Why do people tolerate violence behavior?

Lektrogirl · Post by **Lektrogirl** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 3:22 pm

Something in the "if you could go anywhere" thread got me wondering, why do people accept violence in their societies?

In South-Eastern Michigan, in some areas not only do people accept violence but they brag about it. There used to be shirts sold in many stores that read "Detroit: where the weak are kill and eaten."

I am assuming that in many urban areas (not only in America, but in Europe, and the rest of the world) violence is seen as something like as slight inconvenience, why?

Why do people treat muggers, thieves, gang-bangers, and other criminals with any respect? These people have broken the rules of society and in many cases are not given proper punishments, yet when they re-enter society people are supposed to forgive them and help them readjust.

Remember when that boy (American) in Singapore spray painted some cars, the typical punishment for the crime was something like a dozen hits with a rattan cane, but even the American government came to his defense, asking the Singaporian government to go easy on him, why?

Criminals are criminals, criminal behavior should be seen as only that, criminal behavior, and not something that should be celebrated or forgiven.

I don't break laws, I don't harm my neighbors, why should I have to deal with someone trying to re-enter society after a short (too short) stay in a jail for a crime they committed?

I'm talking about those people that do not want to re-enter society as non-repeaters, the ones that go striaght back into the criminal life that the system tried to take them out of.

*end of rant*

∞ · Post by **∞** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 3:28 pm

People get jaded by the constant barrage of violence they are unable to prevent?

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 3:29 pm

Lektrogirl wrote:"Detroit: where the weak are kill and eaten."

I hope they say "killed and eaten" or else they deserve to have their fucking asses kicked for the bad grammar.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 3:32 pm

Lektrogirl wrote: Something in the "if you could go anywhere" thread got me wondering, why do people accept violence in their societies?

Because, among other reasons, we are programmed to, biologically. Also, we're socialized to, but you know that.

Why do people treat muggers, thieves, gang-bangers, and other criminals with any respect? These people have broken the rules of society and in many cases are not given proper punishments, yet when they re-enter society people are supposed to forgive them and help them readjust.

I think this may be a completely separate issue. Not all "criminals" are violent.

Let's also keep in mind that many of these people who /are/ violent are diseased, and could be helped with psychological assistance. Instead - in America, at least - we /don't/ treat them with respect; we simply put them in a cage, which generally doesn't help their less-than-sunny demeanor.

Remember when that boy (American) in Singapore spray painted some cars, the typical punishment for the crime was something like a dozen hits with a rattan cane, but even the American government came to his defense, asking the Singaporian government to go easy on him, why?

Wait. So let me get this straight: Do you deplore violence, /except/ in the case of criminals? Do you think the boy /should/ have been caned?

Criminals are criminals, criminal behavior should be seen as only that, criminal behavior, and not something that should be celebrated or forgiven.

The question then becomes, what should be done about criminal behavior? What is our goal, and how can we best achieve that? And do we have some sort of responsibility, as people, to forgive criminals, after a time, or do their sins stay with them, always?

I know you're mostly just ranting, but you have to ask yourself what the purpose of laws is, and then ask yourself the best way to make that happen. If the purpose of law is to create order, what is the best means of dealing with criminals, those who break those laws?

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 3:45 pm

In South-Eastern Michigan, in some areas not only do people accept violence but they brag about it. There used to be shirts sold in many stores that read "Detroit: where the weak are kill and eaten."

That's attitude, not celebration of violence. Just because we describe violent acts in BD does not mean we'd laud or accept someone who tried the same thing in real life.

I am assuming that in many urban areas (not only in America, but in Europe, and the rest of the world) violence is seen as something like as slight inconvenience, why?

No. It is accepted as a (sometimes scary) fact of life that must be dealt with. People accept it, because they have no choice. We have laws and we have police, but obviously what we have isn't sufficient. People learn to deal with the hand they are dealt. Sometimes that's with fear. Sometimes with humor. Sometimes with anger. But they live there, so they have to deal with it.

Why do people treat muggers, thieves, gang-bangers, and other criminals with any respect?

Because they have guns and will shoot you? Except that your question is "Why do some people choose to glorify these people?" Because in some areas, these types of people hold more power and authority than "the authorities", and people look up to those with power.

Not everyone has the same love, respect, and trust for laws and establishment that good caucasion middle-class Americans do. A major chuck of people view "the system" as something that neither works for them nor respects them. The only thing they've been able to rely on growing up is their family and their community.

These people have broken the rules of society and in many cases are not given proper punishments, yet when they re-enter society people are supposed to forgive them and help them readjust.

You're jumping around topics here. If you think they weren't properly punished, then you're mad at the system. Don't blame them for the inadequacies of the justice system. Fix the system if that's your beef, but don't bitch that we should punish them further because they served their time and you don't think it's good enough.

Criminals are criminals, criminal behavior should be seen as only that, criminal behavior, and not something that should be celebrated or forgiven.

There is no forgiveness in your worldview? I'm very serious about this question, because it is one of the central tenets of mine.

I don't break laws, I don't harm my neighbors, why should I have to deal with someone trying to re-enter society after a short (too short) stay in a jail for a crime they committed?

Once again, you've got problems with the system. Are you advocating then that we just shouldn't let people out? Or would you prefer that they have their own special communities on release so that you don't have to deal with them? Again, I'm very serious here. And just out of curiousity, how much has this issue actually directly touched your life, other than intellectually or as a general fear of a dangerous world thing? Because if you tell me you were mugged by a five time repeat offender who was on the street again in 2 days, I'll have a little more understanding of where you're coming from. But if this is an intellectual exercise for you, I don't have the same sympathy.

I'm talking about those people that do not want to re-enter society as non-repeaters, the ones that go striaght back into the criminal life that the system tried to take them out of.

So how are you going to find out what they want before you release them? You know, I bet a lot of them fully intend to stay clean and straight once they get out. They like the idea, but for whatever limitations they have financially, socially, educationally, or whatever, they fall right back into old habit because it's what they know. Either they don't know how to change or it just turns out to be too damn much work or they find their old life more profitable and finally decide to just do it. Who knows?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:06 pm

In South-Eastern Michigan, in some areas not only do people accept violence but they brag about it. There used to be shirts sold in many stores that read "Detroit: where the weak are kill and eaten."

I'm laughing to keep from crying?

Let's also keep in mind that many of these people who /are/ violent are diseased, and could be helped with psychological assistance.

Woah, now, time out. That's not really true, you know, unless you want to classify some new sort of disease characterized by violent behavior. Otherwise, most people who are violent are just bad people. The number of people who are violent due to mental illness is actually quite small, and is associated more with people who have mental illness and substance abuse problems.

∞ · Post by **∞** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:09 pm

most people who are violent are just bad people.

That's a little simplistic, isn't it? Don't you think that violence comes from frustration and the lack of dealing with certain things? Couldn't that be seen as a [mental] short-comming as well? And if so, doesn't that mean that these people are ill?

Although, "ill is often defined as "not normal," which would make the majority of the people a minority.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:31 pm

Marius wrote:
Let's also keep in mind that many of these people who /are/ violent are diseased, and could be helped with psychological assistance.
Woah, now, time out. That's not really true, you know, unless you want to classify some new sort of disease characterized by violent behavior. Otherwise, most people who are violent are just bad people. The number of people who are violent due to mental illness is actually quite small, and is associated more with people who have mental illness and substance abuse problems.

I'm sorry; I should have been more specific. "Many of these people have fucked-up heads, from mental illness or simple environmental factors like neighborhood, upbringing, parental violence, or drug abuse, all of which can theoretically be helped with psychological assistance.

∞ · Post by **∞** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:39 pm

[hijack]

O Fortuna, velut Luna, statu variabilis, semper crecis aut decrescis; vita detestabilis nunc obdurat et tunc curat ludo mentis aciem, egestatem, potestatem dissolvit ut glaciem.

Nice signature, 32. Although...

O Fortune, like the moon you are changeable, ever waxing and waning; hateful life first oppresses and then soothes as fancy takes it; poverty and power it melts them like ice.

...doesn't make much sense to me when I read over the entire text only four or five weeks back. I understand the "seven years of plenty, seven years of famine" theme, but I don't understand the last bit.

[/hijack]

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:40 pm

Lektro:
Why do people treat muggers, thieves, gang-bangers, and other criminals with any respect?

Let me tell you a story, Lektrobabe, about someone that I know.

Mac is a scary man to a lot of people. So scary, in fact, that most people who know the name "Mac" in refference to this man speak of it in the same way that they speak of Kieser Sose. My mother wanted to paint a picture and draw sketches of him on one occasion, and she went to take a photo of him. He said, "Don't take pictures of me, not a good idea." and held fairly firm on the issue.

He warmed a little eventually, but the photoes haven't been seen since they were needed.

It's no secret that Mac had killed people. When I say killed people, I mean that the number wasn't something that you could count with your fingers and thumbs alone. Theory had it that your toes and most other apendages weren't enough to really sum it up. These hadn't been done only via the barrel of a pistol, or something to that effect, but theory had it that many of the people on the tally were greeted with something a little more personal.

Mac was not his real name, and most people knew that. Most people didn't want to know his real name, as that sort of information was more than most wanted.

Mac. Macca. Uncle Macca.

When I was very young, well below his body count, Uncle Macca used to visit from time to time. I still remember quite fondly the times that he and Uncle Pig Dog (I'm not joking) used to take us for rides on motorcycles, and we used to stick magnets on Pig Dog's leg as they used to just sit there, hovering over the metal that was below the skin. We used to ride fast down the road, and although I was scared of the speed at times, and how close the road was, I always felt safe when Pig Dog or Mac were holding onto the handlebars.

Pig Dog once gave me a book, Battleblade Warrior, which was a Fighting Fantasy novel. He introduced me to roleplaying, and used to sit me down and help me through the tricky sections of the books. I remeber being there with him explaining about Goblins and Orks, telling me about how to brave them.

Once Uncle Macca wanted to show us his favorite movie. My mother became a little worried, but when they returned and put the tape into the VCR, we were greeted with Legend, Pixies, Sprites, Gnomes and the Prince of Darkness to be bested by a Princess, Unicorns, and a boy from the forest.

These men were nothing but loving and gentle.

Years passed, I recieved updates on them from time to time, and it was good to hear from them when we did. I miss them still, actually, and long to see them all again.

When I was about ten there was a man going around the primary school and acting strangely around the children. The police knew about it, yet didn't have anything to charge him with, and a lot of people were very very worried. The school sent out warnings, but the man kept getting worse and worse.

That man woke up a block from my residence at the time with two broken legs. To the best of his and my father's knowedge, he had fallen over.

Mac knew better.

They used to always look out for us, whenver they could. Never harmed anyone unless they damn well had to. When they lived with violence, it wasn't something they were going to do for fun. Out of something as violent as killing, bikes, chains and blood, there was genuine softness in motion. Genuine kindness that you wouldn't be able to see in someone who knew nothing but kind motions.

In people who claim to feel nothing but love I've felt only hate, and in those that were all rage I felt peace. These men showed me some of that peace.

You think criminals are horrid simply because they saw prison? There are a million tales that get you inside, and sometimes the tale isn't as cut and dry as the law would have you think. The courts aren't about truth, they're about the law and spin doctors in suits. The people on the recieveing end aren't bad because they don't follow rules that everyone seems to think they should, they're just different.

Yes, there are those who are genuinely scum, but I'll tollerate them for Uncle Macca and Unlce Pig Dog. I'd tollerate a million for those two, or even one.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:43 pm

∞ wrote: [hijack]

O Fortuna, velut Luna, statu variabilis, semper crecis aut decrescis; vita detestabilis nunc obdurat et tunc curat ludo mentis aciem, egestatem, potestatem dissolvit ut glaciem.
Nice signature, 32. Although...

O Fortune, like the moon you are changeable, ever waxing and waning; hateful life first oppresses and then soothes as fancy takes it; poverty and power it melts them like ice.
...doesn't make much sense to me when I read over the entire text only four or five weeks back. I understand the "seven years of plenty, seven years of famine" theme, but I don't understand the last bit.

[/hijack]

Hell, I didn't write it. Do I look like Orff?

Which part don't you understand? Is it a portion from my quote, or from the rest of the piece?

Lektrogirl · Post by **Lektrogirl** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:47 pm

Adam : Yeah, I meant "Killed and eaten" oops

32 : The reason why I brought up the case about the boy in Singapore is because I do not understand why the American government intervened on his behalf, he broke the law, why give him any special considerations. The penalty is not what i was referring to, just the way America tried to treat him special. Why, was he a son of a diplomat or something? Criminals are criminals, if someone breaks the law then let them face the consquences of their actions.

Bethyaga : I know I was jumping around on the topics, sorry. Oops.

I was on a ranting spree.

As for forgiveness, when it comes to people who purposely go out of their way to commit a criminal act against an innocent person, nooo, no forgiveness, sorry.

And just out of curiousity, how much has this issue actually directly touched your life, other than intellectually or as a general fear of a dangerous world thing? Because if you tell me you were mugged by a five time repeat offender who was on the street again in 2 days, I'll have a little more understanding of where you're coming from. But if this is an intellectual exercise for you, I don't have the same sympathy.

Yeah, I have experienced violent crime first-hand, and I have known (violent) criminals before, both. But even if I had not experienced violent crime would that give my dislike of criminal any less validity?

In Österreich where I live now, the average criminal sentence for rape is 5 years. In Michigan it is a lot longer than that. For murder, Michigan almost always carries a "life in prison" sentence. Violent criminals do not belong in a civilized society, I would not argue about higher taxes to fund prisons, lock up violent prisoners for life, no problem with me.

Crazy Elf : .............hmmm, don't know exactly what to say about your story, but killing is killing.

..........

I originally come for what was for a time considered to be one of the worst urban areas in the industrialized world, Metropolitan Detroit. I used to know people who didn't think it was wrong to beat or shoot someone to get what they wanted, it horrifies me now. I never felt sympathy for violent criminals, if they want to do what they do then let them feel the wrath of society, but I don't want to hear them cry about mistreatment or inhumane long sentences, what about the victims of their crimes? How long do they think the victim needs to recover?

Maybe the criminal should be put in prison for as long as it takes the actual victim to recover from the crime, would that be fair? That#s actually a good question, would anyone have any objections to that? of course that would mean that if there was no longer a living victim the criminal would have to stay in prison for the rest of his or her life.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:57 pm

Lektrogirl wrote: The reason why I brought up the case about the boy in Singapore is because I do not understand why the American government intervened on his behalf, he broke the law, why give him any special considerations. The penalty is not what i was referring to, just the way America tried to treat him special.

Well, what I'm getting at is that - in theory - the reason they intervened was the penalty, so if you're going to rule out the severity of the punishment as a contribution, you may as well be saying, "Why is killing illegal? I mean, besides the fact that it's against the law." You know?

Lektrogirl wrote: hmmm, don't know exactly what to say about your story, but killing is killing.

Hmm. Do you really believe that? You know where I'm going with this, right?

Lektrogirl wrote: Maybe the criminal should be put in prison for as long as it takes the actual victim to recover from the crime, would that be fair? That#s actually a good question, would anyone have any objections to that?

Besides the logistical objections, what would be the point? Again, what is the point of punishment? What good does it do?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 7:13 pm

3278 wrote: Which part don't you understand? Is it a portion from my quote, or from the rest of the piece?

The "poverty and power it melts them like ice" bit. I mean, I see that "poverty" and "power" resemble the fickleness of fortune, but I guess it's the " "melts them like ice, bit."

And by the way, about you looking like Orff...it has been said that you, at times, resemble a German tourist.

* Deev hides...somewhere, keeping an eye out for Grumpy Paul.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 7:36 pm

DV8 wrote:
3278 wrote: Which part don't you understand? Is it a portion from my quote, or from the rest of the piece?
The "poverty and power it melts them like ice" bit. I mean, I see that "poverty" and "power" resemble the fickleness of fortune, but I guess it's the " "melts them like ice, bit."

Maybe you're inverting the variables. I'll just say what it means, and hope that the different form helps. [Since I'm not sure what's confusing.]

Fortune is like the moon; it comes and goes. It gives, and it takes, without apparent reason. Both money and poverty, it can take away.

See, it's the money and poverty that fortune melts like ice. They don't resemble the fickleness of fortune, they are effects of the fickleness of fortune. Does that make sense?

And by the way, about you looking like Orff...it has been said that you, at times, resemble a German tourist.

* Deev hides...somewhere, keeping an eye out for Grumpy Paul.

A gay German tourist, at that.

∞ · Post by **∞** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:33 pm

3278 wrote: Fortune is like the moon; it comes and goes. It gives, and it takes, without apparent reason. Both money and poverty, it can take away.

See, it's the money and poverty that fortune melts like ice. They don't resemble the fickleness of fortune, they are effects of the fickleness of fortune. Does that make sense?

You seem to have picked up a different translation than I did. Yours is simpler, I think it might be an intuitive translation versus a literal one, and making a lot more sense.

A gay German tourist, at that.

*waggles*eyebrows*

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:34 pm

Yeah, I have experienced violent crime first-hand, and I have known (violent) criminals before, both. But even if I had not experienced violent crime would that give my dislike of criminal any less validity?

Yes. Those who have first-hand experience are more knowledgable. I tend to give their views and arguments more credence.

I have not experienced any of this first-hand (or even second-hand), so that may color my perceptions. If I'm trying to argue that criminals (ex-cons, whatever), are this way and behave this way with these motives, I probably don't know what I'm talking about. I can speculate and reason. But I don't know.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:42 pm

∞ wrote:
3278 wrote: Fortune is like the moon; it comes and goes. It gives, and it takes, without apparent reason. Both money and poverty, it can take away.

See, it's the money and poverty that fortune melts like ice. They don't resemble the fickleness of fortune, they are effects of the fickleness of fortune. Does that make sense?
You seem to have picked up a different translation than I did. Yours is simpler, I think it might be an intuitive translation versus a literal one, and making a lot more sense.

Well, that was my translation, which is to say, super-figurative. I used to get in trouble in French class for doing that; not interpreting every word, but rather the basic intent. Teachers don't like that too much.

∞ · Post by **∞** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:43 pm

Ah, I didn' t know you spoke Latin.

* DV8 stores that in his facts file.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:49 pm

∞ wrote: Ah, I didn' t know you spoke Latin.

* DV8 stores that in his facts file.

Dude, you once made me translate Flemish. Compared to that, knowing the gist of O Fortuna's nothing.

I don't speak Latin, not really. But I know what a lot of the words mean. And I guess well. And I'm pretty familiar with the piece. But I really don't speak Latin.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 4:51 am

Let's also keep in mind that many of these people who /are/ violent are diseased, and could be helped with psychological assistance. Instead - in America, at least - we /don't/ treat them with respect; we simply put them in a cage, which generally doesn't help their less-than-sunny demeanor.

See, I totaly disagree with that. Take the case of the woman who drowned all of her children in a bathtub. If she is in fact mentally diseased, than what options do you have? You could either:
1. Leave her free, where she is a danger to society...not exactly a favorable situation.

2.You could leave her in jail for the rest of her life, where she lives on as a burden of the American Taxpayers

3.She could be "rehabilitated" and released. From there, one of two things could happen...she could either go back to her violent ways, or if she is genuinly ready for society again...how would she be able to live with the knowledge that she killed all of her children in such a way? Eventually she would be driven to suicide.

4.Or, in a case like this, where we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that she was the one who commited the crime, we could end her life. This could be argued as barbaric...but it's really the humane thing to do. Once dead, she can't hurt anyone ever again. So it would just be a case of sacrificing one life for the greater good.

But now I'm rambling and ranting. The whole issue of mental illness annoys me, because of all the lawyers who use it to get bastards like her back on the streets.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 5:14 am

Dude, mental illness is not a legal issue. In the Andrea Yates case, both the prosecution and the defense agreed that Yates was mentally ill. You know why? Because she was. You know who gets to decide that? Doctors. Does that have any bearing on culpability for a violent act? No, none.

You really can't use mental illness to get someone off of a crime, because being mentally ill is not a legal excuse any more than being drunk or being stupid is.

I'm really kind of amazed that you'd talk about being "ready for society," or "hurting anyone ever again." In relation to this case, both seem like marginal factors, and in relation to violent crime in general, those phrases seem to condone draconian cruelty. You either impugn by arrogant judgement, a person's ability to correct themself, or you convict someone of something they haven't yet done. Really.

Even if you can say that a person is "ill" can you really do those things?

JohnnyRico · Post by **JohnnyRico** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 5:19 am

If anyone in that case should get the chair, it should be that sunofabitch husband of hers. He's the whole reason that this happened. He left her alone with those kids, knowing about her dangerous mental state, for almost 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He went on company sponsored trips frequently as well. In all reality, it's as much his fault as it is hers. And he didn't seem to feel too bad on that morning talk show that he was on just the other day. I know that if I had kids, and my wife drowned them in the fucking tub, I wouldn't be able to talk about it or her without a major visible reaction.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 5:44 am

of course that would mean that if there was no longer a living victim the criminal would have to stay in prison for the rest of his or her life.

And, on the contrary, perpetrators of victimless crimes don't ever have to do any time. Are you cool with that too?

1. Leave her free, where she is a danger to society...not exactly a favorable situation.

Why? I mean, who says she's a danger to society? People who kill their nearest and dearest are a different breed from other violent criminals, and are unlikely to wreak violence on 'society'.

3.She could be "rehabilitated" and released. From there, one of two things could happen...she could either go back to her violent ways, or if she is genuinly ready for society again...how would she be able to live with the knowledge that she killed all of her children in such a way? Eventually she would be driven to suicide.

Sez you. That's a rather blanket judgement to make. Killing your children and then achieving sanity thereafter does not /necessarily/ lead to suicide, does it?

4.Or, in a case like this, where we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that she was the one who commited the crime, we could end her life. This could be argued as barbaric...but it's really the humane thing to do. Once dead, she can't hurt anyone ever again. So it would just be a case of sacrificing one life for the greater good.

Again, you're assuming that she is a danger to the rest of society.

Are we locking her up as punishment for her crime, as a deterrent to others, or to keep society 'safe' from her?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:22 am

Lektrogirl wrote: Crazy Elf : .............hmmm, don't know exactly what to say about your story, but killing is killing.

Yes and no.

You're right, when someone ends the life of another, it's rather final. No going back on what you've said once you've gone through those actions. However, sometimes the actual purpose behind the actions isn't simply, "I like blood, blood for the blood god", sometimes there's a lot more to it than that.

Yes, there is violent crime, and yes people get hurt by this, as has happened to you in the past. It's shitty, it's not something that I'd pay money to see first hand. However, it doesn't make all criminals evil, if such a term even exists, and it doesn't make all violent criminals nasty people.

Let me tell you another story.

Amos hangs around a bit, used to anyway, used to see him here there and everywhere. He had the demenour of someone who wasn't entirely happy abotu things, and used to purchase more alcohol than one man shoul dbe able to imbibe. However, he always payed up in the end, and was pretty trustworthy when push came to shove. Trustworthy enough for certain people I know to send him off to look after some pressing issues from time to time.

Amos is a killer. This isn't to say that he's killed people before on the fly, but rather that it's his job. However, he's also a toe cutter.

Toe cutters are criminals that only do nasty things to other criminals. They're kind of like vigilanties without the high high moral ground that a lot of the others take. He's killed quite a few people, and he's rather nasty, but he would never harm a hair on someone's head who didn't do a lot to push him there in the first place. Hell, Chopper wrote a chapter on the guy, read that if you want more info.

Yes, he's a violent criminal. He's still someone who I'd put trust in, he's pretty damn honest about who he is, and at the end of the day he's just a guy with some issues, and those he pretty much keeps to himself. He's not out to hurt people, it's just one of his jobs.

Sometimes people are forced into those corners during their life. It's not to say they're bad people because of it, sometimes it's just what they do best. There are psychos out there, I agree, but not ever violent criminal is a psycho.

You can't categorise the lot simply because the law says it's bad. The law is responsible for a lot of monkeyed up things out there. A lot. I've seen more people's lives ruined legally than I've seen illegally. Bad guys aren't always the ones that everyone points at when the name is tossed about.

Amos ain't a bad guy, he's just a guy.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:17 pm

The thing is that when you're dealing with a worldview that condemns violence across the board, mitigating factors are irrelevant. All violence is bad, regardless of the target, simply because it /is/ violence.

At least, that's what I think Lektro's saying?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:30 pm

Then that's just being silly. Violence isn't always horrid. Hell, I've been involved in fight clubs, and it's not like they're set up so that people can be evil, far from it. Most of them are set up so that people can vent, and typically what happens in them is that people become more in touch with themselves. Sometimes violence paves the way to a hell of a lot of good things.

Then again, I suggest that it's something you have to actively take part in. That way you get comparison. Sometimes it's great to take a punch, sometimes it's great to dish one out.

Sometiems it's just nice to know that your a lot harder to completely destroy than anyone would let onto. Sometimes you can take a lot more punishment that you should be able to, and you keep on ticking. It's nice to know that, you know?

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:35 pm

Hey, most of us are not going to argue your point. I was merely restating what Lektro's beliefs are, or appear to be. I think they're actually in the Spanking thread.

Lektrogirl · Post by **Lektrogirl** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 3:01 pm

Let’s back up a bit, please. „Fight clubs“ as far as I know involved willing participants, right? Though I hate any violence I have yet to decide on how I feel about two consenting adults who want to beat each other, my points were about violent criminals, violent against people who didn’t invite it, and why we tolerate people who want to commit violence against innocent people (people who don’t invite violence).

Jestyr, is there such a thing as a victimless violent crime? If you read what the posting was about I was trying to suggest that it would be an interesting idea to inprison criminals of violent crimes for as long as it took the victim to recover. If it wasn’t clear, oops, hopefully this will clear that part up a bit.

Although I do condemn violence across the board that does not allow me to honestly consider it wrong for two consenting adults to beat each other. I could never understand why someone would want to be in an arena with another person just to cause pain to each other, I don’t try to understand it, but at the same time I do not condemn someone’s desire for it.

I try to live my life as a pacifist, the thought of violent perpertrated against someone who does not want to be hurt is one of the most horrific things I could imagine.

All violence is bad, regardless of the target, simply because it /is/ violence.

I do believe this, it there are times when it is none of my business, like Crazy Elf’s fight clubbing.

Then that's just being silly. Violence isn't always horrid.

That would be like me calling your desire to participate in fight clubbing stupid, my opinion is that violence is bad, all violence is bad, and no, it is not silly, just because we differ in this opinion does not mean it is silly.

*On a side note: Elf, in the last couple of days your postings that I have read have really begone to change my opinion of you, for the better. I don’t think you’re jumping up and down about that, but until this week the opinion I did have of you was that you were something of an attention hog or something, but after reading (and rereading) many of your posts, and visiting your website I guess I corrected my mistaken opinion a bit. I know you weren’t aware of my opinion of you before, but I apologize for my misconception of you none-the-less.

Hey, most of us are not going to argue your point. I was merely restating what Lektro's beliefs are, or appear to be. I think they're actually in the Spanking thread.

Jestyr, I know you had good intentions, but please let me state or clarify my beliefs otherwise there runs the risk of people getting upset at something that can be attributed to me without my actually having said it. But... you were almost correct in some of the things you said, that I thank you for.

That being said...

Sometiems it's just nice to know that your a lot harder to completely destroy than anyone would let onto. Sometimes you can take a lot more punishment that you should be able to, and you keep on ticking. It's nice to know that, you know?

For some I can believe that that is nice to know, and I do not mean that in any sarcastic way either, but for me I don’t think like that so I wouldn’t even consider purposely fighting someone to find out. I’m not afraid of pain, physcial pain I have experienced, but the deliberate causing of pain and injury (also violence) is something I truly have a problem with.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:55 pm

You really can't use mental illness to get someone off of a crime, because being mentally ill is not a legal excuse any more than being drunk or being stupid is.

See, you say that, yet every year people don't do the proper time in jail because thier lawyers argue that they are mentally ill. They get off with a few years in an institution, or in jail while seeing a doctor. Then a judge rules them cured, and they get out....only to kill again.

I'm really kind of amazed that you'd talk about being "ready for society," or "hurting anyone ever again." In relation to this case, both seem like marginal factors, and in relation to violent crime in general, those phrases seem to condone draconian cruelty. You either impugn by arrogant judgement, a person's ability to correct themself, or you convict someone of something they haven't yet done. Really.

It's ignorance like that, which is contributing to the high rate of crime in America. If we became a little more cold hearted to those who have killed, or raped, then the crimes will be commited less and less frequently. As of now, criminals aren't afraid of jail...it's actually a step up for most of them. If a person however knows that if they are proved guilty of these severe crimes, beyond even a shadow of a doubt, that they will be executed, the crimes won't happen nearly as frequently. And if a few "mentally ill" people are grouped in with those executed...well then, as I said, they've been sacrificed for the greater good.

]

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 10:16 pm

Jestyr, is there such a thing as a victimless violent crime? If you read what the posting was about I was trying to suggest that it would be an interesting idea to inprison criminals of violent crimes for as long as it took the victim to recover. If it wasn’t clear, oops, hopefully this will clear that part up a bit.

Okay, my bad. Your discussion of this concept was isolated from the paragraph where you were talking about /violent/ crime, and I took it to refer to all crime.

I think it's an incredibly unworkable idea, incidentally, until we've developed telepathy, because until then you're not going to know /when/ the victim has truly recovered. It's still an interesting idea, though.

Jestyr, I know you had good intentions, but please let me state or clarify my beliefs otherwise there runs the risk of people getting upset at something that can be attributed to me without my actually having said it. But... you were almost correct in some of the things you said, that I thank you for.

No problem, and sorry for any misunderstandings I did perpetrate. I'd have happily left it to you, but Elf and I were in the middle of a discussion about it here and you weren't around to say it for yourself.

For some I can believe that that is nice to know, and I do not mean that in any sarcastic way either, but for me I don’t think like that

Well, why not remove the violence from the equation and try the concept again? For example, my mother had breast cancer in 94. It was my first year at college, so I wasn't there for emotional support, and my father was away for six months on an extended work trip - he came back as often as he could [oh, the frequent flyer points he racked up!] but he just couldn't be there all the time for her.

Now, until then, my mother had always subconsciously thought of herself as weak. She wasn't very emotionally resilient, she needed a lot of support in things, and so on. Coping with the cancer - the operation, the various treatments afterwards, the physical and mental effects of the whole deal - and coping /alone/ was absolutely horrible for her. But it showed her that she could do it; she could cope with life on her own two feet if she had to. In other words, it showed her that she was much tougher to destroy than she'd previously suspected - than any of us had suspected - and in the end she was glad of that.

See what I mean?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 10:46 pm

See, you say that, yet every year people don't do the proper time in jail because thier lawyers argue that they are mentally ill.

No, really they don't. Mentally ill and insane are not the same thing. They're not really even similar, although one is a necessary precondition for the other.

They get off with a few years in an institution, or in jail while seeing a doctor. Then a judge rules them cured, and they get out....only to kill again.

What a great made-for-TV movie that would make. But I bet you can't come up with a single case where that has actually happened.

It's ignorance like that, which is contributing to the high rate of crime in America. If we became a little more cold hearted to those who have killed, or raped . . .

Yeah, ain't morals a bitch. You try to give people a little freedom and human dignity, and look what they do with it.

spudman · Post by **spudman** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 11:22 pm

Marius wrote: Yeah, ain't morals a bitch. You try to give people a little freedom and human dignity, and look what they do with it.

They crap all over it, sue you for their own crimes and then get room, board and education on your nickel. And people wonder why I don't pursue a career in law even though I have the JD?

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 12:13 am

Yeah, ain't morals a bitch. You try to give people a little freedom and human dignity, and look what they do with it.

It's one thing to have morals, it's another to realize how fucked up the system is. We're too soft on criminals, and to hard on policemen.
The media portray it as a terrible, terrible thing, when cops empty thier magazine's at a black man who has not responded to repeated pleas to put his hands up, and freeze, and now may, or may not be going for a gun.
On the other hand, a few years ago, I bet you didn't hear about the NYPD cop who took 6 or 7 rounds in the arms, and chest, doing a drug bust, with the Street Crimes Unit? See, I didn't think so. It didn't make the papers, and there was a thirty second clip about it on the news. Thankfully my uncle, who was the cop in question, lived through it, because of his vest, but I would bet you money that all of the guys doing the shooting were repeat drug offendors, which in any other country would have been in jail, and not on the streets.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 3:35 am

Lektrogirl wrote: Let’s back up a bit, please. „Fight clubs“ as far as I know involved willing participants, right?

Sort of.

There's a bit of a story behind some of the people who end up in the fray. It's not always the, "Me want hit things", type that ends up lining up for soemthing like that, far from it. Typically the sort of people who end up there are people who typically don't fight, and typically don't want to get hurt. Also, from time to time, people get a baptism of fire.

That happened to someone I know.

He used to be quite vocal and completely obvlivious to what the general attitude toward his babblings were. Instead of looking at a situation and the people in it before opening his mouth, he'd just start talking utter crap for no real reason. He was entertaining, yes, still is, actually. Thing is, it used to get him into trouble, and he couldn't see past his own nose on the subject, even when I completely destroyed his mental workings on more than one occasion. That's not to say that I was evil in that regard, as it needed to be done, however he always managed to rebuild himself to a point that still had the same basic social workings.

Something else needed to be done, and someone else showed me the way.

This one time he was going on about violence, about people hitting each other and things like that, so an associate of mine, the Irish Sage, took him outside and I decided to follow. IS started wrapping up his hands in an ex head scarf and said, "Okay, what we're going to do is fight."

Socially Inept said, "Okay cool, this should be fun."

"If you think you've had too much, just say the word and I'll stop. Game over at that point."

"Hang on, aren't there any rules?"

"No, only that you stop when you're asked."

"No way! I'll get hurt!"

"That's going to happen one of these days regardless, and if you keep going on about violence like you know it, when you don't, this is going to happen. This is the best way for it, I'm not going to try and kill you, and you can say no at any time."

"No then."

"Not yet, we haven't started."

It went on like this for a time, until SI was thrown to the ground and choked for a bit. He was very worried, and didn't want to hit IS because he knew him, and considered him a friend. IS was proving a point, however, and pushed and pushed until SI finally threw a punch, hitting IS right in the nose and pushing him back.

It was at this point that SI broke down in tears, but it was over, he finally had a basis for comparison, and saw what it was really about. IS sat down and talked him through it, and I looked on. A lot of people were seriously pissed off that day due to these actions, but SI was never all that Socially Inept from that day forward. He learnt something that only violence could teach him, and we'd tried every other way.

But one punch, and he changed, he grew about ten years that were stunted because of his inability to comprehend that people may want to beat the shit out of him. Nowadays he's alright.

So no, it's not always willing the first time around, but sometimes people need perspective. I don't run out and do this all the time, nor does IS, but sometimes violence is needed, and it's not always fueled by hate or rage, sometimes it's honest affection.

Incidently, I can't spell.

I try to live my life as a pacifist, the thought of violent perpertrated against someone who does not want to be hurt is one of the most horrific things I could imagine.

Ah, now here's the thing.

I was a pacifist once.

This isn't a loophole that I've found in the sense that I ddin't fight, but that I'd made an active decision not to. So much so was this decision, that I remained motionless as another man beat the living crap out of me. I bleed, rose to my feet and said, "You win", before walking out of that place. When I was at a stream washing the bloody from my face I wondered what the use of it was.

I remeber the excitement that came from the first punch, the one thrown in my direction. It was lame, it was slow, there was no art to it and it didn't really hurt at all. My thought process was, "Wow, I wonder what this is going to be like!" and down I went, to be greeted with a few more punches before I got up. He had hurt himself, and due to my tinkering later, destroyed his life.

I was never physically violent toward that boy, I couldn't really call him a man, now I think of it, he was nothing, just a stupid kid who didn't have the capacity to know any better. Never physically violent, but I made him pay. His entire social structure fell down around him from simply fallback plans that I'd set up. I was in his life for about a month, and I destroyed about two years because I wanted to.

I could, of course, have destroyed him, physically, right there and then, but I didn't, I drew it out.

I was fine the next day, all the injuries I'd recieved were gone. He pays still.

I cam to the conclusion that pacifism is stupid, and I've never gone back. I openly condone violence, and as a result I've never really been in a fight outside of a mutual choosing. I also don't get quite that vindictive. Elaborately, yes, but not to the same life destroying scale.

Pacifism can be far more violent than hitting someone if you weild it right, my dear, far far more.

That would be like me calling your desire to participate in fight clubbing stupid, my opinion is that violence is bad, all violence is bad, and no, it is not silly, just because we differ in this opinion does not mean it is silly.

Yes and no, but seeing that we don't want to get overtly personal yet, I stand corrected.

*On a side note: Elf, in the last couple of days your postings that I have read have really begone to change my opinion of you, for the better. I don’t think you’re jumping up and down about that, but until this week the opinion I did have of you was that you were something of an attention hog or something, but after reading (and rereading) many of your posts, and visiting your website I guess I corrected my mistaken opinion a bit. I know you weren’t aware of my opinion of you before, but I apologize for my misconception of you none-the-less.

I was aware. Just remember that I am an attention hog and something as well, wouldn't be wise to dismiss it entirely.

Jestyr, I know you had good intentions

Jes and I were ranting, no harm done.

For some I can believe that that is nice to know, and I do not mean that in any sarcastic way either, but for me I don’t think like that so I wouldn’t even consider purposely fighting someone to find out. I’m not afraid of pain, physcial pain I have experienced, but the deliberate causing of pain and injury (also violence) is something I truly have a problem with.

Isn't it interesting that many go to these things simply to be hit rather than to hit. Some people need different things.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 11:05 am

Marius wrote:
They get off with a few years in an institution, or in jail while seeing a doctor. Then a judge rules them cured, and they get out....only to kill again.
What a great made-for-TV movie that would make. But I bet you can't come up with a single case where that has actually happened.

Marius:: Thank you for replying to this. My response was...a lot less nice.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 3:42 pm

Aw. And now we don't get to read it...

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 9:12 am

Sorry. I like the people here.

Btw, your sig rocks.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 7:20 pm

Why do we tolerate violent behavior? Because it's sometimes neccessary to shoot a rabid dog.

Why do we tolerate violent crime? Because it's become socially unacceptable to shoot the rabid dog; we get too sentimental and feel sorry for it and fail to realize that, as unfortunate as it is, the dog fucking well needs to be shot.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 7:56 pm

haha, Cash I don't care...if you don't want to share it with them, the private message it to me....I get a kick out of stuff like that

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 1:35 am

I was wondering how long it would take Sal to get on here and say stupid things. I hope he gets shot one day, I really do.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 2:55 am

PMWrestler wrote: haha, Cash I don't care...if you don't want to share it with them, the private message it to me....I get a kick out of stuff like that

Ummm, no. It's not worth it.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 7:17 pm

Speaking metaphorically, Elf, not literally. And, frankly, what I said wasn't stupid at all. As you said, pacifism is silly.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 8:26 pm

They both have their strong points. Pacifism and violence. I'm not usually very violent, but I am /aggressive/. Usually, I'm aggressive so I don't have to be violent. I hope that makes sense. Violence has a way of following me around,

. I try not to go out to drinking holes and the like, because I'ma fairly large man, with a challenging bearing. People, (men, in particular), take that as a challenge. Which is why I'm so aggressive. It usually doesn't come to violence. I forgot my point, actually, I just wanted to put my two cents in.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:04 am

True Sal, but like I'm going to pass up the opportunity to say you're a toss pot. However, there's a difference between saying that pacifism is stupid, to backing up that point by saying, "Let's make people DIE! DIE like the SCUM I say they are!"

That is just as stupid, if not more so.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 12:41 am

However, there's a difference between saying that pacifism is stupid, to backing up that point by saying, "Let's make people DIE! DIE like the SCUM I say they are!"

No, like the scum society says they are when they're convicted of a violent crime.

I'm not saying we should shoot criminals in the head. I'm saying that they need to be punished. Theives and murderers should not be pardoned and allowed to be a danger to society; if you're sentenced to twenty years, you should serve twenty years.

That said, I think we should shoot certain criminals in the head. Those convicted of first degree muder, for example, or rapists.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 12:43 am

Salvation122 wrote: That said, I think we should shoot certain criminals in the head. Those convicted of first degree muder, for example, or rapists.

Well, I'll stand beside you on the second count.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:30 am

You'd want to make damn sure your justice system is convicting the right people, then. Overturning a conviction is a lot harder when you have to try and scoop their brains back into their skull.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:31 am

You still have the appeal process, of course.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:38 am

Jestyr wrote: You'd want to make damn sure your justice system is convicting the right people, then. Overturning a conviction is a lot harder when you have to try and scoop their brains back into their skull.

True. That's my instinctive reaction to crimes like rape. I have a whole diatribe about it somewhere I'll have to locate.

Your comment also rings especially true for the Canadian members of the BD audience. In the last, oh, 10 years we've seen about half a dozen extremely high profile convicted "murderers" released because they were falsely convicted and some spent decades in jail for things they didn't do. This is also why the supreme court recently ruled that no one should be extradited to a foreign country to face that judicial system unless the death penalty is taken off the table. The case in question was those two fucked-up guys who killed their parents for the money in the US, IIRC.