Should we retool our response to intimate relationship violence?

@Setanta,

Quote:

Conflict and violence are two entirely different matters. Not that i'd expect you to understand that.

The difference is in degrees only. One man's freedom fighter is a terrorist to another....the classifications are wholly subjective. We should be able to talk about why we classify as we do, and question if there is a better way to do things. Not to you though, right? You have your mind made up and according to you everyone must agree with you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

not appear in the article, and can only be your own addition to the topic. Once again, by inference, you are suggesting that society's response to domestic violence ought to be reconsidered. Therefore, any claim that you have not "voiced" your opinion is bullshit.

Yes, I do think that we should reconsider what we are doing, though I have given no opinion of what it is that we should be doing. Maybe we should continue as we have. I also do make the claim that failure to transmit our values to the next generation is a failure of this one, and I do lay blame for this at the feet of those who have an adolescent world view when it comes to sex and relationship, and unwisely advocate for using the criminal justice system to attempt to further their agenda.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I do have my mind made up about violence, which says absolutely nothing about conflict. The difference between conflict and violence is not a difference of degree, and of course the difference is a subjective judgment--all of society's laws are based on subjective judgment. I disagree with you vehemently, our views are in conflict. I have not the slightest interest in working any violence on you, and have the sense to know that violence is the worst form of conflict resolution. To quote Isaac Asimov, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Your nonsense about a difference of degree is equivalent to claiming that between badminton and total war there is just a difference of degree. People come into conflict with one another many times every day--overwhelmingly, people do not resort to violence. The resort to violence is almost always a sign that an individual has a pathological inability to control him- or herself, and society has every right to intervene to protect the aggregate from the individual. Once again, you attempt to imply that people don't want to discuss such things, but that's just what everyone has been doing.

I haven't objected to questioning the state of affairs, but i have (justifiably) ridiculed you for using a survey of teenagers' attitudes toward an incident of abuse between two celebrities as a basis to claim that the system is somehow unjust. But i don't mind at all that you don't agree with me--it doesn't change the fact that the law will not long tolerate domestic violence from you, or anyone else.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I do indeed have an opinion on sex law, though not the one that you claim that I do. I any case I have no opinion in what to do about domestic violence, nor have I voiced an opinion.

Pardon?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You haven't demonstrated that one generation has failed to transmit it's values to the next generation. All you've done is to attempt to wing it on the basis of a survey of the reaction of teenagers to a case of abuse between celebrities. Unsurprisingly, you don't seem to understand that the fact that this refers to an incident between celebrities removes it from the realm of teenagers' opinions about matters in their everyday lives. You continue to deny that you are giving your opinion, but then make remarks such as this:

Quote:

. . . unwisely advocate for using the criminal justice system to attempt to further their agenda.

--it apparently doesn't occur to you that using the term "unwisely" is the rendering of a judgment. Working to establish and maintain a civil society which does not tolerate violence is not only not unwise, it is also not furthering an "agenda"--it is maintaining a social contract. The prevention of capricious and self-interested violence is just about the oldest aspect of social contracts. Once again, i don't expect you to understand that--it is plain from this, as well as so many other stalking horses of yours that you are incapable of distinguishing between freedom and license.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Not necessarily, it could mean that the kids don't agree with the claim that there is a huge difference between what the adults call normal and fair conflict, and what the adults call abusive conflict. We are all free to draw the line where we think is correct, there is no way to force others to agree with were we have personally or as a society decided the line should be. Relationships normally contain conflict, those in which all conflict is avoided are some of the most unhealthy relationships around. Once we understand that then separating fair/unfair gets to be subjective, and up to each person to decide for themselves.

(You're kidding aren't you? You believe they think disfiguring a face is 'fair conflict'?)

Quote:

46 percent said Rihanna was responsible for what happened

Hawkeye, the only thing your response shows is that you too don't understand the difference between contributing circumstances and responsibility. If you did, there is no way you could possibility write the above response, which is irrelevant to the subject of responsibility.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

it apparently doesn't occur to you that using the term "unwisely" is the rendering of a judgment. Working to establish and maintain a civil society which does not tolerate violence is not only not unwise, it is also not furthering an "agenda"--it is maintaining a social contract. The prevention of capricious and self-interested violence is just about the oldest aspect of social contracts. Once again, i don't expect you to understand that--it is plain from this, as well as so many other stalking horses of yours that you are incapable of distinguishing between freedom and license.

society dictates what shall be deemed fair and acceptable forms of conflict and conflict resolution, but this changes with the times, with the sensibilities of the population. It appears that the youth don't accept their parents positioning of the line, which is worthy of note.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

Hawkeye, the only thing your response shows is that you too don't understand the difference between contributing circumstances and responsibility. If you did, there is no way you could possibility write the above response, which is irrelevant to the subject of responsibility.

I am not the one who was talking about responsibility, it was in the quoted article. Unless you can show why the theory of personal responsibility is critical to the question at hand I am going with my feeling that it is a blind alley. We are talking about violence in intimate relationship, and I am asking if our approach of trying to law and order the problem away is working. As a person who is aware of the interconnectedness of all things and of the melding of two into one in union I don't have much interest in playing the blame game upon those who end up in this situation. Blaming the individual gets silly at some point. If you want to talk about blame you could just as well blame all of society, for not doing a better job of raising kids into adults who don't fall into violence.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I am not the one who was talking about responsibility, it was in the quoted article.

Ummm...you using the article to support your position for a 'retooling of our repsonse to domestic violence'? The article is about teenagers perceptions, and the central perception is about responsibility, as quoted.

Quote:

We are talking about violence in intimate relationship, and I am asking if our approach of trying to law and order the problem away is working.

Do you suggest that there be no laws against Domestic Violence?

Quote:

As a person who is aware of the interconnectedness of all things and of the melding of two into one in union I don't have much interest in playing the blame game upon those who end up in this situation.

Once again, your answer goes to show that you do not understand the difference between contributing circumstances and responsibility...neither of which (when understood) are about blame.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

society dictates what shall be deemed fair and acceptable forms of conflict and conflict resolution, but this changes with the times, with the sensibilities of the population.

I've already pointed out that violence and conflict are not synonymous. Society always has and always will "deem" violence to be unacceptable. This is part and parcel with the idiotic proposition that there is some kind of qualitative difference between public violence and violence in private--there isn't, and your continued use of the lame-brained term "intimate violence" won't change that.

Quote:

It appears that the youth don't accept their parents positioning of the line, which is worthy of note.

So what? Are you so immature that you consider the opinions of teenagers to be valid guides for the behavior of adults? "Youth" doesn't readily accept being told not to drive fast, which doesn't alter that you are five times more likely to be involved in an accident if you are in a vehicle being driven by a teenager. "Youth" doesn't accept prohibitions from their parents on smoking, alcohol abuse and drug abuse. Do you seriously consider that to be a plausible basis for objecting to society's controls on tobacco, alcohol and drugs?

Who gives a flying f*ck what teenagers do or don't like? Time enough for them to act as they choose when they attain their majority, at which point they can take their chances with the consequences of flouting the law.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Society always has and always will "deem" violence to be unacceptable.

Surely this needs more explanation before it can be considered to contain any measure of veracity.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

Once again, your answer goes to show that you do not understand the difference between contributing circumstances and responsibility...neither of which (when understood) are about blame

Please explain. From where I sit assigning responsibility is the process of assigning blame.

I don't know what should be done, thus I am asking questions. But any kind of abuse registers to me as a spiritual problem....any abuse is proof of a spiritual problem with-in the individuals engaged in it as well as in the society at large if abuse is prevalent. I have seen abuse all my life, and I have come to the conclusion that the law is ill suited for dealing with the problem, or preventing the problem. Abuse prevention and healing must take place in the medical system and/or the church I think. How that happens in America where the medical system is already broken and where the churches have almost no influence on the society anymore I don't know. Thus, maybe a the law and order route which we can see from evidence does not work very well is still the best of several bad choices....I don't know. I am asking questions here.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hi Hawkeye,

Responsibility for an action is present whether the action is good, bad, or neutral. Blame for an action only uccurrs if someone finds an action (or result of action) bad. In this way, responsibility and blame are drastically different. Responsibility isn't about blame, it's simply about owning your own decisions & actions...all decisions, not just bad ones.

Blame loads all the 'cause' onto one person (thereby usually hiding/ignoring contributing circumstances). Responsibility just says 'the decision to do your action was your decision'. Accepting responsibility for your actions does not mean you can't look at contributing circumstances (whereas people tend to become uninterested in contributing circumstances after blame is assigned)

Blame is often irrational, and often based on emotions. Contributing cirumstances is purely a breakdown of the contributions made by each person (actions, reasoning, perceptions, emotions etc) and the environment (resources, physical environment, dangerous/hazards, etc) to the eventual outcome. From this perspective, understanding contributing circumstances works much better at problem solving than blame does...and lets face it, if you are blamed for something, and there were many contributing circumstances that had nothing to do with you...would you feel justified in being 'solely to blame'? Is it even necessary to blame? (the answer to that btw, is 'no it's not')

ie. Blame doesn't take into account contributing circumstances...where lots of people can contribute towards an outcome (otherwise in a two person conflict, both would see themselves to blame...it happens occasionally, but that is rare - more common is the victim mentality)

Blame allows people to play the victim role (if the person is involved and blaming another), rather than looking at all roles (contributing circumstances), their own included.

In very few instances is blame ever actually helpful. Acknowledgement for ones one self responsibility (for your own actions), and ones contribution to an outcome (when considered as part of a whole amongst other contributing circumstances) works much better.

0 Replies

I think hawkeye uses this forum as a testing ground, a practice arena, for swaying people who don't yet have the ability to take a firm stand.

If he can manage to engage adults and engage them in muddled debate, imagine what he could do with someone who needs the opinions of others to decide what to wear that day.

0 Replies

Are you sayin' his Mama dresses him funny?

0 Replies

Should we retool our response to intimate relationship violence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know