One principle I always try to stand behind is words over weapons. I feel that in almost any situation possible, no matter what the extremes, if everyone involved followed this one principle, the situation could be resolved without the use of violence. In my opinion it's always fair, no matter how frustrated you may be with someone, to use your words before you think about violence.
The reason why I feel so strongly about this principle is because my parents made it very clear to me when I was growing up to use my words when I was frustrated and not my fists. In my household, from the day my siblings and I were born, we were never allowed to hit each other, and it created a very peaceful environment. It took away a lot of fear, and allowed us to be honest with each other when we were frustrated and upset.
The same values were even bestowed onto me at my old school, Near North Montessori. The classrooms were a little untraditional from the usual school desks and chalkboards. We were allowed to walk around to different areas of the classroom to pick what we wanted to work on, where we wanted to sit, and who we wanted to socialize with. With this much freedom, our teachers constantly had an expectation that we would use our words with each other and not violence. It would be near impossible for the teacher to keep track of every kid in the classroom at once.
With my home and school environments free of violence on a normal day basis, it took away a lot of fear for me when I was a kid, and allowed me to mature into someone who's last resort is to use violence. This is why I believe so strongly that if everyone could just follow this principle, no matter what extreme, there would be no need for violence after all.
I agree that people should try to resolve things with words not violence. Especially in a time that we are in right now where people are easily frustrated and depend on violence to resolve problems. This doesn't work and causes sourness in people. Working through problems with words and compassion would easily help the world out.
ReplyDeleteNice blog Eric! I agree that violence should be a last effort when trying to defuse conflicts and that perhaps if more countries and global leaders adopted this methodology, the pen, or rather the ability to intelligently use the pen, truly would be mightier than the sword. My only counter-argument would be that words aren't always the solution. Words are a much better alternative to weapons, but the careless use of words can create certain effects.
ReplyDeleteFor example, a young girl gets confronted with bullying at school. While she's not being chased around at gunpoint, her taunters spew incessant hate, commenting on her looks, her weight, her withering social status, as well as her continuous dance with poverty. While her bones are still in tact, her soul is shattered, causing her to withdraw from the world. "Sticks ad stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." is a load of crap (not that your blog suggests that you think otherwise.) I think that in addition to using words as a means of expression and as a way to communicate one's wants, needs, and thoughts, they should be used intelligently, with careful consideration of their effect.
-Gloresl1235
I agree with your belief that people should never resort to violence in order to solve conflicts. I also liked how you incorporated the morals you were taught as a child into this principle. It shows that you truly believe in this principle and how people could incorporate it into their lives.
ReplyDeleteYou have a very good point but in some instances I have to disagree with you just a little bit.. While a simple argument should never start a fist fight. However, I was taught it is only acceptable with someone harming your siblings or family members to use violence. I was also brought up in an old school Irish household so our beliefs may be a little different. I do like your ideas and morals though.
ReplyDeleteI agree, in most situations violence is not the answer. However there are some extremes where it may be the safest way to diffuse a situation. For example, many hostile situations are diffused by police with the use of guns involved. I recognize that this example can be spun to support either side of the argument, however the ratio between diffusing a conflict using a weapon and igniting one with presence of a weapon is far in favor of the former. Does this change how you think about your principle?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with this, the only caveat I can imagine is that some people relly can't be reasoned with, and violence can often be the best option. Fighting for what's right isn't easy or good, but it's still the best option. For domestic reasons totally try to talk it through, but if it's the Taliban shooting up a school, the people responsible need to be killed. Good post.
ReplyDelete