Talk:Violence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A major A******!!

What's with that line? Was Mr. Prescott in fact a major sshole, or is this phrase somehow associated with his work?

Stubbiness

This article is listed as a stub. Given that the nature of the topic itself begs for a dictionary definition with links to articles on types of violence, and since that's what we've got here, can we consider removing the stub designation? I.e., how much on the notion of violence itself, in the abstract, can be written here? GeeZee 21:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I just divided the topic a bit, I feel quite a bit can be said on the sociology of violence, or it's place in the media, etc. How about removing the "stub" and adding an "needs attention" template ? I found this page as it was top of the list of wikipedia:most wanted stubs. Flammifer 08:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additional Additions

I went ahead and added a paragraph about violence in today's culture. I don't think I did it justice, and expansion of this aspect of violence would be appreciated.

Note that this isn't necessarily to the United States' opinion on violence, but possibly the way violence is viewed abroad.

Caeonosphere 21:26, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

The Basic Definition.

I went ahead and added some qualifying statements where the definition of violence relates to inanimate and/or property. I felt this completely necessary as in my own experience violence is not an objective fact but a function also of intent, most especially in the realms of those things which are not living organisms. Specifically I cite the example of flag burning--some may burn national flags to harm onlookers sense of safety and security(this in and of itself, an act violent only as a function of the reaction, is questionable to my mind, but I believe this observation to be too tenuos), whereas some may burn flags to destroy a vexing(in much the same vein as destroying injuring machinery) symbol. Though it pains me to admit, I know that this veiw is not popularly held, regardless I felt it necessary to at least allow the reader to know currently that there is a controversy. Please give constructive criticism, especially if my qualifications of violence resemble in any way creationists debilitation of evolution. I would just like to make clear in the case that i have not done so already, I have only added these specific qualifications to more wholly encompass a common definition of violence.

Also I expanded the definition of structural violence to include, classism, elitism, and ethnocentrism. Further, I believe I have depoliticized the definition with the removal of the term "regime", and expanded to social structures and institutions. Consequently I think this definition is more rich in meaning. As stated above I am open to constructive criticism...

...but not elitism(light hearted sarcasm).

Another interesting definition of "violence" appears to have originated with Johan Galtung. Violence is any action that prevents another human from reaching their full potential. This definition focuses on human behavior. Natural disasters and the effect of natural forces are destructive and potentially injurious but would not be characterized as an act of violence using this definition. If a person (or a group of people) acts in a manner that limits the growth of another person (physically, mentally, emotionally, developmentally,...), it would be considered a form of violence.

Willingly ingesting substances that damage one's physical and mental abilities would be characterized as self-inflicted violence. Because all children require assistance physically and mentally to develop into a self-sufficient and enabled adults, the lack of proper nutrients, clean air and water, health care, and educational opportunities are considered to be forms of "structural violence" by responsible adults under this definition. Because humans are typically socially connected beings, actions considered to be non-physical such as isolation, ostracism, denigration, intimidation, bullying, exaggeration of perceived danger, etc. that traumatize and detract from future growth would also be considered forms of violence.

Negative Peace is often considered as the lack of violence. But there are other perspectives including: "Peace is a never ending process... it is an attitude, a way of life, a way of solving problems and resolving conflict." Oscar Arias Sanchez, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. Positive peace is considered to be the opposite of violence or actions that promote and provide opportunities for human growth. Measures of the peacefulness of a society would then be the lack of violence AND the presence of adequate food, clothing, and shelter as well as educational opportunities, meaningful employment, and recreational opportunities that allow a person to pursue their potential.

Public Health: Edit

I removed the sentence "Violence is a serious public health concern.", because it seemed to biased a phrasing regardless of the fact that I as well hold this opinion. I also renamed this section "Health and Wellness" as "public Healt" is just as assumptive and biased. In keeping with NPOV standards I think my edits are appropriate.

3rd paragraph

How is "moral relativism typically associated with nationalism"? I would think it would be the opposite, if anything. Zafiroblue05 00:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Journalism

In specific regard to warfare, journalism, because of its increasing capability, has served to make matters of violence which were once in the domain of the military into moral matters within the domain of the society at large.

Ok. Garbage. Please, somebody more sober than I delete or fix this crap!

I am editing the following

Violence is not necessarily criminal, the argument that could support this is largely circular.

I propose that of course their are forms of violence viewed as completely moral and ethical, for instance war is violent, most often times, regardless of what detractors would like one to believe war is not largely veiwed as criminal by the majority instigating it. It is however still a form of violence.

I am removing the term criminal from the firt lines of the entry.

additionally the following two entries are out of place in the begining and seem to be somewhat leading/awkward, please find a suitable home for them.

    =out of place=

In specific regard to warfare, journalism, because of its increasing capability, has served to make matters of violence which were once in the domain of the military into moral matters within the domain of the society at large.

     =out of place=

Transculturation, due to modern technology, has served to diminish the moral relativism typically associated with nationalism, and in this general context an international "nonviolence" movement has gained in social prominence.

--talonxpool