Physical Violence

Why is physical violence wrong, /hist/?

(It isn't)

We live in a world of laws and a long time ago we decided that it did not solve any problems by physically assaulting someone, it only created more problems.

it doesn't prove that your spirit is better like demonstrating that the other person is wrong does

Imposing your will against others is wrong

Are you a masochist OP?

Violence is intellectually honest - you have something, I take it. Words can lie and be twisted. Why should we protect the weak and unlucky?

The problem lies in than a group of men who are weak as single sticks but when they ally against you they become like a magnificent faggot

t. Low test fat fuck who'd die first

It's not wrong in certain cases, even justified. But generally speaking, it's a bad idea to have everyone beating each other up all the time.

I don't want to be violent, I just think it's strange that we so universally claim to despise violence when it's physical. Verbal and emotional violence seem to be much more acceptable, but in my view they're far more harmful.

when I was in school people had fist fights all the time, and the next day nobody would give a fuck, compare that to insults and gossip schoolgirls have and how long they hold grudges

Literally nobody cares about violence when the two parties agree to it. It's bullying or opportunistic escalation that people despise because it's not productive

So thus monopolizing the use of force to a centralized authority dispensing that force according to the whims of the limited minded officials and ruling class is much more sensible as repressing the majority is easier that way.

Its not faggot go read stuff by my main homo mr donovan

it hurts

except verbal violence only hurts you if you choose to care. You can't choose whether a collapsed lung kills you.

>violence
>intellectual

It's not. That's just something people in power say when they don't want anyone rising against them.

Well when somebody hits you they can't exactly disguise their intentions in the same way words and confused feelings can

cause most of the time it only fixes the symptom of some thing but not the source

because it will not achieve your goal unless you want to cause pain, in which case you can expect retaliation even if you kill someone, they have relatives etc

nowadays with advanced technology it is possible, but the world wont just sit tight letting you exterminate whoever you wish, theyll retaliate also

It hurts

>Why is physical violence wrong, /hist/?
Because the state needs a monopoly on it

>Hurrrr durrr why can't I kill shit the state is immoral because it steals me hedge fund money!

kys ancapboi

>So thus monopolizing the use of force to a centralized authority dispensing that force according to the whims of the limited minded officials

Very few Western countries are prone to use violence whimsically, at least not against it's own population.

The Weberian description of the state as a monopoly of violence isn't supposed to be a moral judgement, it's simply a realist description of the current state of affairs, which can take several forms.