Social Question

ninjacolin's avatar

How do you fight violence?

Asked by ninjacolin (14238points) April 23rd, 2015
22 responses
“Great Question” (7points)

A recent ted talk got me thinking:

Let’s say you have a problem with people resorting to violence in your region of the country. Say it’s two rivaling, long established cultural groups or possibly even two street gangs or maybe it’s just a lot of petty crime going on. How do you stop the population from being violent to one another? How do you create peace between them?

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0


gorillapaws's avatar

You use spies to infiltrate the groups and take down the organizers.

Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One's avatar

This is not an easy question.

In my opinion it comes down to the kids. If children are raised properly, the likelihood of this sort of thing happening drops dramatically. In order for that to happen, we have to get rid of poverty. In order for that to happen, the world (collectively) has to care a little bit less about “more more more” and start being more compassionate (as Mr Haugen said).

I don’t see that happening any time soon. In fact, I’d wager that it’s going to get worse.

Personally, I think if everyone grew up in a good Christian home this sort of stuff wouldn’t be such a problem. I’m well aware that that isn’t a popular opinion. But I’m not afraid to say that it’s mine.

I’m not talking about a crazy-ass Westboro Baptist Christian home..I’m not talking about a priest molester home.. I’m talking about one where the true values and morals broached in the Bible are learned and lived. Sadly, that’s a bit rare these days.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Drone strikes seem to work really well.~

gorillapaws's avatar

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One I’m with you until you bring up the “good Christian home” thing. Christianity isn’t a magic solution to this problem. If you look back at history there have been exactly the types of conflicts described in the OP between different “good Christian” groups like Catholics vs. Protestants in Europe. The history of the US is filled with various Christian denominations that fled their homelands to America to escape religious persecution from other Christian sects.

Also, there are some questionable morals/values in the Bible, like Slavery:

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” (Exodus 21:7–11 NLT)

and rape:
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29 NLT)

There’s a lot of good stuff in the Bible, but there’s some pretty horrible stuff too. It’s overly simplistic to just say the Bible solves these types of problems by giving everyone good values.

LuckyGuy's avatar

I do not have statistics handy but I doubt the people causing problems are working 8 to 5 every day at an office.

I would require fingerprinting and drug and alcohol testing as a prerequisite to receiving public assistance of any kind. I have to do that now for my job. I am a middle aged white guy and have to work to get paid so don’t say that requirement is demeaning or discriminatory. If I want the money I have to follow the rules. So should they.
If a person fails a drug test they benefits are stopped or reduced for 2 months. If a person is convicted of a crime the benefits are stopped for 6 months to a year.

Rather than preaching Bible passages to them I would hit them financially.

Uasal's avatar

@LuckyGuy – wrong question?

LuckyGuy's avatar

@Uasal Nope. I am just thinking ahead a couple of steps. That is how I would fight violence.
I would hit the perpetrators where it hurts, financially.
I’d make the fear of losing a free ride calm the violence. Less money spent on drugs. Fewer break-ins and robberies to support drug habits. Fewer turf wars.

If I were King I’d do more. I’d make 4 hours per week of literacy classes mandatory and add 4 hours of public service time cleaning roads or highways or other projects that need to be done. I have to work a minimum 40 hours per week to get my check – so does virtually every taxpaying individual. I am asking them to work 1/10 that.
If someone does not show up for either class or work (without an approved excuse) their checks are docked 10% for a month. The time must be made up.

Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One's avatar

Those religious conflicts you’re talking about are on the Westboro Baptist Church plain. Jesus didn’t run around stabbing people because they didn’t believe in him.

As far as the biblical quotes: those are from a different time, era, and aren’t morals or values taught by the New Testament Jesus. There are a great deal of things that historical figures did that don’t make sense to us now… like wooden teeth.

As far as the actual question (so we don’t get off topic), forget about the Christian part of it if that helps you… the “moral of the story” is still there.

Grow up in a house with a loving Father & Mother.. supportive siblings.. with family members opposed to violence, drugs, rape, etc.. in a family where you are taught to work hard and earn your way for yourself. Grow up “loving your neighbor as yourself”, “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you”, and surrounding yourself by “whatsoever things are of good report”... See what happens in the control group. Just sayin.

Uasal's avatar

I’m guessing, @LuckyGuy , that you’re beginning under the assumption that the systemic violence discussed in the OP is substantially the fault of people on public assistance?

The people involved in gang turf wars aren’t concerned with a $50 a month welfare check, they’re concerned with not being disposed of by their boss if they don’t do what they’ve been told to do. The people committing petty theft to support their heroin habit aren’t out committing violence – they’re on the couch buzzed into oblivion and they haven’t eaten in a month anyway.

The ills of society cannot be blamed wholesale on the end-users of illicit drugs.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One I think we’re in agreement on those points. Once you put labels on them people of other faiths (even if they have the exact same values) will fight to the death to protect their particular label.

LuckyGuy's avatar

@Uasal I am saying much of the problem is due to drugs, lots of free time, no responsibility, an no obligation to do anything more than cashing a $400 per month check. I’m sorry if it sounds like I am picking on individuals on public assistance. However, I am willing to bet that the odds of an employed individual working 40 hours per week committing a violent crime is much lower than an unemployed individual on public assistance.
Does anyone here want to bet against me?

Maybe some researcher here will find the statistics for us.

ucme's avatar

Go neutral…move to Switzerland.

Uasal's avatar

In willing to concede the likelihood of a person being convicted of a violent crime are higher if the person is on public assistance.

Blondesjon's avatar

You don’t. The very question is a bit of an oxymoron.

You can’t fight violence because you can’t change the natural order of things. The universe is a violent fucking place and always has been.

This doesn’t mean you need to be a dick but it guarantees that somebody out there will be a dick.

LuckyGuy's avatar

@Uasal That statement is easy. The hard (politically incorrect) part is admitting my statement is true.
I contend a person working 40 hours a week will not have a much time or inclination to commit a violent act. The person with few resources, lots of time on their hands and no obligations is more likely. Sure, there will be exceptions and outliers but the smart money would bet on it.
I wish we could give it a try.

Uasal's avatar

It doesn’t take a whole lot of time to beat someone up or pull a trigger. Hell, plenty of police officers are finding the time to do it on duty!

Uasal's avatar

Wow. More gainfully employed non-drug-addicts beating the shit out of people.

Jaxk's avatar

Wow, this must be one of those ‘Think outside the Box’ solutions’. Get rid of the cops, no one ever gets arrested, and the crime rate goes down. Clever but I think the violence remains. I could be wrong.

Uasal's avatar

I never suggested removing police in total, I argued against LuckyGuy’s claim that employed people don’t commit violent acts.

Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One's avatar

(Satire Warning) Force everyone to be a cop. Then the worst you could have is a dirty cop. Since they usually steal from criminals they’d steal from themselves, arrest themselves, and go to jail themselves where they will guard each other.

Jaxk's avatar

@Uasal – I believe @LuckyGuy‘s point was that welfare increased the violent crimes, not that it was the only source. Not an especially novel idea. here is a study that shows that linkage. When you argue in absolutes, you’re shutting down discussion rather than advancing it.

Bill1939's avatar

Correlation is not the same as cause and effect. I think that the lack of employment that can provide the means to maintain a traditional family is the principle reason for rising crime in impoverished neighborhoods. If such jobs existed, fewer people would live under such circumstances and fewer would require welfare to survive. Decreasing welfare without creating jobs will only exacerbate the problem of crime.

Answer this question




to answer.

Mobile | Desktop

Send Feedback