violence to give name to hostile acts of physical and also psychological nature that intends to inflict pain upon a target, especially in order to achieve an objective, such as obedience or attention or the likes.

You're not paying attention, blinded by your fervor.

Your fervour, born at your mothers hand, blinds your view. You are not the authority.

May I ask what I'm supposed to see that my such-called "fervour" is blinding me against?

Situations are only ever variable.

Not very helpful.

Your misguided belief, to ensure your safety, as one that fears fighting.

We should all fear fighting, because it means our strategy has gone wrong, or that something very bad is going on to provoke it.

No, by your own admission, you are a coward, that's what I meant, you fear to fight, for your right to live, or so you said in another thread.

I don't think I would've said that exactly, I think it would instead be the scene itself, the battlefield, and all its horrors, others as well as my own, that would be the cause of it. But yes, I'd fear to fight for my right to live, if the fighting was dirty enough, but also I reckon, because the stakes would be so high I would want to change the game to one of less serious stake. Killing each other is not a very good idea.

OK, you have changed your mind, surely. At least you admit that you don't know, and how could anyone know, how they would react to any particular instance of violence.

Well some things are more easy to know by a fairly high certainty than others, such that sudden violence would most likely be very surprising unless there factors involved that made it predictable.

So if a GANG of children, (under the decided age of adulthood) came at you with knives, you might snap, and smite them, with your fists, because you would want to defend yourself.

I would do what was in my power to defend myself, yes, but yet again, we are talking about rather fantastic situations, it's not impossible I know, such gangs surely exist, maybe even many of them (mixed with adults), the world's a big place and many bad things happen in the poor world with child soldiers and all that, but it's not very likely to happen to anyone unless you life in such a conflict area, and especially not very likely in the developed world.

Not at all, once all of mankind is dead and buried, his morals shall be far more than gone, it would be as if they never existed at all.

That is certainly not the case, the following of one moral will guide ones actions and for every action there's a reaction, creating chains of events that unfold until the end of time. But this is getting off-topic and not particularly important for the thread.

But violence is relative, as I tried to show you with my Grizzly Bear analogy. You nor I could handle a swat of a grizzly bear cub, at play, yet they can.

You do not have to prove to me that violence is relative, I know that very well, it doesn't change your situation however. Unless of course you did not do what you said you did.

To a lessor degree, but still the case, is that of a relative pat on the back, between two huge men of the same strength compared to one big and strong, and one small and weak. For instance I have shook hands with another man where my hand was hurt to some degree. Violence??? I hardly think so!!!

Do you think the man intended for your to feel that pain? In that case it was violence, if not, as I find likely, it was an unfortunate side-effect, also called an "accident". The pat is neither intended to be painful, or it could be intended but be part of a friendly game, but even in the case of a "friendly" game, it could be a form of bullying because the carelessness of the one who strikes and a lack of recognition from the recipient. That however is not violence either, because it's still not meant as a hostile act, it's just an accidental un-cooperative act of one part against another.

I never said you did either, if you know grammar you would see I but the parenthesis behind henry quirk's name and not yours, and inside the parenthesis I wrote "his", so that would refer to the last person I named of male gender, which was henry quirk.

My mistake, possibly!

Why do you say possibly? It's quite evident and clear. Is this a way of saying "I don't want you to be right out of spite and feeling to be as difficult as possible"?

You'd do well to not mimic Arising_uk, as she has no idea what she's talking about. And what you'd like, is of no consequence to me.

Well paranoia is not healthy for you, so out of care for your mental health; you should avoid it.

[The Voice of Time]

Again we see your problem with not understanding definitions. Take note of the two below in

Please don't tell me you let the dictionary tell you what kiss is... that's so sad and so pathetic.

Your ignorance is surprising. A dictionary lists words and their meanings, as people have used them. Before I ever saw the definition for kiss, as I have used it, I heard many people use it in sentences. I grew up from 11 years old on, with a pool table (billiards) in my basement, and heard it used as in def's 9 & 12 constantly, as I was being taught how to play. I've also heard it used when mating two surfaces that require a gentle touch, or damage can result, this was in a work environment. But it really doesn't matter, as I used it as it 'has' and 'can' be used. That you failed to consider it, before labeling my words other than what was intended, is your fault, not mine. And that's why one should consult a dictionary, if they don't fully understand what's meant.

Okay, you still used a dictionary to tell you what a kiss is. It's still very sad, very sad indeed.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Again we see your problem with not understanding definitions. Take note of the two below in

Please don't tell me you let the dictionary tell you what kiss is... that's so sad and so pathetic.

Your ignorance is surprising. A dictionary lists words and their meanings, as people have used them. Before I ever saw the definition for kiss, as I have used it, I heard many people use it in sentences. I grew up from 11 years old on, with a pool table (billiards) in my basement, and heard it used as in def's 9 & 12 constantly, as I was being taught how to play. I've also heard it used when mating two surfaces that require a gentle touch, or damage can result, this was in a work environment. But it really doesn't matter, as I used it as it 'has' and 'can' be used. That you failed to consider it, before labeling my words other than what was intended, is your fault, not mine. And that's why one should consult a dictionary, if they don't fully understand what's meant.

Okay, you still used a dictionary to tell you what a kiss is. It's still very sad, very sad indeed.

No, it's called education, you should try it!

[The Voice of Time]

One learns by example, Spheres, so, kiss me! Give it to me! NOW!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Maybe my mistake, but you have used words other than the ones I've used, to characterize my actions, as stronger than they were, to suit your own desires.

I called them violent. That's all I can remember to have said about it, that you think it sounds stronger than it is, is subject to your subjective opinion and taste. However, I'd like to offer you to give me a better word than violence to give name to hostile acts of physical and also psychological nature that intends to inflict pain upon a target, especially in order to achieve an objective, such as obedience or attention or the likes.
My acts were not hostile, and I did not intend to inflict pain, for pains sake.

OK, An example: At the time, we lived in a huge apartment complex that was 98% black, we are white. At the foot of the driveway for the apartments, a man was found shot to death in his automobile, about 90 meters from our apartment. My wife appeared on the television news and I in the newspaper, because one night we were changing the engine in our automobile, and heard shots, as a black youth ran past us, into the woods, a police officer followed shortly after, asking us where he went. It turned out that a police officer had been stabbed in the neck by a 15 year old, who was then shot twice by the officer, as the boys accomplice ran past us into the woods. And it was all due to a simple compliant about loud music at night, that's it. What I was quoted as saying, in our local newspaper was, "we hear gunshots all the time, we're used to it." A black woman came to my door one day screaming frantically that if her kid was held responsible for throwing a rock through an apartment window, thus destroying private property, so would my son. Obviously, he did so due to peer pressure, as we were the minority, he had to fit in, or so he thought. Not only did I give him an exhaustively long lecture as to the finer points of not destroying others property, and why he shouldn't do what people tell him to do, I also spanked his butt, with a wooden paddle. Now you can call that violent, but I decided that I had to scare him really bad or else the next renter of the apartment, he threw a rock into, might stab or shoot him dead. And I'd do it again, as needless to say, he never threw another rock through any damn window, the shattering glass could have also killed a baby or otherwise. There was no way that I was going to gamble that just a simple talk, or any other non threatening punishment, would curtail such potentially death defying behavior. Say what you will, I don't really care. He's alive, and he's the one that calls me all the time, to make sure I'm doing OK. He's also the most successful of all my kids. As I always let him know that it was his welfare that I was concerned about. I spanked only when it was serious, otherwise he got exercises, and grounded from going outside to play or watch TV, he was only allowed to read books! And he always got extreme lectures, until I was blue in the face! He's the one that has no police record at all, such that the Federal Government gave him a "Top Secret" clearance, which he still holds, where he's a computer network engineer, in Washington DC. Yes, I also taught him everything I knew about computers & networks, and suggested he become a computer network engineer, oh what a coincidence, huh? Yes I must have been REALLY violent, as it surely seems that he REALLY hates me! I've talked at length with him, how I've let him down, on various occasions, he hadn't even remembered some of them, and it's never been about spanking his butt. And he's only ever mentioned one thing that he thought was wrong that I did, and I had to agree, and apologized. The truth is that one can only do as well as their knowledge affords. And I was lucky to have given to him much more than I had in a father.

Oh yeah I forgot to include the fact that the apartment complex hired a security guard until it got too dangerous for him, yes our security guard got mugged, he survived, but the company never did send a replacement. Yes we were among Grizzly Bears to say the least.

And now I'm through with you on this topic, because you have no real perspective, of life here, in the US, in those times, under those conditions. You speak of a world called utopia, and I agree, but it doesn't exist anywhere near me. Sure, I dream about it. So grow up and get some perspective! I've had enough entertaining the ignorant, that steps on peoples toes, simply because they refuse to understand, that the perfect world in their head, does not exist. If where you live, doesn't have such problems, consider yourself lucky, and enjoy it while you can, because with increased population, the cancer shall only spread, even to the nicest of neighborhoods.

You're not paying attention, blinded by your fervor.

Your fervour, born at your mothers hand, blinds your view. You are not the authority.

May I ask what I'm supposed to see that my such-called "fervour" is blinding me against?

Situations are only ever variable.

Not very helpful.

Your misguided belief, to ensure your safety, as one that fears fighting.

We should all fear fighting, because it means our strategy has gone wrong, or that something very bad is going on to provoke it.

No, by your own admission, you are a coward, that's what I meant, you fear to fight, for your right to live, or so you said in another thread.

I don't think I would've said that exactly, I think it would instead be the scene itself, the battlefield, and all its horrors, others as well as my own, that would be the cause of it. But yes, I'd fear to fight for my right to live, if the fighting was dirty enough, but also I reckon, because the stakes would be so high I would want to change the game to one of less serious stake. Killing each other is not a very good idea.

OK, you have changed your mind, surely. At least you admit that you don't know, and how could anyone know, how they would react to any particular instance of violence.

Well some things are more easy to know by a fairly high certainty than others, such that sudden violence would most likely be very surprising unless there factors involved that made it predictable.

So if a GANG of children, (under the decided age of adulthood) came at you with knives, you might snap, and smite them, with your fists, because you would want to defend yourself.

I would do what was in my power to defend myself, yes, but yet again, we are talking about rather fantastic situations, it's not impossible I know, such gangs surely exist, maybe even many of them (mixed with adults), the world's a big place and many bad things happen in the poor world with child soldiers and all that, but it's not very likely to happen to anyone unless you life in such a conflict area, and especially not very likely in the developed world.

Not at all, once all of mankind is dead and buried, his morals shall be far more than gone, it would be as if they never existed at all.

That is certainly not the case, the following of one moral will guide ones actions and for every action there's a reaction, creating chains of events that unfold until the end of time. But this is getting off-topic and not particularly important for the thread.

But violence is relative, as I tried to show you with my Grizzly Bear analogy. You nor I could handle a swat of a grizzly bear cub, at play, yet they can.

You do not have to prove to me that violence is relative, I know that very well, it doesn't change your situation however. Unless of course you did not do what you said you did.

To a lessor degree, but still the case, is that of a relative pat on the back, between two huge men of the same strength compared to one big and strong, and one small and weak. For instance I have shook hands with another man where my hand was hurt to some degree. Violence??? I hardly think so!!!

Do you think the man intended for your to feel that pain? In that case it was violence, if not, as I find likely, it was an unfortunate side-effect, also called an "accident". The pat is neither intended to be painful, or it could be intended but be part of a friendly game, but even in the case of a "friendly" game, it could be a form of bullying because the carelessness of the one who strikes and a lack of recognition from the recipient. That however is not violence either, because it's still not meant as a hostile act, it's just an accidental un-cooperative act of one part against another.

I never said you did either, if you know grammar you would see I but the parenthesis behind henry quirk's name and not yours, and inside the parenthesis I wrote "his", so that would refer to the last person I named of male gender, which was henry quirk.

My mistake, possibly!

Why do you say possibly? It's quite evident and clear. Is this a way of saying "I don't want you to be right out of spite and feeling to be as difficult as possible"?

You'd do well to not mimic Arising_uk, as she has no idea what she's talking about. And what you'd like, is of no consequence to me.

Well paranoia is not healthy for you, so out of care for your mental health; you should avoid it.

[reasonvemotion]

Some story, Spheres!

Puts things into perspective for some of us.

[The Voice of Time]

My acts were not hostile, and I did not intend to inflict pain, for pains sake.

How would it work if it did not inflict pain? Or are we talking about degrees of pain here and you just thinking that because you didn't want to cause "great pain" it doesn't qualify as pain? But I'm starting to loose touch with your original quote now, so many things have been said and it already feels like you said it a week ago.

However, if it was not hostile, was it well received by the recipient? The hostility of the act depends upon the recipient's view on it at the time and the intentions of the act. If the target was to gain obedience or coerce it would certainly qualify it as an act of hostility, being an enforcement against the recipient's will.

If the act felt painful to the recipient and you did it with intention to make the victim do something for you (now or in the future) and you are the only one of you two who does think it was not painful, then there's a reality distortion between you and the recipient, but it does count as violence still because you would in that case be under the influence of carelessness and the fact you considered it effective means you'd take advantage of it like as if it was painful in your view as well, so you would presume it not to be painful whereas the target acts as if it is painful and you'll know it'll work as if it was painful... a kind of hypocrisy in that case.

But if you tell me without doubt that if you'd asked the kid at the time you did it and the kid would've said that it wasn't painful and meant it, then by all means I rest my case and you're wronged, but not by me, but by yourself, as you've refused to provide such information before enough for me to let it go, I act only by information you provide me, and most of the time discussing with me you've spent showing me dictionary directories and not talked about the situation.

[The Voice of Time]

OK, An example: At the time, we lived in a huge apartment complex that was 98% black, we are white. At the foot of the driveway for the apartments, a man was found shot to death in his automobile, about 90 meters from our apartment. My wife appeared on the television news and I in the newspaper, because one night we were changing the engine in our automobile, and heard shots, as a black youth ran past us, into the woods, a police officer followed shortly after, asking us where he went. It turned out that a police officer had been stabbed in the neck by a 15 year old, who was then shot twice by the officer, as the boys accomplice ran past us into the woods. And it was all due to a simple compliant about loud music at night, that's it. What I was quoted as saying, in our local newspaper was, "we hear gunshots all the time, we're used to it." A black woman came to my door one day screaming frantically that if her kid was held responsible for throwing a rock through an apartment window, thus destroying private property, so would my son. Obviously, he did so due to peer pressure, as we were the minority, he had to fit in, or so he thought. Not only did I give him an exhaustively long lecture as to the finer points of not destroying others property, and why he shouldn't do what people tell him to do, I also spanked his butt, with a wooden paddle. Now you can call that violent, but I decided that I had to scare him really bad or else the next renter of the apartment, he threw a rock into, might stab or shoot him dead. And I'd do it again, as needless to say, he never threw another rock through any damn window, the shattering glass could have also killed a baby or otherwise. There was no way that I was going to gamble that just a simple talk, or any other non threatening punishment, would curtail such potentially death defying behavior. Say what you will, I don't really care. He's alive, and he's the one that calls me all the time, to make sure I'm doing OK. He's also the most successful of all my kids. As I always let him know that it was his welfare that I was concerned about. I spanked only when it was serious, otherwise he got exercises, and grounded from going outside to play or watch TV, he was only allowed to read books! And he always got extreme lectures, until I was blue in the face! He's the one that has no police record at all, such that the Federal Government gave him a "Top Secret" clearance, which he still holds, where he's a computer network engineer, in Washington DC. Yes, I also taught him everything I knew about computers & networks, and suggested he become a computer network engineer, oh what a coincidence, huh? Yes I must have been REALLY violent, as it surely seems that he REALLY hates me! I've talked at length with him, how I've let him down, on various occasions, he hadn't even remembered some of them, and it's never been about spanking his butt. And he's only ever mentioned one thing that he thought was wrong that I did, and I had to agree, and apologized. The truth is that one can only do as well as their knowledge affords. And I was lucky to have given to him much more than I had in a father.

Oh yeah I forgot to include the fact that the apartment complex hired a security guard until it got too dangerous for him, yes our security guard got mugged, he survived, but the company never did send a replacement. Yes we were among Grizzly Bears to say the least.

And now I'm through with you on this topic, because you have no real perspective, of life here, in the US, in those times, under those conditions. You speak of a world called utopia, and I agree, but it doesn't exist anywhere near me. Sure, I dream about it. So grow up and get some perspective! I've had enough entertaining the ignorant, that steps on peoples toes, simply because they refuse to understand, that the perfect world in their head, does not exist. If where you live, doesn't have such problems, consider yourself lucky, and enjoy it while you can, because with increased population, the cancer shall only spread, even to the nicest of neighborhoods.

I can't say it makes it any better, and I never said he'd hate you. My eldest brother is the most successful of all my mothers kids (not that I and my little brother are truly old enough to fully have proven ourselves, but I guess being a homeless guy and a social services client for some time now disqualifies me for now as successful, and my little brother recently plotted to fraud the tax office and receive money from the government although he disqualifies for it, so not much success there either). My big brother just got a job as a logistics IT-consultant, finishing off with very grades from a university in Australia, he has a beautiful (and sexy) woman as a girlfriend (probably wife pretty soon also) and is just about to buy a big house for their upcoming kid with the job bringing in a lot of cash... the job, btw, is boss-job, he didn't need to climb the steps, he went straight from school to the boss-position.

I've never done a criminal act in my life (except stealing one eight of a chocolate from a candyshop run by the choir I was in as a young kid, I went with about 7 other little criminals to steal the one chocolate bar split into 8 pieces). He robbed a school of computers and gave me one for which the police later took from me. He has fraud the government of tax money playing online poker and making lots of cash from playing against multiple less advanced opponents at once. When I face him, I sense a coward and a disregard for justice and a liking to foul play and perhaps a little greed also, even though others probably wouldn't see it, but he's dedicated to success and wants a family.

I want to know, does his success make him a good person? Does his occasional good acts make him a good person? I don't like him, I expect bad things from him also, and I can only hope he won't give to his child the life he himself had. So... Spheres. I don't have as much a clear point to my tale as yours, but if I had any, it would be that your sons social and monetary success is not a proof of his success as a person. Not that I doubt him being a good person. I think he is just doing what he finds best for himself. My brother repeatedly tries to connect with me and talk to me (by email, that is, he belongs to the email generation), unfortunately, I'm not as ready as you are for your son, and only time can tell if he'll ever have success with me, but until I can figure out if he can show to have a heart worth embracing (show genuine compassion, respect and warm-heartedness), I'll keep my distance.

A life without violence is not utopia. In a world rich in transport and travel and mixing and moving of people and communities, it's too much to ask for no violence at all, but you can I believe get a fairly high degree of violence-free environments, and you can get very little of the most serious forms of violence, such that it's only a drunken brawl or the like once every few years that shakes the community and it's not really that serious, nobody dies, it's only adults, nobody are life-threateningly injured or permanently impaired in any way. Only scratches and bruises and maybe a broken bone, all healing relatively quickly with time and to no great disadvantage to people's life in general.

[Arising_uk]

You cannot say this, as it's not true reasoning. There is such a thing as a "fake spank" and a "fake cry," that I characterize as: "I'm disappointed in you" (fake spank) and "I know" (fake cry). In this case there is no pain, or violence, and there is no hurt other than ones feelings. This is NOT an argument as to whether you have experienced this, as you have stated that YOU NEVER HAVE!!!!!! Rather it is a FACT that I have experienced this!! Your logic in this case is non sequitur, as my proof dictates!

Of course it follows, those who haven't been hit on the whole don't hit and those who have, on the whole, do. You are an example of this fact. But fuck me! You 'fake spank' your kids for being disappointing to you. What's wrong with "I'm very disappointed with you"? I can only assume your disappointment must be little valued in this case.

[The Voice of Time]

What's wrong with "I'm very disappointed with you"? I can only assume your disappointment must be little valued in this case.

It's counter-beneficial if it's blunt and does not allow for "hope at the end of the tunnel", so to speak. Shame and sadness can arise from that, but those feelings should be brief and replaced quickly by hopeful promise (in their own minds, not talking about you giving them an exact verbal promise of anything) that having failed one road you can go onto another. Not necessarily for redemption, redemption is not necessary I would think in most cases (it's a bit like austerity versus new stimulus, redemption being austerity), but more like a new chance to succeed.