h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>
>Violence is a term describing the physical, psychological or structural abuse of power.

Hey, wait a minute! Stop there! If you say that, then you have to explain what you mean by power, and what you mean by abuse! And you don't explain these things. So your opening remark doesn't really say anything much. I mean, for example, how about violence used or attempted by the relatively powerless? Violence as a response to the exercise of power, not as an abuse of power?

>The purpose of violence is to destroy, abuse or violate.

Always and necessarily? I'm not so sure. Or do you mean to say that if some form of punishment or retaliation is not for these purposes it doesn't come under the heading of violence?

>All civilised cultures romanticise violence in several ways.

What do the uncivilised cultures do?

>Today, little brings humanity as much agony, terror and pleasure as violence.

How about sex? Or is sex violence?

I won't go on, except to say that I don't think it's good enough to use one and the same word, 'violence', for the 'psychological' and 'structural' behaviour that you mention. 'Violence' loses its meaning if you just apply it to everything you think is wrong with the world.

Sexualy fullfilled people are the least violent on earth.

Relativism is ALWAYS morally bankrupt. The author would apparently have one believe that it's a perfectly non-violent thing to oppress the hated minority (as given homosexuals, but it could be also Jews or slaves) if to free them would make their oppressors feel victims of structural violence.

Firstly: Thanks for your response to my entry!

>>Violence is a term describing the physical, psychological or >>structural abuse of power.
>Hey, wait a minute! Stop there! If you say that, then you have to >explain what you mean by power, and what you mean by abuse! And you >don't explain these things. So your opening remark doesn't really say >anything much. I mean, for example, how about violence used or >attempted by the relatively powerless? Violence as a response to the >exercise of power, not as an abuse of power?

Nope, my opening remark does not say much, it's basically wordbook stuff. But what it says is sufficient to make you react, isn't it?

>>The purpose of violence is to destroy, abuse or violate.
>Always and necessarily? I'm not so sure. Or do you mean to say that >if some form of punishment or retaliation is not for these purposes >it doesn't come under the heading of violence?

Well, it is a matter of definitions. In my mind, "violence" is tagged as something unnecessary and bad. If you were attacked, and defended yourself by breaking the attacking party's arm, I would not run after you calling you a violent person. You did what you had to do.

>>All civilised cultures romanticise violence in several ways.
>What do the uncivilised cultures do?

The "uncivilised cultures", as we tend to call them in the "west", get up in the morning (or something morning-ish), eat their food, make love, provide food, and then make some more love.

>>Today, little brings humanity as much agony, terror and pleasure as >>violence.
>How about sex? Or is sex violence?

In my definition, no. If your (and your partner's)definition of good sex includes handcuffing, whipping or whatever, then it's not violent at all. The minute you actually force your partner to do something he or she is not comfortable with, then it starts to turn violent.

But yes, men tend to do a lot to get laid. Including getting violent. Banning sex (or the description of it in litterature, film or other forms of art) because it encourages sex would be plain stupid. As would banning the description of violence in films such as "Apocalypse Now".

>'structural' behaviour that you mention. 'Violence' loses its meaning >if you just apply it to everything you think is wrong with the world.

If I did that, yes. If I got a speeding ticket, and yelled at the police officer administering it, calling him a "violent person", the word "violence" would lose its meaning. (And, according to my own description, it would be an act of "psychological abuse", hence violence..)

What this entry was meant to do, was to create a debate. If this thread (and all the threads in Peer Review) continues, the entry has created debate. I think it's important to sometimes rethink our acts and habits, to actually find out whether or not we are working against our principles. I read somewhere that 20% of everything we do is motivated by what we think is right to do. The other 80% is done because we think it's a good idea at the time.

A culture in Papua New Guinea, whose tribes are barely stone age, that wars with adjacent tribes for revenge, possession of pigs, and access to women is therefore "civilized" by western standards? I think you are having a prank, or are unethical, or at least setting up another straw man (possibly all three).

If you meant to create a debate, then why answer only one post? If a particular culture found slavery delightful, and used violence only to preserve this fascinating cultural phenomenon, because it preserves the economic well-being of the owner class and this is what they need-to-do, would you consider them non-structurally-violent?

I know sexually satisfied people of both sexes, who, because of their abundant sex-life generate so much additional of the relevant hormone in their body, become quite dangerous when they are out-of-bed. In particular, David Koresh had dozens of wives and children, so even though he died miserably, his licentiousness and violence insure his geneset is disproportionally represented in the human genepool.

Do you *know* these people, or did you hear about them in the media?

I stand to it: sexualy fulfilled people are less violent. Of course that means: including love and security.

Yes, I know these people. I live in California, and it is possible to find sexually satisfied people, here. I have also lived in a commune and discovered a number of interesting variations thereby, so I know whereof I speak in both my inference of satisfaction, and the experience close up of the action of hormones not particularly stymied by any particular societal hangup (societal hang-up = structural violence?).

Love and security are much harder to come by, and in my mind, only incidentally linked to sex. Sex with love and security is pretty d**n fine! How to assure people of this in order to reduce violence?