• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Violence Ever Necessary?

Is violence ever necessary?

  • Yes, it is necessary on some rare occassions.

    Votes: 55 94.8%

  • Violence is never necessary, no matter what.

    Votes: 3 5.2%
  • Total voters
    58
Yes, often. Two examples:

1. On a large scale, the world wars would never have been won without violence.

2. On a smaller scale, it's necessary for self defence. My mother was telling me the other day about when she had to literally fight herself out of this man's flat because he was going to rape her. If in that situation she hadn't have rammed her knee against his balls, and had said instead, "Um, I don't believe violence is necessary right now", something awful would have happened.
 
x_teenspirit_x said:
Yes, often. Two examples:

1. On a large scale, the world wars would never have been won without violence.

2. On a smaller scale, it's necessary for self defence. My mother was telling me the other day about when she had to literally fight herself out of this man's flat because he was going to rape her. If in that situation she hadn't have rammed her knee against his balls, and had said instead, "Um, I don't believe violence is necessary right now", something awful would have happened.
Click to expand...

Wait so you're telling me that she couldn't have taken the pacifists approach . . . (sarcasm)
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Wait so you're telling me that she couldn't have taken the pacifists approach . . . (sarcasm)
Click to expand...

violence should be used only when necessary.

During hte world wars, India could have esaily had its enormous population band up and pretty much slaughtered and driven the british out when they were the weakest. However, that was unecessary. A pacifist approach minimized the deaths and helped bridge future relations between the two countries. On the other hand, claiming that the Jews could have used the same pacifist approach is retarded.
 
"Wait so you're telling me that she couldn't have taken the pacifists approach . . . (sarcasm)"

Lol you don't have to explain to me when you're being sarcastic, I can understand it perfectly thanks.

(Sorry if I overstated my point though.)
 
Originally posted by Goobieman:
What an idiotic response. I've been hammering you on your unsupportable interpretation of the Supremacy Clause for weeks.

You cannot support ytour argument in the face of directed, reasoned criticism. Your argument is unsound.
Click to expand...
Hey, don't feel so threatened. This is a safe place. When you calm down, you might want to drop your fixation with your little "Supremacy" buzzwords. That is not the subject of this discussion. It won't matter how many times you try to force it into the conversation, this debate is not about what Congress can and cannot do. It is about an illegal attack on Iraq. We broke International Laws and treaties we ratified (which makes them our laws). We didn't repeal any of them. So they were laws when we went to war over the lies of the current Administration.

I'm beginning to think you don't have the chops to get out of your rut. You'll see better without your tunnelvision. Trust me.
 
Why is their no "Yes" ? I support machiavellianism
 
Billo_Really said:
Hey, don't feel so threatened. This is a safe place. When you calm down, you might want to drop your fixation with your little "Supremacy" buzzwords. That is not the subject of this discussion.
Click to expand...
Its the entire basis for your argument. Other than that, it doesnt belong in the conversation at all.
:roll:

It won't matter how many times you try to force it into the conversation, this debate is not about what Congress can and cannot do. It is about an illegal attack on Iraq. We broke International Laws and treaties we ratified (which makes them our laws).
Click to expand...
Like I said:
Its the entire basis of your argument.

We didn't repeal any of them. So they were laws when we went to war over the lies of the current Administration.
Click to expand...
Like I said:
Its the entire basis of your argument.

You either refuse to understand or you are incapable of understanding. Your choice.
 
Yes of course it is unless you dont mind dying or other people dying uknow stopping crime.

if everyone became passive which will never happen its best to be prepared to protect yourself.
 
Originally posted by Goobieman:
Its the entire basis of your argument.

You either refuse to understand or you are incapable of understanding. Your choice.
Click to expand...
The inability to see another person's point of view is a sign of mental illness. Think about it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is VIOLENCE necessary? Who asked this question? Why I AUGHTTA!! Man, they need a smack down or what?
 
Billo_Really said:
The inability to see another person's point of view is a sign of mental illness. Think about it!
Click to expand...

Clearly, I've seen your point of view.
What you fail to comprehend is that you have been shown, time and again, that your point of view is unsound - and you fail to recognize it.

And YOU speak of signs of mental illness?
:rofl
 
Originally posted by Goobieman:
Clearly, I've seen your point of view.
What you fail to comprehend is that you have been shown, time and again, that your point of view is unsound - and you fail to recognize it.

And YOU speak of signs of mental illness?
Click to expand...
Not only did we agree to this out of our own free will...
Article 33 of the UN Charter
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
Click to expand...
...but our Congress ratified it. Thus making it a law. What is unsound about that? I'll tell you what is unsound, it is the fact that we are a nation that doesn't keep its word and cannot be trusted when we make agreements or sign treaties if we decide to break them at our own convenience (which you so dearly embrace). It also shows how disgusting your morals may be if you truly believe this.
 
Billo_Really said:
Not only did we agree to this out of our own free will......but our Congress ratified it. Thus making it a law. What is unsound about that?
Click to expand...
The part where YOU think that the ratification of any treaty creates a Constitutional limitation on the actions of the FEDERAL government through the provisions on Article VI of the US Constitution.

You have been asked innumerable times to show that the Supremacy Clause has ever been held to create a limitation on action sof the Federal government. You have not even tried to accomplish this.

Why?

Because you know you cannot, and so long as you continue to dodge the issue rather than address it, you do not have to admit that you are wrong.


I'll tell you what is unsound, it is the fact that we are a nation that doesn't keep its word and cannot be trusted when we make agreements or sign treaties if we decide to break them at our own convenience (which you so dearly embrace).
Click to expand...
This is an entirely different concept from your claim the war is illegal because of the Supremacy Clause.
 
Moderator's Warning:

Official warning issued.



Originally posted by Goobieman:
The part where YOU think that the ratification of any treaty creates a Constitutional limitation on the actions of the FEDERAL government through the provisions on Article VI of the US Constitution.

You have been asked innumerable times to show that the Supremacy Clause has ever been held to create a limitation on action sof the Federal government. You have not even tried to accomplish this.

Why?

Because you know you cannot, and so long as you continue to dodge the issue rather than address it, you do not have to admit that you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Are you brain dead? Or just so conceited that you think you can change the point of this conversation without me calling you on it? Why don't you show me in any of my posts where I indicated anything that could be construed as a "Constitutional limitation?" Where have I used these words? Do you have the balls to show me where? Your comments are stupid! Your not even responding to the point I am making. Your just talking to yourself. You need to get some help. You seem to be mentally incapable of human interaction. Your not the center of the universe, Junior.

Originally posted by Goobieman:
This is an entirely different concept from your claim the war is illegal because of the Supremacy Clause.
Click to expand...
Those are your words, not mine. Your not going to hijack my point. It ain't gonna happen. Just keep talking to yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billo_Really said:
Are you brain dead? Or just so conceited that you think you can change the point of this conversation without me calling you on it? Why don't you show me in any of my posts where I indicated anything that could be construed as a "Constitutional limitation?" Where have I used these words?
Click to expand...
You're the one arguing that the war is illegal because the treaties we signed become US law through the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI of the US Constitution -- and I'm brain dead?

Do you have the balls to show me where? Your comments are stupid! Your not even responding to the point I am making. Your just talking to yourself. You need to get some help. You seem to be mentally incapable of human interaction. Your not the center of the universe, Junior.
Click to expand...
'Tls clear, at this point, that all you're doing is trolling.
I'll also be sure to report the personal attacks found above.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
Are you brain dead? Or just so conceited that you think you can change the point of this conversation without me calling you on it? Why don't you show me in any of my posts where I indicated anything that could be construed as a "Constitutional limitation?" Where have I used these words? Do you have the balls to show me where? Your comments are stupid! Your not even responding to the point I am making. Your just talking to yourself. You need to get some help. You seem to be mentally incapable of human interaction. Your not the center of the universe, Junior.

Those are your words, not mine. Your not going to hijack my point. It ain't gonna happen. Just keep talking to yourself.
Click to expand...
Moderator's Warning:

Billo,
Let's cool it with the personal insults, okay? I know I don't have to tell you how it works around here.

Goobieman said:
What an idiotic response
Click to expand...

Goobieman,
You might want to refrain as well.

If you can't keep it civil, you know there's no shame in walking away. We're not writing policy here folks.
 
mixedmedia said:
Originally Posted by Goobieman
What an idiotic response
Click to expand...

Goobieman,
You might want to refrain as well.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, describing a response as idiotic is not the same as describing the responder as an idiot.

One is a personal attack, the other is not.
 
Goobieman said:
With all due respect, describing a response as idiotic is not the same as describing the responder as an idiot.

One is a personal attack, the other is not.
Click to expand...

You are right and I think the situation was handled accordingly. I am simply trying to head off the escalation of provocative debate on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom