Why do we condone violence?

[malthaussen]

Around 25 years ago or so (god, has it been that long?) a friend of mine -- he happened to be a white kid -- had his back broken by a group of gangbangers -- they happened to be black kids -- who worked him over with two-by-fours because, apparently, he had wandered onto their block. It was a mistake on his part, as it happens -- he didn't know it was their turf -- but regardless, there were many who told him it was his fault for going onto their block. (Yeah, he survived. He even got to walk again after a term of rehab)

A few years later, watching ESPN, I saw a professional athlete punch out an announcer right in front of the cameras. Now, it is certainly true that the announcer was provoking the athlete, and virtually dared him to attack. The poor schmuck paid for it, anyway, and the curious thing is that he was made to apologize, and forthwith lost his job, while the athlete went about his smirking way. Don't mess with the MAN!

Recently, we have seen another in a long series of kids -- who happen to be black -- being killled in cold blood by men -- who happen to be white -- and as should surprise no one, the media and the authorities are doing everything in their power to demonstrate that the poor schmuck "asked for it," and that the homicide was not just justifiable, but in some way commendable.

And we have also seen, numerous times, that when a woman is sexually assaulted by a male, everything from the clothes she wears to the cereal she eats for breakfast is cited as a reason the poor schmuck (schmuckette?) "asked for it," and the poor helpless attacker couldn't control himself.

Many have asked, why do we blame the victim? And that is a worthy and important question. But I'd like to flip it, and ask instead: why do we go to such great lengths to condone violence? I am admittedly weird -- I've never understood why "provocation" was an excuse for an attack, as if words were so much more injurious than GBH or death. Which is why, when incidents like this crop up (as they do on a daily, if not hourly, basis), I tend to shut my ears to all claims of what the victim did to "deserve" his injury, and ask myself rather why we condone and support the person who commits the violent act. There are those who will claim we have a "rape society," and those who will claim we have a "bullying society," and whatever the value of these claims may be, it is certain that we have always used violence to work our will on those from whom we want something. War, after all, is nothing more than killing people until they do what you want. It does not require much imagination to consider that our society promotes and encourages violence because we want to continue to execute violence on everyone not lucky enough to be "us."

-- Mal

[MADem]

1. Because we're a bunch of friken ANIMALS.

Yes, we do have brains and know how to use them, but unfortunately, we don't always so do.

Violence is also considered "cool" in some segments of society. It's glorified in action films, celebrated in Thug Life videos, boasted about around the water cooler, cheered on at hockey and other sports games. He who is the most violent (and it's usuallly a he, though not always anymore) is the "coolest," the "toughest," and the "winning-est" amongst his peer group; looked up to, admired, sometimes hated and feared.

We often spend two hours of our lives watching top grossing movies that glorify violence and ruthlessness. These films make so much of a profit that they often are serialized, they aren't a charitable enterprise. The heroes are routinely quoted to illustrate toughness and resolve. Obviously, there's some currency in the characterizations and the methodology illustrated; we're ANIMALS, we like that stuff.

That's the generic "we," for anyone unclear on the context.

[malthaussen]

2. Except, MADem, that animals are not nearly so violent

... as we humans are. There is an old expression, "Man is wolf to Man." Well, wolves, we know, are peaceful and loving family animals who show great respect for each other. The sad truth is that Man is Man to Man.

But my question is not that this is the truth, but why is it the truth?

-- Mal

[MADem]

4. Sure they are--when it matters to them. It just matters less.

Animals aren't going to fight over gold or paper money or property or that fancy car. One place to lay down is as good as the next, so long as there's shelter, shade and water, and they get around on the pads of their own four feet.

There aren't too many things that make an animal go postal--hunger is a big one, dominance for the purposes of procreation another. But when they do decide to go all-out, they're as mindless as we are.

You don't want to be the wolf trying to steal that big old bone from that other wolf who is very hungry indeed. There won't be any respect or loving to be had in that circumstance.

[malthaussen]

6. Fair distinction

One might argue that human dominance signals are so messed up that we allow many more things to become important enough to kill for. Obviously, even a sparrow will work out on somebody if it thinks it has a good reason. In fact, sparrows are pretty feisty birds.

One might also argue, however, that society was developed to regulate (and regularize) instinct and dominance games, and if so that raises the question of why our society seemingly promotes violence with such relish.

-- Mal

[MADem]

29. Valid question.

If I were put on the spot like a pageant contestant, and forced to spit out some bullshit answer that sounds good, I'd guess that our society promotes violence because it makes some people FEEL GOOD. It gives them a visceral, if vicarious, RUSH. They mentally place themselves, in their minds, in the combatants' shoes, and invest themselves in the battle from afar.

The truth of the matter is, though, that when one is up close and personal with real, life-threatening, extreme-fear-inducing "Oh shit, help, save me!" violence, one is far more likely to crap one's drawers than "get into" the battle, even if one is exercising the "fight" portion of the "fight or flight" response.

Of course, that's just a complete guess on my part!

[malthaussen]

30. Wouldn't that be predicated on the assumption...

... that society wants to promote behavior that makes us feel good? Do you have any evidence for that extraordinary claim?

Seriously, though, consider the truth of your second paragraph. While there are some indications that reactions to violent confrontation are to some extent linked to gender, even the supposedly more violent portion of society (i.e., the males) have to undergo considerable training and brainwashing before they can be forced to kill other people. (The tyranny of the bell-curve applying, as always) In fact, studies have shown that few soldiers actually try to kill enemies in firefights, preferring to keep their own heads down and hope like hell they don't stop something. Given this, it would be reasonable to speculate that society promotes violence in the hope of inuring potential soldiers from such fear so that we can get what we want from the people on whom we make war. If that is the case, though, it sure doesn't work, as truly violent people make up a minority of the armed forces, while there are still quite a few freelancers out there who would never even dream of joining the military -- where their violent tendencies would be regulated.

So my instinct is that there is more to it than that. Perhaps we might speculate that society encourages violence in order to create fear in the citizenry, and thus to justify government and the concentration of coercive power in the hands of the rulers and their soldiers?

-- Mal

[MADem]

31. Or maybe it's all down to "There's money to be made?"

Maybe it's a corporate imperative?

Think about it! Where is the violence cheerleaded and celebrated? At places where you have to PAY to watch! Hockey and Are You Ready For Some Football! Big Time Wrestling! Mixed Martial Arts! Heck, even when a player charges the mound in baseball and tries to rip off the pitcher's head, the fans are hooting and hollering! When Tiger Woods pouts and tries to wrap his five iron around a tree, we chortle and rub our hands together. When a soccer player heads butts another for talking trash about his mama, we're on our feet! And of course...VIDEO GAMES! Yes, sixty bucks a pop, and you can kill all the (fill in name of enemy, cartoon or highly realistic) you can with your little keypad!

People can enjoy their fantasy violence from afar by observing, even participating, in these adventures--and they don't have to deal with the horrible, now-and-forever guilt of actually taking a life. At some level, though, they have to pay--if they aren't paying for the seat their ass is warming, they're watching a long string of varied car and beer commercials valued into the millions from the comfort of their own home between occasions of fisticuffs!

Maybe it's not the violence that bothers us, but the murder? If your adversary walks or crawls away, his ass broken and bruised, but he lives to tell the tale, then it's OK? And in video games, we can freely kill those 'bad guys' because, well, they aren't REAL?

There's got to be something "fun" in it (at least once people are afforded the opportunity to develop a taste for it)--otherwise I don't think it would be so common. It only stops being "fun" when the consequences are final--then, it's "tragic."

[malthaussen]

32. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect you of cynicism.

Did you ever consider the great way in which modern civilization is superior to that of Rome? In Rome, the plebeians received the bread and circuses for free. In America, we pay for them!

You make a good argument that institutional violence short of murder is promoted due to the profit motive, but that doesn't explain why murder and rape are also tacitly approved and encouraged by our society. Of course, there are laws against such things -- as there are about lesser forms of violence -- but there is also a wealth of "extenuating circumstances" ranging from "I was drunk" to "she asked for it." Incidentally, isn't it a tragedy that so many men are "forced" to rape a woman because, apparently, they lack the use of both hands?

-- Mal

[MADem]

33. Maybe murder and rape have come to be regarded as the cost of doing business?

Sort of like the unfortunate side effect of an otherwise beneficial drug? It's a rather appalling theory, but I am never really surprised at what is deemed "acceptable" any more.

The corporations make their money, masses of it, the modern-day bread/circuses help to fuel the engine of the economy (everything from parking lots to traffic cops to tee shirt sales), the spectators get their "HoooRAH!" fix of violence, and if the odd idiot drinks to excess during the competition, and/or can't turn off all that cheering-on-the-combatants stuff at the end of the game and does something stupid, well, maybe they chalk it up like they would a "bad side effect" to a jazzy drug?

Sure, you have to put up with occasional bouts of vigorous incontinence, but it'll cure that nasty brain-pain quick as a wink!

[malthaussen]

34. And of course, in cases of rape, she's only a woman

who has no function beyond punchboard and consumer. And murder victims probably had it coming to them, anyway.

It's a theory.

-- Mal

[MADem]

36. It's a rather odious theory--but that doesn't make it untrue.

I do think we still have, in this society, in this 21st Century, an unfortunate cadre of really stupid people who devalue women and minorities and the elderly and anyone who isn't into the whole "violence culture." If you're perceived as weak, if you're not into the whole combat thing, you are a "wuss," and somehow less worthy--at least that's how I think some see it.

When it gets really unfortunate is when the people who feel this way find themselves in positions of power--like say, the police chief, the mayor, the judge, or what-have-you? Then, they have the means to pervert the course of justice. As we've seen in Sanford, FL, when they have the means, they often are motivated to do just that.

[malthaussen]

38. We are definitely competition-oriented, to extremes

In fact, if one should venture to bowl in this country without joining a league and competing against others, he would probably feel vaguely foolish, and as if he were wasting his time. As I argued in another post (which fell dead-born from the Press, to quote my friend David Hume), we have perverted many qualities which are arguably virtues (courage, ambition, competitiveness) into vices by taking them to unprecedented extremes. As a random example, corporations have always been under obligation to enhance shareholder value, but in former times (well, in a brief spate of former time that possibly is only deserving of being called a "fad&quot , it was considered that a corporation had other responsibilities -- to the community, to the customer -- that warranted taking a moderate hit in monetary profit for the sake of goodwill or enhancing the quality of life of the polity. These "collateral" obligations (or shall we go ahead and call them by that dirty word "duties?&quot seem to have fallen by the wayside.

The terrible thought, though, is that those people you refer to in your last paragraph do not see their actions as perversions of justice, but as its consummation.

We have discarded too many parts of our culture which some of us have found inconvenient, and exagerrated others which justify our conduct. Truly a perversion.

-- Mal

[MADem]

39. Indeed.

I don't fit the paradigm, myself. I very much enjoy golf (or used to when I had a more social lifestyle) but I never enjoyed the annoyance of keeping track of strokes, competing for the best score, fighting overmuch to get the ball back on the fairway, or spending too much time in sand traps. I thought it was a good walk, and found no reason to spoil it.

I managed, for many years, in the various locations where I lived and visited, to ally myself with a small cadre of truly lousy golfers who secretly felt the same way that I did. We formed foursomes that were a popular feature at every 19th Hole where we went for post game libations as we always left the course in a good mood. We never kept score, we never minded the judicious use of the hand or foot wedge, and we always praised one another for our particularly good shots and boasted on behalf of one another when someone managed to do something particularly remarkable, like sink a difficult putt. People who were competitive types always wanted to join us (Let me know if you ever need a fourth, OK?) because they just KNEW, in some way, that we had a better time on the course than anyone else in the room--even though they never knew WHY. Of course, we never let anyone in to our small, non-competitive groups, because that would have required us to reveal our deep dark secret--that we never kept score~! We never gave a shit about the "thing" that was supposed to be important. We had good conversations, jokes, more than a little "office gossip,"...and something called FUN.

Your point about turning virtues into vices is quite salient. In putting 'courage, ambition, and competitiveness' on steroids over the last several decades, we've discovered that an unfortunate side effect is that our "good sportsmanship" has shrunk down to the size of a puny raisin.

It's truly sad that in our country the conduct of a "decent" head of a corporation should make news and be held up as a rare exception, when it really should be, to persist with a golf metaphor, par for the course.

We need more Aaron Feuersteins. I always admired that guy for what he did--a real mensch: http://www.opi-inc.com/malden.htm

...Aaron Feuerstein spent millions keeping all 3,000 employees on the payroll with full benefits for 3 months. Why? What did he get for his money? Is he a fool? Did he have some dark motive? Here is Aaron Feuerstein’s answer: “‘The fundamental difference is that I consider our workers an asset, not an expense.’ Indeed, he believes his job goes beyond just making money for shareholders, even though the only shareholders of Malden Mills are Feuerstein and his family. ‘I have a responsibility to the worker, both blue-collar and white-collar,’ Feuerstein added, his voice taking an edge of steely conviction. ‘I have an equal responsibility to the community. It would have been unconscionable to put 3,000 people on the streets and deliver a death blow to the cities of Lawrence and Methuen. Maybe on paper our company is worth less to Wall Street, but I can tell you it’s worth more. We’re doing fine.’"

Feuerstein did not throw his money away. It was not largesse. It was a well reasoned and sound leadership decision to invest millions in Malden Mills’ most critical asset, its workers. The contrast between this CEO and the currently celebrated CEOs making 30, 60 or 100 million dollars a year by eliminating jobs and moving plants is simply astounding. How much are you willing to wager that every company that closed a plant in recent years to boost stock prices has a vision statement with words like …we value and respect our employees as our most important asset? How many of the laid off employees do you suppose believe that?

To a leader that has the conviction of his beliefs, words like value and respect must be backed up with hard decisions and actions. The real test of leadership is maintaining those convictions during change and upheaval. ...

[malthaussen]

40. Ever see the BC comic about golf?

BC: "Okay so what's the point of this game?"
Peter: "To shoot as low a score as possible."
BC: "Then why do it at all?"

... I've always said, I'm a much better golfer than Nicklaus or Tiger -- I've shot 0 on every course in the world.

One of the interesting points made in the movie "Chariots of Fire" was that professionalism, and the worship of competition, ruined the Olympics and athletics in general. I could go off on a riff now about how the worship of "professionalism" is a symptom of America's degeneracy -- but you might not want to hear about that. But one thing that the desire to "win at all costs" has done has been... to heighten the costs. In the book Crazy 08, author Cait Murphy mentioned how in 1908, baseball fans were known to applaud a good play even if it was made by the opposing team! Shocking, and probably un-American.

Good find about Feuerstein. So long as our society insists on a money economy in which everyone must work to live -- despite the fact that not everyone needs to work for everyone to live -- then providing jobs for the community is what used to be called a "sacred duty." These days, it seems the Republicans are pretty big on sacred, but not so much on duty. Unless it is duty-free booze.

-- Mal

[MADem]

41. Feuerstein is a bit of a local hero--his story is oft-repeated in MA.

I wish there were more people like him.

You'd have fit in well with one of our foursomes, with that kind of score card! We were all about the chat, the club swinging and walking around was just a way to keep the blood circulating!

[malthaussen]

47. I am far too inflexible to swing a club

So the only time I was ever on a golf course, I just dropped balls off the green and practiced my short game. But even in that one experience, I had the pleasure of dropping a 30-foot putt. Totally by accident, of course.

-- Mal

[MADem]

49. You'd enjoy a "best ball" game.

Everyone tees off, and the one with the "best ball" is the lead dog. Everyone else goes and gets their ball from their lousy shot locations and drops it by that "best ball" and hits from there. The game goes super fast and no one gets pissed.

[malthaussen]

51. George MacDonald Fraser

Wrote of his grandmother, who being Scots was a dedicated golfer. Her approach was the opposite of yours: she "strode grimly around the golf course" and diligently recorded each stroke, with a tight-lipped smile. From the description, you'd think she wasn't having any fun at all, although of course she was. It is an interesting contrast of attitudes. You find it in computer game afficianados, one camp of which eschews all "cheating," in the form of, say, character editors or game walkthroughs, and another camp of which thinks that the whole concept of "cheating" in a computer game is ridiculous. Which usually prompts the response, "Yes, but you're cheating yourself." I have a mad theory that what accounts for this difference is that some people evalutate themselves by external opinions, while others evaluate themselves by internal opinions. Problem with that concept is that even "internal" opinions must ultimately have an external source.

Best ball is good, unless everybody drives it into the rough, in which case it's time for some Mulligans. But I really am much to stiff and creaky to even take a swing with anything longer than a 5-iron. I'd need to knock off about 20 years of rust before I could even get around a course.

-- Mal

[IDemo]

5. We've added the violent tendencies of the reptilian cortex into an active forebrain

We can take the animal aggression to a new level and do so as naturally as eating and drinking. Defining "The Other" and giving ourselves the false impression of lifting ourselves above "them" through belittlement and battle just plain feels good.

[malthaussen]

7. Stipulate that this is true

What's the cure? Or should we not wish to cure it?

-- Mal

[IDemo]

10. Stipulate which - the human brain structure, or that violence feels good?

The first part is well documented science. The reptilian or "R complex" portion of our brains controls those fight-or-flight (and other) impulses.

That the development of the the forebrain has expanded upon the reach of our underlying aggressions seems just self obvious, although I'm sure there exist abundant studies on this as well. That we as a society at large have also been able to use conscious thought to control aggressive behaviors should be pointed out. But our culture is saturated with violence based on Otherism - everything from crime, to warfare, to violent sports. It permeates our existence through nationalism, tribalism, racism, misogyny, caste systems and class war. Humanity plain and simple does not like or trust those defined as not One of Us, and is not hesitant to employ violence to make the point.

It's this aspect that would make me wary about us venturing to the stars without a cure, as you call it. I would guess that within this century, barring a total collapse, science will discover or fashion a cure of some type - either through genetics or hi-tech, or a combination. But there may also be a movement along the lines of a "Prime Directive" which demands that no fundamental changes be allowed to our basic nature. I tend to think that if and when the above cures are effected, there will be a divergence of human states rather than a single all-or-nothing branch.

I'll be long gone before then in any case!

[malthaussen]

15. I was thinking more along the lines of a social "cure,"

... since I am leery of tampering with human nature. Call me a Luddite, I don't tend to trust scientists any more than the politicians who fund them. I too anticipate being long gone before any such treatment is developed, although one never can predict when genious will make a breakthrough.

As a digression, I've always wondered why the instinct is referred to as "fight or flight," since it seems to me there is a third F involved -- "freeze." Although one might argue that freezing is preparatory to fighting or fleeing.

Curiously, although inevitably, since all conduct is subject to the tyranny of the bell-curve, some individuals are more capable of controlling their violent tendencies than others. Moreover, our society appears to preach a double standard, claiming that the ideal is to eschew violence while actually condoning it. One might argue that this is simply a mechanism to increase the pool of victims for the predatory class. I would note, also, that not only does society "control" aggressive behaviors, as you point out, but that it in fact directs them. Clearly human societies will execute violence upon anyone not perceived as part of the group, however the group is defined. Arguably, this kind of group violence contributes in some way to species survival. But if this is true, why object to it?

-- Mal

[RZM]

22. Chimps can be quite violent with one another

And they are our closest relatives.

[malthaussen]

23. Yeah, apes even make war on other apes

Shocking, just shocking.

-- Mal

[hobbit709]

3. Because basically we are killer apes.

[TNLib]

8. It's that whole survival of the fittest thing that we have instilled in our culture.

The reall problem is we used to have laws that protected people and now those protections are being stripped away.

[malthaussen]

9. But the question is, if you want to buy the Social Darwinism line

Last edited Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)

... are such protections pro-survival, or contra?

-- Mal

[TNLib]

13. They are pro-survival

The world is filled with violent assholes that's not going to change anytime soon.

In a civilized society Laws are made to protect innocent victims from criminals not to help the criminals victimize innocent people.

[Ron Green]

14. Pro- for the individual or clan, perhaps,

but certainly contra- for society as a whole.

[malthaussen]

16. Which leads us to the question...

... is life a zero-sum game?

The human ideal is to use our intellect to overcome our instincts. The counter-argument is that Mother Nature knows best. Ultimately, we are left in the position of Zeno the stoic -- condemned to flog that puppy even if it makes no sense.

-- Mal

[BlueIris]

11. Good OP with essential question, but I wish you'd been able to write it without

referring to a female sexual assault victim as a "poor...schmuckette."

[gratuitous]

12. We don't just condone violence, it's our national religion

Violence is our god, and we have a faith in it that would put a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, Baha'i, or any other person of faith to shame. We absolve violence of all negative consequences it produces. We blame the victim for walking into the wrong neighborhood or wearing the wrong clothes or founding their country over our oil. Violence works, and we use it as a first resort, last resort, and every resort in between. If violence fails to achieve the end, we either adjust our end or apply more violence. Usually we apply more violence.

When violence is visited upon us, however, we immediately assume the mantle of aggrieved victim, set upon by savages, or Communists, or terrorists, who only understand one thing: Violence. And so we give it to them until one side or the other has (temporarily) had its fill.

Why is it this way, instead of any other way? Because violence is attractive, seductive, and provides some kind of deep-seated release in our psyche. If you advocate for a non-violent approach to a problem, you can count on being ridiculed, and probably the next subject of violence, just to show you that we mean business when it comes to violence. It's been such a feature of our existence and our society for so long, we almost don't even recognize it any more.

As such, the winners in our society got to their position in some measure by inflicting violence on others. Why change a winning formula? And these forces are very powerful, dominating our national discourse. They continue to exercise their hegemony by encouraging citizens to be suspicious of one another. Is someone getting something they don't deserve? We know "those people" are shiftless and lazy; so why is he driving such a nice car? And it's to their advantage (though certainly not to the advantage of the hoi polloi) to have people at each other's throats, hostile toward anyone who can be differentiated, not one of "us," a constantly shifting and re-framed concept.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Isaac Asimov

[malthaussen]

18. But Ikey was wrong.

Violence is the last refuge of the competent. It is the first refuge of the incompetent.

-- Mal

[lunatica]

19. I certainly don't disagree with you

I've wondered the same thing myself all my life. Perhaps it takes more work to think and consider than it does to lash out with violent intent.

[Odin2005]

20. IMO the problem is the popular belief in the need to "let off steam"

As if violent tendencies were like a pressure build-up that needs to be released and that "repressing" it is bad.

In fact "letting off steam" actually makes you MORE LIKELY to act violently in the future.

When being "uninhibited" becomes a fetish of a society, don't be surprised when people start acting like wild beasts.

[Johnny Rico]

21. It's part of the human condition.

See my sig line.

[malthaussen]

24. Laws are formulated to regulate the human condition

Your answer does not address the question.

-- Mal

[Johnny Rico]

25. Laws which frequently regulate violence rather than prohibit it.

We condone violence because it's frequently the most rational solution to a problem.

[malthaussen]

26. Still not satisfactory

Since violence was hardly rational in any of the cases I cited.

And that word "rational," very tricky. According to the Randites, rational self-interest means that self-sacrifice is irrational. Not only would Mr Heinlein disagree, but there have been studies that suggest that self-sacrifice is actually pro-survival rather than contra.

Supposing you and I were to disagree, it would be rational for me to kill you, insofar as I would then no longer have to deal with the problems caused by your disagreement. That bare "rationality" would, however, be qualified by the fact that society has promulgated laws which stipulate penalties for myself if I kill you without being able to show sufficient cause. So when you speak of "rationality," what you are really speaking of is "a certain value of rationality."

-- Mal

[Johnny Rico]

27. You mentioned war, and war is sometimes (certainly not always) a rational choice.

As for rationality vs. "a certain value of rationality.", it seems like quibbling to me...but I'll grant the point.

While Heinlein & Rand had some points in common, I'll take Heinlein over her any day.

[malthaussen]

28. You and Prof de la Paz both

War aside, however, I was musing more about interpersonal violence and what benefit our society might derive from seemingly encouraging it.

As for Rand... she is one of the best arguments for abortion I can conceive.

-- Mal

[handa]

35. It's a very American thing

When you say "we", you really mean the people and culture of the United States of America. And I am by no means saying that American society is the ONLY violent culture, but let's make sure we're being clear here: Other civlized nations do NOT condone violence in the way you describe.

I'm not talking about fiction on TV, or movies, or music. That's just entertainment, and even the peaceful people in Finland enjoy a good slasher flick. But unlike Americans, they're capable of separating it from real life.

American culture is violent. Lots of gun worship, lots of war worship. Everything is a "war". War on drugs, war on crime, war on terror, war on this war on that. Being a bully is normal and cool and being bullied is "part of growing up". Americans are outraged over anything sexual, but shrug off violence like it's nothing. School shootings aren't even newsworthy anymore.

Why are you so violent? Hell if I know.

[malthaussen]

37. Well, now, depends on your perspective

The USA is the child of Europe. A casual glance at European history will show that the cult of violence was well and truly alive there until the most recent global military catastrophe (WWII, if I am obscure) apparently sickened them of the game -- although I have seen alarmist reports that another European war is not out of the question. And it is not just in the US that rape was a tort until relatively recently in historical terms. And will you deny that Europe has long prospered by subjugating other peoples not fortunate enough to possess the Maxim gun, and by extracting the products of their toil and the blood of their children? And for what in return? Christianity and the privilege of "exporting Adam Smith to the heathen?"

You will get no argument from me that in the US, the cult of violence has been pushed to extremes not endorsed by other "civilized" countries (however much they may profit, directly or indirectly, from our violence). But unless I misremember me, it was a European, and a man of the cloth at that, who said "Kill them all, God shall know his own."

-- Mal

[flvegan]

42. At what point do you prove the assertion that "we condone violence" please?

[malthaussen]

45. At no point

The purpose of the post was not to prove a point, but to ask a question. If you disagree with the underlying stipulation, then obviously the question will be without meaning to you.

-- Mal

[JonLP24]

43. Are you referring to that asshole Jim Rome?

If it is that, he kept calling Jim Everett, "Chris" Everett after the female tennis player. Never mind that what Jim did is wrong but Rome should have apologized for that as well as to women for insulting a male by suggesting he's a woman.

[malthaussen]

46. Thanks for refreshing my memory

Never could remember that little punk's name.

But I wonder if you do not demonstate my question in your response? Because Mr Rome was an "asshole," we should "never mind" that Mr Everett assaulted him? It's a conventional opinion -- after all, Mr Rome was made to apologize and was fired. Clearly, insulting a quarterback is a much more serious offense than being beaten up by one.

-- Mal

[JonLP24]

48. I said what he did was wrong

a long with Jim Rome.

[malthaussen]

50. You did say it was wrong

... but you proposed no penalty, whereas you did say Mr Rome should have been penalized.

-- Mal

[JonLP24]

52. Did Rome want to press charges?

If yes, then there should be a penalty.

[chnoutte]

44. America has been at war for about 212 years out of its 236 year existence

That is way America condones violence.

We also allow war criminals to walk around free with the protection of the Federal Government.