First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Is vengeance self defense?
Bavalt 
22029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
I completely agree that a reasonable person would walk away and not retaliate. However, being exposed to violence, especially as an affected party, inhibits our ability to reason, so it's not exactly fair to condemn someone for instinctive retaliation. It's when it's past the moment and into grudge territory, or out of proportion with the original slight, that it turns into vengeance rather than self-defense.

I personally like to think that I'd be able to take the higher ground if someone tried to start a fistfight with me or something, but if I'm being chased with a knife, for example, all bets are off. I'm not exactly good in a fight, so I'd probably end up a victim if I didn't try whatever I could. But once I got out of it, I'd toss it to the authorities and let it go.
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

pirththee wrote:

So declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor wasn't self defense, but an act of aggression?


Tbh the bombing of Japan makes no sense. Military law holds that under no circumstances is it permitted to kill civilians. Yet we bombed theirccities knowing the had 0 military facilities and 100 percent civilian areas.

so Idk there's the law and then there's politics and politics always wins.
1420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Hessen, Germany
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
Vengeance is no self-defense at all. It's an act of aggression in response to another act of aggression, which will then be considered revenge-worthy by the opponent. It's like in Israel and Palestine:

"They hit first, now we must hit them!", "They hit us back, so now we must hit them back, too!", and so on.

There's this old saying: "Eye for an eye and the world goes blind."
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

lambofgenesis wrote:


pirththee wrote:

So declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor wasn't self defense, but an act of aggression?


Tbh the bombing of Japan makes no sense. Military law holds that under no circumstances is it permitted to kill civilians. Yet we bombed theirccities knowing the had 0 military facilities and 100 percent civilian areas.

so Idk there's the law and then there's politics and politics always wins.


Japan never shied away from bombing civilians.Civilian bombing in WWII was intended to demoralise an enemy enough to sue for peace.It sometime had the opposite effect like with the London Blitz. There are no rules in war.It's only your squad and you.Seeking a mythical moral high ground in a war is contradictory,hypocritical, and suicidal.I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
Self-defence is a separate matter from vengeance. One is fully justified. The other should be avoided. Preservation of one's life and limb in the face of immediate danger and genuine effort to escape danger ought not be punished.


pirththee wrote:

Japan never shied away from bombing civilians.Civilian bombing in WWII was intended to demoralise an enemy enough to sue for peace.It sometime had the opposite effect like with the London Blitz. There are no rules in war.It's only your squad and you.Seeking a mythical moral high ground in a war is contradictory,hypocritical, and suicidal.I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold.


Essentially. I mean, a cursory look at Japanese Fascism should be enough to indicate that yes, this country was in fact a militarist single-party state whose leadership was trying to foster a religious zeal for war in its population and whose armed forces had zero compunctions about decapitating, raping, and enslaving people while using the POWs it captured as bait to lure people into kill zones. Even though it's the ideal to follow codes of conduct to the letter and take people prisoner if they surrender that's not always possible. Even though it's ideal to strike only targeted infrastructural elements like bridges, factories, and radio towers while carrying out a bombing run that isn't always possible (and was damned near impossible in the 40s).
80 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
I am writing my opinions on them in a governmental manner.

Self defence - defending yourself when under active threat

Revenge - harming someone after he/she harmed you ; what makes revenge bad is that you do not measure the damage you do as an act of revenge. He killed your father? You might kill his whole family and think its revenge. That is why courts and laws forbid it.

Justice - Harming someone to an amount of the damage he caused to someone else, so that he and others will not do it again. Purpose is not to hurt that guy, it is to convince him to not to do it again.

Eye for an eye is justice, for it is not excessive(excessiveness is important) as revenge and it is enought to convince him to not to do it again.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
Revenge through physical violence is wrong and often unneeded.

That said, if someone attacks me without provocation there won't be enough left of them afterwards to pose a threat.
Self-defense: I was just ending things quickly and efficiently.
6090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / US
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

SheeGeeAMV wrote:

Self defense is reacting immediately to an act of violence against you to prevent further damage on your person. Example, blocking a hit or rendering the attacker from moving any more.

Vengeance is more going back to stab the person who punched you. It's usually more out of anger and a lot more violent the the original assault.


    ^ this
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

BlueOni wrote:

Self-defence is a separate matter from vengeance. One is fully justified. The other should be avoided. Preservation of one's life and limb in the face of immediate danger and genuine effort to escape danger ought not be punished.


pirththee wrote:

Japan never shied away from bombing civilians.Civilian bombing in WWII was intended to demoralise an enemy enough to sue for peace.It sometime had the opposite effect like with the London Blitz. There are no rules in war.It's only your squad and you.Seeking a mythical moral high ground in a war is contradictory,hypocritical, and suicidal.I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold.


Essentially. I mean, a cursory look at Japanese Fascism should be enough to indicate that yes, this country was in fact a militarist single-party state whose leadership was trying to foster a religious zeal for war in its population and whose armed forces had zero compunctions about decapitating, raping, and enslaving people while using the POWs it captured as bait to lure people into kill zones. Even though it's the ideal to follow codes of conduct to the letter and take people prisoner if they surrender that's not always possible. Even though it's ideal to strike only targeted infrastructural elements like bridges, factories, and radio towers while carrying out a bombing run that isn't always possible (and was damned near impossible in the 40s).


Truth and idealism are the first casualties of war. My family members,now deceased, that served in combat units in the Pacific always said neither side ever gave any quarter to prisoners.
82334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:

During a lecture my business law professor said "vengeance isn't self defense". Revenge meaning a person attacks as a response to being attacked. According to law, a reasonable person would walk away and not retaliate.

Shocking? Not really, this same idea has been taught since primary school. If someone hits you, report it to a teacher, don't ever hit them back. What do you think of this? It's unfair if you came out as the only injured party. Shouldn't you be able to hit them back?


This is the foolish thinking of an an idealist. While it is typically better to walk it off if someone hits you and you can escape, if they continue to repeat this, then eventually you have to defend yourself or it becomes a repeated cycle of abuse. Yes, this is the same kind of crap that was taught in school, and they even had a policy that regardless of who hit first, both would be suspended or expelled. The problem is that reporting it to a teacher accomplishes absolutely nothing. The teacher does nothing about it, ever. When I used to be bullied in school, I was eventually told by the principal to hit back, defend myself, because they couldn't do anything. Only when I did so, did the violence stop. Sometimes it takes violence to stop violence.

Also, some have said that it the person has a weapon then you can defend yourself, but unarmed you should walk away. Do you not realize that fists are also deadly weapons?
8304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Tampa, FL
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

pirththee wrote:


BlueOni wrote:

Self-defence is a separate matter from vengeance. One is fully justified. The other should be avoided. Preservation of one's life and limb in the face of immediate danger and genuine effort to escape danger ought not be punished.


pirththee wrote:

Japan never shied away from bombing civilians.Civilian bombing in WWII was intended to demoralise an enemy enough to sue for peace.It sometime had the opposite effect like with the London Blitz. There are no rules in war.It's only your squad and you.Seeking a mythical moral high ground in a war is contradictory,hypocritical, and suicidal.I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold.


Essentially. I mean, a cursory look at Japanese Fascism should be enough to indicate that yes, this country was in fact a militarist single-party state whose leadership was trying to foster a religious zeal for war in its population and whose armed forces had zero compunctions about decapitating, raping, and enslaving people while using the POWs it captured as bait to lure people into kill zones. Even though it's the ideal to follow codes of conduct to the letter and take people prisoner if they surrender that's not always possible. Even though it's ideal to strike only targeted infrastructural elements like bridges, factories, and radio towers while carrying out a bombing run that isn't always possible (and was damned near impossible in the 40s).


Truth and idealism are the first casualties of war. My family members,now deceased, that served in combat units in the Pacific always said neither side ever gave any quarter to prisoners.
stop, just stop

49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:


pirththee wrote:


BlueOni wrote:

Self-defence is a separate matter from vengeance. One is fully justified. The other should be avoided. Preservation of one's life and limb in the face of immediate danger and genuine effort to escape danger ought not be punished.


pirththee wrote:

Japan never shied away from bombing civilians.Civilian bombing in WWII was intended to demoralise an enemy enough to sue for peace.It sometime had the opposite effect like with the London Blitz. There are no rules in war.It's only your squad and you.Seeking a mythical moral high ground in a war is contradictory,hypocritical, and suicidal.I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold.


Essentially. I mean, a cursory look at Japanese Fascism should be enough to indicate that yes, this country was in fact a militarist single-party state whose leadership was trying to foster a religious zeal for war in its population and whose armed forces had zero compunctions about decapitating, raping, and enslaving people while using the POWs it captured as bait to lure people into kill zones. Even though it's the ideal to follow codes of conduct to the letter and take people prisoner if they surrender that's not always possible. Even though it's ideal to strike only targeted infrastructural elements like bridges, factories, and radio towers while carrying out a bombing run that isn't always possible (and was damned near impossible in the 40s).


Truth and idealism are the first casualties of war. My family members,now deceased, that served in combat units in the Pacific always said neither side ever gave any quarter to prisoners.
stop, just stop



NO just No.This is an open forum. I haven't broken any of CR rules nor do I intend to. . I have merely pointed out that what is considered acceptable on a vast public scale is somehow not at the private level.If my comments haven't jived with your sensibilities then I remind you that your opinion is just one of many.
31292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
When I was 13 and in school, this girl 3 years my senior tried to set my hair on fire on the bus and almost succeeded but I put it out. I punched her so hard in the face that her nose went sideways and I kicked her several times in the ribs. She never looked me in the eyes again and it was very satisfying watching her go through high school with a massive crooked lump on her nose from where I broke it. I was suspended from school for a week like I was the bad person. I excelled at all my subjects and never put a foot wrong before or after that and when I explained why I did it the teachers were actually quite understanding. Do I regret fucking up that girls face? Hell no! It's just what I had to do to prevent that girl from making me a victim and possibly tormenting me through school. Every time she looks in the mirror she will remember that day and the consequences of her evil actions, and that she literally was playing with fire.
3060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

Vengeance is bad and unnecessary... Unless you're Batman.


don't worry, it was ok for me to enact my revenge BECAUSE IM BATMAN!!!!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.