what would your reaction have been had he beat her so bad, that she died of her injuries?
Is that a case of survival of the fittest?

I met a guy in an institution once. His best friend slept with his girlfriend. He lost it and beat his best friend into a bloody pulp. He ended up in a coma because of it. He got 3 years in jail and 6 months in an institution.

Do you understand that besides the morality of violence, there are actually severe consequences and risks of permanent and serious harm that could become of it?

No excuses because in the end, it was his decision. Good thing about the guy is that he did his time and took it with respect, understood that despite his anger, he let himself lose control and this was the result. He became such a calm guy afterwards. Really nice dude.

Edit: I'd also like to add that if you get provoked or have anger issues, it's really your problem whether you let it get to you or not. Nobody else. There's a problem with you if you're letting yourself give into cravings because you smoke, not the cigarettes'. Don't blame the woman because you can't control your dick. Don't blame the heroin because you're a junkie.

No, I'm not trying to be controversial. I don't understand this logic.

Do you spend you free time lecturing cheetahs on the feelings of gazelles?

edit: seriously, what's being proposed is, in effect, two different theories of dealing with disparitys in power; (1) the strong shouldn't use their strength to their own advantage, & (2) the weak shouldn't put themselves in situations wherein they rely on the good graces of the strong....

It may not be a perfect analogy, but it's the idea behind the analogy.

Cause it's the only thing keeping a 6'6" brick ****house from caving in your skull and taking all your stuff. This is civilization 101 we're talking here. If you don't get that, then you should go live in a shack in the woods and eat berries.

??? wtf i didn't say that ****.

Ok class, lets take out our dictionaries, and please look up the word "Sympathy". Now, who'd like to read the definition of the word "Sympathy" for me, hmm? Ok, Bunny go ahead.

Oops! I guessed I messed up the quotes. Don't know how your name got in there. That was supposed to be my quote.

haha yeah i was noticing that was your quote too, weird.

Oh, okay, I see now. I didn't realize that not being allowed to savagely beat people was a "handicap".

So let's get this straight, if a big mean motherfucker decides to come to your shack one day and then decides he doesn't like you and then proceeds to beat seven buckets of crap out you. Do you after regaining consciousness think 1) I feel greatly aggrieved and will report him for what he's done and get some justice done or 2) Feel greatly aggrieved but accept it, as he was stronger than you and a natural justice has been served. because the strong should always dominate the weak?

The "strong" should have a moral obligation not to abuse those weaker than they are, and to use the power they could physically exercise over another responsibly, with self control, reason, and rationality.

It's not a Christian thing. Unless you have absolutely zero morals (and altruistic behavior arises naturally, not as a result of religion.) then showing restraint and not beating the living shit out of another person, weaker or stronger, male or female, shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. This kind of violence almost always arises as an emotional reaction. The girl in this video pissed the little cuntfaced wannabe gangster fuckwad off and he reacted like the immature little waste of cum that he his because he couldn't control his emotions. Nobody is out there "handicapping" physically imposing people, telling them not to react certain ways, not to use their strength. Nobody has to. It's a commonly held belief throughout most human cultures that to act violently and aggressively is reprehensible. To act violently and aggressively at those who can't defend themselves is seen in an even more negative light because the aggressor is usually not seriously threatened physically, thus the action of attack is unnecessary.

People frown on the strong abusing the weak because they have morals.

Why don't you ask him about the black men who beat him up at a gig

What gig was that?:yikes: I guess he must have mentioned it on MB.

Yeah, I vaguely remember him using as a justification for his racism at some point a while back.

I can remember him about a year ago commenting on a gig he went to, where he got out of his head and proceeded to do "Sieg Heils" before he blacked out or something, maybe this was the same gig.

So he's now racist, sexist and unsympathetic?

idk man, it seems like you could make that claim for just about any mentality that humans exhibit, tendencies towards violence, manipulation, greed, anger, abuse, etc. the norm isn't all that "moral" in reality, at least in my experience. humans are a perverse and constantly morally devolving species to be quite honest, and it's nothing to be ashamed about for having a different viewpoint. we are not at all "moral" in one absolute way, especially not leaning towards logic naturally or intrinsically. yes we may have cognitive problem solving skills and a capacity for emotional development, it is rare that we see other species develop the same type of moral codes just by their nature. i just think that our social and communicative relationships influence our morality more than our DNA, no matter how much pseduo-geneticists would like to deny it.

Why your analogy doesn't work:

1. cheetahs and gazelles don't congregate together
2. cheetahs and gazelles don't engage petty arguments
3. gazelles don't wind up cheetahs by calling them "dumb ass"
4. gazelles don't slap cheetahs
5. cheetahs don't pounce on gazelles because that's how they want to settle an argument

It's just odd in a thread that deals with a guy beating up a girl. They're ok to ask if you were pursuing them as philosophical questions, but I can't see proporting them as theories to defend the violent behaviour of lil Reese.

Well, there are a number of good arguments for altruism arising as an evolved trait on the genetic level, but I do understand your point. Really, it's hard to gauge, as there really isn't any animal more intelligent than us. That's our thing. It seems likely to me that the reason we've come up with advanced codes of law and morality on the group level is precisely because we're genetically hardwired to, but I'm no anthropologist or evolutionary biologist. However, it really doesnt change things. Even if what we call "morality" evolved soley at the group level, and acknowledging the fact that all of our definitions of morality vary, I still would make the case that a reasoned, rational morality based on non violence and being civilized is beneficial to our survival as species. I would also assert this as being superior to most religious moralities as it isn't based on superstitous and petty restrictions which don't withstand critical thought.

In any case, I wouldn't say religion is necessarily the origin of rooting for the underdog, which I guess was HHBH's original assertion. Protecting the defenseless goes back to hammurabi's code and certainly spans holy books the world over. I think it's a reaction evolved very early on in the most primitive groups. Cooperation is key to group survival, after all. We've never been a species to disregard the weak amoung us. We've used and usurped the weak by asserting dominance in positions of power and leadership, but generally not abandoned them. I'd say this is a trait we have in common with our ancestors, as many of our cousins display altruism.

??? When did that ever happen?

I'd remind you when most people say they support "non-violence", in this culture, they're lying. What most people consider as violence is only that which falls outside the intersection of officially sanctioned violence & popularly supported violence.

Calling the police on someone is an act of violence, incarcerating someone is an act of violence, and taxation is an act of violence. What differentiates these from smacking girls is the level of popularity of each & the lack or presence of official sanctioning.



Hierarchy is based on inequality of power and the greater the hierarchy, the greater the inequality. In other words, hierarchy is based on violence & the threat of violence.

Now, yes, there is a dialectic between compassion & terror in such hierarchys; however, what you're ignoring is that the compassion was community specific, and that the notion of compassion for everyone the world over is entirelly new and rooted in Christian superstition.

There's a very simple way to explain this, and here it is:

Would YOU want this little rapper twat beating up your girlfriend/wife/sister/friend? Would YOU justify it, accept it, see it in any other light than "I'm gonna kill that ****er??"


I rest my case. The guy's a waste of skin.

The difference is that power structures based on some threat of violence reinforce society, whereas allowing anybody with bigger muscles to pick on the weak undermine society. I mean...duh.

Things I've learned from this thread: HHBH doesn't know what the word "violence" means.

New as in, over two thousand years old? Christ man, even the Romans and the Visigoths looked after their own people, and the strong protected the weak. Trying to say that basic human compassion is a Christian (with a capital C) invention is just, well, insane.

So you think governments in democracies sanction violence on their own population?

With reasoning like this, I'm lost for words......How does somebody even try an get inside that brain of yours, give it a good shake and hopefully start to find some level ground with you. You actually sound like one of these fanatical redundant Trotskyists that were common here at student gatherings in the 1970s and 1980s, but of course you couldn't be, you're about as far right as they were left.

Something that makes a bit more sense. But of course it depends on what type of political hierarchy you're talking about.

Unless your're willing to explain this dialectic in more detail, what you've written above is complete gibberish.

I would say VIOLENCE is never a good thing on any case.

How is calling the police on someone an act of violence??? :confused:

Never thought a thread that has a simple grasp of a situation could turn out to be so complicated and confusing. :/

If they're like the Gestapo or the NKVD, then it's like an act of violence, but in normal countries no.

Whenever HHBH enters a thread, the simple quickly becomes the complicated and nobody leaves any the wiser.

slightly off topic, but also interesting, chief keif(lil reeses gang affiliate) also made jokes over the murder of lil jojo(rival gang) on twitter. Supposedly there is a video of Keif pointing at jojo's house, and the next day he was murdered.

I know its sadistic, but i like this refreshing honesty coming from a rapper. It's almost reminiscent of early NWA. Granted some pretty ****ed up **** is happening

Sometimes the police can be part of the problem. Just saying.

Refreshing honesty?
What are you injecting yourself with Sparky?

NWA were a bunch of fronters, trying play the part, same with Reese. You don't buy this posturing 'gangsta' bull sh/t do you?

Thank you. They were as much gangsta as Ozzy Osbourne was a satanist.

He means that calling the police is using potential violence to solve a dispute, since in any dispute, the police ultimately back up their authority with guns.

That's not really true since not all police carry guns. And even if they did, it still doesn't make calling the police an act of violence.

Um...that's my point. Police carry guns as a threat of violence. If you call the police, then you are calling in an armed force to use violence or the threat of violence to restore order.

Like I said before, not all police carry guns. But even if they did, calling them is only an act of violence if you completely redefine the meaning of the phrase "act of violence" to the point where it no longer has any meaning.

My mistake, I didn't see the "don't" in your post, but even if all police don't have guns, they still must use some form of violence to subdue someone if it comes to that. It certainly isn't the sort of violence that this Lil Reese clown used, but I wasn't defending HHBH's argument anyway, just clarifying his point on police and violence.

It has the potential to undermine society it such "pick[ing] on" goes against how that society is set up. All hierarchical societies are based on exploiting the weak, whether those within their own society (see slavery) or those without (see imperialism).

This is why notions that the Romans (or any other ancient civilization, really) had some sort of universal compassion is absurd. Consider that violence in these societies often had an economic role (such as in imperialism & slavery), as well as a cultural component - such as in the coliseum, for example.

Of course democracies sanction violence against their own. How would you characterize what happens to prisoners as anything but violent? Or do people cease to be part of the population the moment they are incarcerated?