Violence

[HopAlongBunny]

Is the belief we can control violence w/o abolishing it simply a delusion?

Perhaps violence is simply part of what we are; the idea that we can control it like geo-thermal energy: tap it when we "need" it and control it/turn it off; is our best self-deception.

What if its more like a tornado. Once in motion it has its own momentum, goals and "desires"; quite independent of the wishes/aims of its author.

[Fragony]

Violence is ok, I will never provoke it but will react with it if someone pushes me too much. You don't die from a broken nose or a few bruised ribs. We are too feminised as a society when it comes to using blunt tools

[Fisherking]

Violence?

How are you going to abolish it without eliminating life? Predators are violent. Even herbivores can be violent. Emotionally charged people may commit it.

If you are talking about eliminating violence committed by people, it will always be with us.

I suppose it could be reduced by sedating the population but it will not eliminate it.

Some people will always try to prey on others and people will sometimes react violently in stressful situations. Fight or flight is the natural reaction to such situations.

[Raz]

What if its more like a tornado. Once in motion it has its own momentum, goals and "desires"; quite independent of the wishes/aims of its author.

I think violence is more of a method (or a 'tool') to meet a particular goal. The way you've described it here makes it seem like violence is an emotion in itself (or something like that), which doesn't make much sense to me. Violence tends to be a method to satisfy some desire (such as anger etc), and it's this desire that can garner its own momentum.
When the method changes (say, instead of punching someone in the face, you send them an angry email (lol!)) the desire can still get out of hand (so you send dozens of angry emails escalating to vitriolic diatribe after a while).

imo, i think. i dunno, i'm kinda sleepy tbh and I'm not sure if this is very coherent.

[Fragony]

It isn't really a good movie, but 'Equilibrium' is a fun take on a lack of it. Also some amazing action.

OT people are just naturally violent. When social skills just won't suffice it's the only option.

I don't know if it was ever translated in English but 'Van nature goed' by Frank de Waal is fascinating

edit, it wasn't, that's a shame. It is a really good book. It examins how violence and empathy exist in our social behaviour by mostly looking at the behaviour of primates.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Violence is just a response to feeling threatened. I haven't read it, but there is a book by Steven Pinker called "The Better Angels of Our Nature" and he did a similar TED talk about the subject which is how I know a little bit about what the book says. And basically he argues that violence has continued to decline worldwide over the past few centuries at least with a small hiccup in the middle of the 20th century. I recommend watching the TED talk because it seems to me that violence will continue to decline as long as our current world trend of globalization and industrialization increases the living standards of people in the 2nd and 3rd world.

[Fragony]

Violence is just a response to feeling threatened.

Dominant people are also more violent, response to feeling threatened is only half of the story, there has to be someone threatening you to respond to. It's a shame that 'Van Nature Goed' was never translated as it could add a lot to the discussion if you read it. Key is instrumental empathy or a lack of it according to De Waal, it is in end a result of social hierarchy. It isn't without any critisism but I found it pretty convincing

[HoreTore]

Violence is a result of outside factors, not an innate tendency of humans.

Thus, it can be greatly reduced and ultimately removed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Dominant people are also more violent, response to feeling threatened is only half of the story, there has to be someone threatening you to respond to.

Not necessarily. Feeling threatened isn't exactly the same as being threatened. You can feel threatened by someone or something and the other party actually has no malice towards you. It's tied to jealousy and insecurity which like I said become less and less prevalent in the world of the plenty.

[Fisherking]

You should not equate War and Murder.

Murder is the killing of someone who has no means to resist. War involves combatants trying to kill one another. Murder occurs when the unarmed are killed but is incidental to the conflict.

Killing is not murder. Murder is just a type of killing.

[Fisherking]

It is not a War if both sides don’t have a means to resist the other. Call it what you feel fits.

Iraq and Afghanistan were more occupations than wars. The resistance was not really an organized army.

[Husar]

This whole resisting thing is awfully arbitrary Fisherking.

As far as I'm aware, murder is planned killing, regardless of whether the victim is carrying a gun, a knife or nothing. Otherwise you could let many murderers in America off or give them a lower punishment because they "only" killed someone who had the means to defend her/himself because the victim had a gun in the drawer... Even worse if someone is a copkiller as cops always have the means to resist.

Even in war I find the definition extremely false as Geli Cube already pointed out. What about ambushes, mine fields or dropping cluster bombs on infantry whose guns can't even reach the bomber? Do they have the means to resist or does the SAM station on the other side of the country count as such because it happens to "wear" the same flag?

Was 9/11 somehow a more "justified" killing or not murder because some guy in the WTC was armed and thus had the means to resist?

Going by your definitions I could also say Iraq and Afghanistan were murders and your use of "occupation" is just a euphemism in an attempt to cover up what happened before the actual occupation. Iraq sort of had an organized army until the USA bombed their infrastructure and took the organization aspect away as far as I can tell. And they had no chance to resist that.

I basically agree that war is an incredibly arbitrary legal concept, when our army went to Afghanistan, our whole nation debated whether this should be called a war or not since our politicians hesitated to call it that. In the end they did but it shows that there is no clear line there.

[HopAlongBunny]

I am kind of surprised at the turn this topic took.

Clausewitz picked the duel as his metaphor for war. A duel or a series of duels the end result is the same: one living (victor) one dead (vanquished). Where does this fail to meet the definition of murder?

Just because "Clausewitz sez!" doesn't make it so...do you have a better metaphor?

[Fragony]

I am kind of surprised at the turn this topic took.

Clausewitz picked the duel as his metaphor for war. A duel or a series of duels the end result is the same: one living (victor) one dead (vanquished). Where does this fail to meet the definition of murder?

Not so sure you understand the metaphore he was using, beaten, not vanquished. For Clausowitz it wasn't the destruction of an enemy army that was important but making the situation so dire for the opponent that they simply couldn't win. For Clausewitz war was an extention of politics

[Fisherking]

You are not going to divorce Politics from Military Might. The military is the servant of political will, vested in the Executive Branch.
War is a political policy. If you find that it is too frequent then we need to find more stable and less aggressive politicians.

[Fisherking]

This whole resisting thing is awfully arbitrary Fisherking.

As far as I'm aware, murder is planned killing, regardless of whether the victim is carrying a gun, a knife or nothing. Otherwise you could let many murderers in America off or give them a lower punishment because they "only" killed someone who had the means to defend her/himself because the victim had a gun in the drawer... Even worse if someone is a copkiller as cops always have the means to resist.

Even in war I find the definition extremely false as Geli Cube already pointed out. What about ambushes, mine fields or dropping cluster bombs on infantry whose guns can't even reach the bomber? Do they have the means to resist or does the SAM station on the other side of the country count as such because it happens to "wear" the same flag?

Was 9/11 somehow a more "justified" killing or not murder because some guy in the WTC was armed and thus had the means to resist?

Going by your definitions I could also say Iraq and Afghanistan were murders and your use of "occupation" is just a euphemism in an attempt to cover up what happened before the actual occupation. Iraq sort of had an organized army until the USA bombed their infrastructure and took the organization aspect away as far as I can tell. And they had no chance to resist that.

I basically agree that war is an incredibly arbitrary legal concept, when our army went to Afghanistan, our whole nation debated whether this should be called a war or not since our politicians hesitated to call it that. In the end they did but it shows that there is no clear line there.

We can forget the legal definition for a moment. That varies from place to place. This is just the original meaning of the word.

Murder need not be planed and the victim can defend themselves but have insufficient means to overcome the attack so that they are basically undefended. An unfair fight. Such as a man overpowering a woman or a child.

When a man kills another in a fight in the US it is usually termed “Man Slaughter” but that is also a legal definition.

Execution is just state sponsored murder. Legal murder, if you will.

[Husar]

We can forget the legal definition for a moment. That varies from place to place. This is just the original meaning of the word.

Of which word? War? You may be right but the reality today does not suit it any more in this case. Or if it does, many "wars" of the past few years were just mass murders.

Murder need not be planed and the victim can defend themselves but have insufficient means to overcome the attack so that they are basically undefended. An unfair fight. Such as a man overpowering a woman or a child.

Is that a legal definition or your definition? Because it seems rather mislead to me and the merriam webster seems to agree with me:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

When a man kills another in a fight in the US it is usually termed “Man Slaughter” but that is also a legal definition.

Really? It's not a legal dictionary, but again it disagrees:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manslaughter

the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

The way I understand it and the dictionary seems to support that, murder is when you plan to kill someone and do it, manslaughter is when ya situation deteriorates and you push someone and he breaks his neck. Whether the other person is a man, a woman or a child or whether the other person has a gun in a holster does not really come into it unless the other person was threatening you with violence in which case it may be self defense depending on actual circumstances.
I don't know how US law defines it with all the different degrees but the general usage of the terms that I have seen so far fits the dictionary definitions.

Execution is just state sponsored murder. Legal murder, if you will.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this but that's why civilized countries stopped it, yes.