UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP


VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTEEEEEEEEEEE


"violence doesnt solve anything "

and yet we go to war, explain that mrs former cop.

ahaha kind of fucked up that Richard the bully is going to have to live with this the rest of his life.

Violence doesn't solve anything...unless you want to eat something on this planet. We annihilate atoms just to fuel the internet, violence is all we are...all life is.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Violence doesn't solve anything...unless you want to eat something on this planet. We annihilate atoms just to fuel the internet, violence is all we are...all life is.


PREACH ON BRUTHA ! geet up on that mountain top and shout it out !!

FUCK YOUR KID LADY.

The kid got what he deserved in the fight, but if he's being vilified outside of that (and I guess the viral video makes that possible) that is not what he deserves.

Look everybody, I'm reading quotes from my smartphone! That means I understand today's youth!

You don't poke a bear with a stick either. Not only was that kid a bully, he was dumb.

>> ^BoneRemake:

UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTEEEEEEEEEEE

"violence doesnt solve anything "
and yet we go to war, explain that mrs former cop.


By the way, you forgot to quote her whole comment, which in its entirety goes:

"My message to the young people out there is that violence does not solve anything. It can get you into more trouble than what it's going to solve. [If you are being bullied] don't suffer in silence: find a trusted a adult and let them know what's going on."

So first off, your question about wars was completely off-topic. But I'll take a shot at answering it anyway.

She didn't say people were smart. She didn't say people don't ever get violent. She instead pointed out violence doesn't solve any problems. Did we solve the terrorist threat with the Iraq and Afganistan wars? Did we stop Communism with the Vietnam and Korean wars? Part of the reason Germany went to war in World War 2 was because their economy was in the crapper after World War 1 and they owed money in reparations. Did they solve that problem by getting their country bombed to rubble?

Nations go to war for many reasons. There's the ostensible reasons like "spreading freedom" that the population is forced to buy and there are the actual reasons like securing resources or the sheer madness of the country's leadership. My question for you is, at the end of the day, can you really think of a war that "solved" a problem in a way that couldn't have been solved peacefully?

"Violence doesn't solve anything." is one of the dumbest sentences ever uttered.

Violence has settled more disputes in the history of mankind than all other forces combined.

I have to completely disagree with the formation of your argument. Unfortunately, you have presented a very shallow, 1 dimensional view of violence; most would refer to it as a scarecrow. I wish to state before I go further that I wish I lived in this world you imagine. I long for a world where violence isn't an answer. Let us take on your examples one at a time, then go into the thrust of the issue.

As far as terrorism goes, it is hard to even understand what terrorism is. It isn't very rigidly defined. Is it terrorism to force people to pay taxes, or is it only when you blow them up when they aren't expecting it? Terrorism is more of a red herring word used to justify actions rather a "thing" itself. that is a dodge of the issue, but then again, so was this word all along. So lets move into some of your better examples.

Was the objective of Vietnam and Korea to stop Communism? If so, then the success rate is 50%. As far as things go in the world, those aren't terrible odds. South Korea still exists as a democracy, violence won out in that case over rivaling violence.

The world war 2 example is a curious example to use. It actually shows a different picture then I think you would like to present. In the end, Germany ended up with a ruined country, as you say. But, that is only because it met up against resistance/violence. In the end, Germany was BOMBED into submitting, not talked into it. A greater force of violence stopped the lesser source of it. It was the rule of the jungle carried out in its most prime. Countless attempts by Brittan and France to talk Germany out of taking over its neighbors had no effect, only when the grind of blood and bullets was too much for her to bear did Germany relent. Indeed, WW2 is a horrible example for you to use...probably the worst I can think of.

Instead you should of used people like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King Jr. These people were truly non-violent and changed the world. However, they are the conspicuous examples. The reason they stand out in history is because all to often, non-retaliation results in certain defeat. Look at the plight of the native Americans. While history tells the tail of all the tribes that fought, many did not. Many made deals with the White man. The history of these arrangements is grim indeed. For the White man would constantly renig the terms and send into exile the native Americans. Even the great Jefferson, the champion of democracy, sent the native Americans further and further down the trail of tears. They did not fight. The suffered...and suffered. Perhaps, if they fought, they would off been completely eradicated, so, instead, they choose exile and decimation. Which is better, I am not one to say. But surely, their non-violence did not result in one could consider a victory.

You need to remember your fathers. And I don't mean the founders of the USA. I mean 2 billion years of evolution on this planet. Humans are not some sanctimonious super being. We are composed of the same shit, sweat, and tears as everything else. The history of all animals is almost wholly violent. The lion doesn't solve his mating deputes with a rival by any other means than brutality. Your immune system doesn't win out by being less virulent than the infection it sees to mend. Your food won't survive long enough to reap if you don't stop the insects and vermin from eating it. Washing your hands is akin to mass murder of bacteria. Anti-bacterial soap is akin to genocide. But we resolve ourselves of these sins almost constantly so that we can be naive in the construction of our morality when dealing with each other. In this world, it is life for life. Nothing alive doesn't take life as well, spare most planets. Plants are only noble creation along with some fungi. Most every animal on the planet exploits unto pain through violence some other organism. herbivorous being the most foul violator eating the only noble life on the plant. Carnivores are their penitence.

This world is a cycle of pain, and its root is violence. Violence is what drives evolution forward. One of the expatiations of the Cambrian Explosion is the arrival of carnivores. And billions of years later, you stand on the top of the tradition of exploitation. And you won't be rid of it be ignoring it inside you. You might construct a society that can slowly cope and perhaps even bread out billions of years of evolution. And in perhaps 10 thousand years, you can look back and see that you reduced human violence by 20%. And that would be a great accomplishment. Only to then be wiped out by a asteroid ending all human life to be replaced by the new slug overlords. The great comedy of life is to think you can make a difference in the 80 years we have vs the billions that the history of life has been with us. Unless you are talking about complete genetic experimentation to change the face of what it means to be human, I don't see anything working. Maybe you make a government system that handles the nature of man better, but the nature of man...the 2 billion year old murder animal, is still set before you.

Like I said, I don't like this world. I would rather live in your fantasy world. A world of reason, of peace, of progress. We don't have that world. We have a world of brutal, violence. It's only true self is that of conflict and competition that is all to often violent. It the a 2 billion year old rule that we didn't make up but have had to better realize, lest make poorly designed strategy to deal with the beast that is man.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^BoneRemake:
UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTEEEEEEEEEEE

"violence doesnt solve anything "
and yet we go to war, explain that mrs former cop.

By the way, you forgot to quote her whole comment, which in its entirety goes:
"My message to the young people out there is that violence does not solve anything. It can get you into more trouble than what it's going to solve. [If you are being bullied] don't suffer in silence: find a trusted a adult and let them know what's going on."
So first off, your question about wars was completely off-topic. But I'll take a shot at answering it anyway.
She didn't say people were smart. She didn't say people don't ever get violent. She instead pointed out violence doesn't solve any problems. Did we solve the terrorist threat with the Iraq and Afganistan wars? Did we stop Communism with the Vietnam and Korean wars? Part of the reason Germany went to war in World War 2 was because their economy was in the crapper after World War 1 and they owed money in reparations. Did they solve that problem by getting their country bombed to rubble?
Nations go to war for many reasons. There's the ostensible reasons like "spreading freedom" that the population is forced to buy and there are the actual reasons like securing resources or the sheer madness of the country's leadership. My question for you is, at the end of the day, can you really think of a war that "solved" a problem in a way that couldn't have been solved peacefully?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Was the objective of Vietnam and Korea to stop Communism? If so, then the success rate is 50%.



Actually the War in Vietnam was pretty much a complete success. The idea was to make sure that Communism didn't spread...it was to show that if you consider this way of life we will visit the terrors of the earth upon you. After the Tet Offensive the business community decided that this wasn't profitable anymore and turned against the war. Many pundits wrote that the US should just claim victory since we did achieve our main objectives. So yes...2-4 million Vietnamese dead (we don't count our victims hence the 2 million discrepancy) and effects from Chemical warfare that are still being felt today through thousands of birth defects. Yeah it's not taught in schools and it's not generally accepted but we did actually win in Vietnam...but I would point out how could any human being say that it solved anything?

Depends on what you mean by solved. If you mean what it actually means, which is dealt with, then the result of any conflict must be said to be solved...as it has an end result not based on inaction. Now, as the the question of solved well, I didn't offer an opinion on that...though my general position on violence should be self evident; a reality that I hate, but is ever present and effective.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Was the objective of Vietnam and Korea to stop Communism? If so, then the success rate is 50%.


Actually the War in Vietnam was pretty much a complete success. The idea was to make sure that Communism didn't spread...it was to show that if you consider this way of life we will visit the terrors of the earth upon you. After the Tet Offensive the business community decided that this wasn't profitable anymore and turned against the war. Many pundits wrote that the US should just claim victory since we did achieve our main objectives. So yes...2-4 million Vietnamese dead (we don't count our victims hence the 2 million discrepancy) and effects from Chemical warfare that are still being felt today through thousands of birth defects. Yeah it's not taught in schools and it's not generally accepted but we did actually win in Vietnam...but I would point out how could any human being say that it solved anything?

@Ornthoron I barely understood today's youth in MY youth... Youths are fucking retarded, the lot of them.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'casey, heynes, richard, bully, mom, deserved' to 'casey heynes, richard, bully, mom, deserved' - edited by xxovercastxx

*nochannel *eia *dark *downunder *news *teens *controversy

This video has been removed from all channels (Eia, Viral, Dark, Downunder, News, Teens, Controversy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by xxovercastxx. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Dark, Downunder, Eia, News, Teens) - requested by xxovercastxx.

While the phrase "Violence never solved anything" is patently ridiculous, I think it is perfectly justified to say that a variation of the principle is true: "Violence usually causes more problems than it solves, and should be considered only as a last result."

In this particular situation, the victim behaved correctly as far as we can see. However, listen to the words coming from the "bully": "Have you been talking shit? Huh?" It is entirely possible that he brought the fight upon himself by insulting the bully behind his back. Of course that doesn't justify violent retaliation, but words can hurt, and there is no better way to incite violence than to insult an individual who lacks the intelligence to retaliate verbally.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

"Violence doesn't solve anything." is one of the dumbest sentences ever uttered.
Violence has settled more disputes in the history of mankind than all other forces combined.


Heh, yeah, it's not called "The Last Argument of Kings" for nothing.

All the adults condemning Casey's retaliation are completely insane. Any adult who'd been punched several times would have been exonerated in any court of law for tossing the guy on his noggin and walking away.