Is violence ever necessary?

Question

I can't believe I get 26 answers but only one star.

Still only one star. Whoever stars my question has a higher chance of being picked best answer.

Answer 1

May i suggest you use answers to have fun and discovery instead of just point scoring? You will get much much more out of it if you do that !!!

You just cant guarantee points becasue you cannot predict or control people's views !
Just enjoy and keep on asking and answering!
In answer to your question, ... only as a form of personal defence if absolutely unavoidable.

Answer 2

No it's not but humans are hostile creatures by nature. Most are driven by greed. Some would argue this but even the best of us get pulled in by dreams of wealth and power sometimes. This leads to what we see every day. Countrys that will do anything for power. There have been people who have worked against conflict. John Lennon is one of them. Even so there is a very long ways to go before peace can ever be found. As it stands we let the power hungery warlords run the countrys while the civilised people have no say.

Answer 3

Violence is never necessary. Think of violence as if you or somebody else was to be on a diet and they have that one special food that is their number one weakness. "Oh just a little bit!!" They would say. So violence is there for you to take action of it, just like the food, but you need to try to stay away from it, like the dieter trying to stay away from the food. Violence will always be there for you to decide whether or not you want to use it but you are your own choice maker. So if you think violence is necessary go ahead, use it but you will always know deep down that you used it and you will feel bad about it. In your heart you learn on your own violence is NOT necessary.

Answer 4

Of course! I'd get violent in a big hurry if someone was hurting someone I love. That would include blowing them up in a building with an air plane. You have to draw a line in the sand at some point or only the evil ones will survive. It's bad when the good do nothing. Good Luck and God Bless

Answer 5

I say the answer is no. There is always a non violent solution. Violence does alot more bad than good. I am yet to see any positive outcome from any form of violence in any situation.

Answer 6

I'm one of those "mentally ill" liberals that a few people on here have mentioned (nice to see that you fight fair, no mud-slinging or whatnot), and I have to say: Yes, violence is necessary. Sometimes, it's the only thing that'll get the point across. Prime example is my dog: He craps on the rug, I smack him, he doesn't crap on the rug anymore.

I know that sounds mean, but I love my dog, and he deserves to be smacked half tthe time (if not more).

Answer 7

Of course.
"Violence" is a perfectly natural act. It is entirely normal to hunt and kill prey in order to eat it..... It is entirely normal to beat the living crap out of a rival to demonstrate one's dominance and superior genes.

But then these days we have alternatives. Afterall, humans have become so emotionally insecure that I can actually talk some potential "rivals" into killing themselves, saving me the trouble entirely. Why would I want to risk my own body on direct violence against someone when I can trick them into a weaker position by wit and wiles alone?

Answer 8

During all history ,in all parts of the world ,the violence was sometimes necessary.

Answer 9

Violence only leads to the deaths of innocent people. It never brings joy to anyone, not even to the people who follow its policy. Take the example of the British, who when ruling India killed hundreds of innocent people. They had wonderful weapons, but those weapons failed to serve them because Indians used the policy of non-violence to get rid of them. So, I conclude that violence is never necessary.

Answer 10

The answer depends entirely on your definition of "necessary." If you use the most obvious meaning -- (Merriam-Webster) as "inevitable . . . inescapable . . . logically unavoidable . . ." -- then it becomes a logical question probably answered with a "no." If you use the secondary meaning of "absolutely needed" or "required," then it becomes an ethical question open for debate.