Does violence get results?

[phk]

Does violence get results?

[John Dibble]

Well, all actions get results, though the results may not always be desireable.

Now, violence can get desired results, but that doesn't mean violence is always the best way to achieve said results.

[TX_1824]

Yes.

It ended World War II and saved millions of Jews. Now that was a lot of violence.

[Bdub]

Its gets results but not always the intended one.

[Gabu]

Everything gets results.  What matters is whether or not, in the end, the results are the desired results, and in that respect, violence has one of the worst records of all methods in existence for producing the desired result in the long run.

[J-Mann]

In my best Machiavellian style:

Of course violence gets results, usually ones (at least in the short term) that are beneficial to the one inflicting the violence.  However, violence can cause a lot of drawbacks as well.  If you are going to use violence to achieve your ends, you had better make sure there is a healthy does of residual fear left after you're done to prevent retaliation, and the means to inflict even more violence in the future wouldn't hurt either.  People don't pick on 6'4", 250 lb football players in bars for a very good reason ...

[Speed of Sound]

Absolutely not. You get small, short term effects that are positive, and punishing long term effects that are staggering.

[MaC]

basically what Dibble said.

Violence gets results, but theymay not be the results you want to get.  The problem with violence is that it's an incredibly unethical way to achieve results.

[nini2287]

It can.  If you're interrogating/torturing a suspected war criminal whose innocent, you may get misleading informatio, but if they're guilty they might talk.

[John Dibble]

Absolutely not. You get small, short term effects that are positive, and punishing long term effects that are staggering.

Sometimes, but not always. As was pointed out, WWII is a counterexample. If the Allies had just rolled over and taken it we'd all be much worse off - violence was an unfortunate necessity, and resorting to it had better long term effects than not resorting to it.

[MODU]

In some cases, yes.  In other cases no . . . or at least not the result you were expecting.

[MasterJedi]

Yes though it usually isn't the one you want. (That also depends on where the violence is happening)

[Speed of Sound]

Absolutely not. You get small, short term effects that are positive, and punishing long term effects that are staggering.

Sometimes, but not always. As was pointed out, WWII is a counterexample. If the Allies had just rolled over and taken it we'd all be much worse off - violence was an unfortunate necessity, and resorting to it had better long term effects than not resorting to it.

There you are correct. There are times in which you have no choice, I find in most cases, especially domestic ones, that my theory holds up. But internationally, I believe that the percentage of events that require viol;ence are much higher.

[Inmate Trump]

Absolutely not. You get small, short term effects that are positive, and punishing long term effects that are staggering.

^^^^

[Michael Z]

Depends on the results you're after. Violence is usually a good way of achieving counter-violence.

[dazzleman]

Depends on the results you're after. Violence is usually a good way of achieving counter-violence.

It depends.  Terrible as it is to say, the key to violence being successful is to use it massively, and without hesitation.

Incremental or proportional violence usually brings more violence in response.  People retaliate against small violations, but not big ones.  So the best way to make violence successful is to absolutely pulverize your opponent, as opposed to inflicting pinpricks.