The Wrath of SYM

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Stating that only "sick people" get angry is equivalent to saying only "sick people" get sad. Did this guy get his diploma by mail order?[/QUOTE]

Any idiot with money can bribe their way through things in this country. I'm not sure if that's the case, but he shot down every objection to his actions regarding me by the staff under him who were also in the room with me. He was the head doctor on the ward, and did things his way, no matter what the effects had.

Yes, they do seem to pop up everywhere. There's something wrong with the system obviously.

As far as your example. Your right, there's no reason to become violent there.

However, let's say one girl is raped, and the police haven't found evidence to put the accused away for some reason. The girl is then constantly pestered by the rapist. Phone calls, following her out into public, etc. This type of person isn't a rational human being. It's a sick person. When I stepped in, and got in his face, he got aggressive, so I pummelled him into submission. He never bothered her again. She isn't living paranoid and afraid of being raped again by him either.

I'd have to say there's a big difference between reacting violently to a violent situation, and reacting violently to a passive one. The idiot hit me when I tried defending my friend, I wasn't going to let him think he could do so and continue to terrorize my friend. Some people don't appreciate rules, courtesy or respect for other's. Some people simply respect those who have enough power to do what they want, and they act as such. Until someone else steps in and shuts them down, they do what they want, when they want, regardless of who it hurts.

[Erenor]

[QUOTE=Magrus]I'd have to say there's a big difference between reacting violently to a violent situation, and reacting violently to a passive one. The idiot hit me when I tried defending my friend, I wasn't going to let him think he could do so and continue to terrorize my friend. Some people don't appreciate rules, courtesy or respect for other's. Some people simply respect those who have enough power to do what they want, and they act as such. Until someone else steps in and shuts them down, they do what they want, when they want, regardless of who it hurts.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes the strong have to protect the weak. I wouldn't want some guy feeling up my little sister in the hallways of her high school, so I beat his ass. Maybe it wasn't a fair fight. Maybe he didn't deserve all he got, but a lesson was learned and not just by this one guy. His friends now know what can happen. You have to watch who's toes you're stepping on. You have to realize that there are always fathers, brothers, friends that will eat you for breakfast if you do something unacceptable to someone they know. Violence is sometimes the only thing that gets through to people. A black eye and broken bones sinks in a lot deeper than words for those with thick skulls and bad attitudes. A lack of conscience can be rectified with a good cross to the jaw.

[VonDondu]

It disturbs me when people get a thrill out of violence. My first reaction is, there must be something wrong with them--they were beaten when they were children, or they were bullied by other kids, or their parents were too controlling so they feel stressed out and frustrated for the rest of their lives, etc., and now they have to prove how tough they are.

I studied martial arts for six years just for fun when I was a teenager. But after the first and only time I had to use what I had learned in self-defense (meaning I was backed into a corner and I was in fear for my safety), I quit taking lessons. It was a horrible experience. Not only did everyone involved end up with painful injuries (something I'm not proud of at all), there were also negative social consequences. Maybe some of that had to do with the fact that I'm a girl--people thought I must have "brought in on myself", or they were shocked that I had used my fighting skills to defend myself, because "nice girls don't do that". If I could have run away from that situation, that's what I would have done. My brother and my boyfriend could have defended me if they had been there, but I was afraid of what they were going do to my attackers after the incident; at the very least, I was afraid they would end up in jail. I hated dealing with school officials (who thought I was going to sue them) and the police (who expected me to press charges). Before the attack, I wasn't fearful or vindictive, but afterwards, I suffered from panic attacks, and I wanted to avoid EVERYBODY. It turned my whole life upside-down. I'm really amazed when you people act like you're proud of yourselves for being in violent situations and choosing to be violent in response.

If you think that I'm a pacifist just because I was scarred by that experience, you're on the wrong track. I've always believed in a holistic self-defense philosophy. You should stay in control of yourself, and you should avoid danger if you can. You don't knock someone up side the head just because they do something trivial to provoke you. I think the way to prevent violence is to teach kids to respect other people, and that starts with ourselves, meaning that we don't hit other people just because they do something we don't like. I have to admit that I look down on people who can't control themselves. I mean, the excuse about being born with a bad temper because it's genetic is just pathetic. It's more likely that you got knocked around when you were a little kid and you're trying to get back at the world. And because people like you can't get over it, that's why the whole world is such a violent place.

[Athena]

I voted "Anyone around me is likely to flee at the first sign of my fury"
I am generally very sweet; just don't piss me off.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=VonDondu]It disturbs me when people get a thrill out of violence. My first reaction is, there must be something wrong with them--they were beaten when they were children, or they were bullied by other kids, or their parents were too controlling so they feel stressed out and frustrated for the rest of their lives, etc., and now they have to prove how tough they are.[/QUOTE]

You think so? I was beaten when I was a kid. By both my parents, and anyone who was either bigger, older, or had more friends than me. It's why I don't let anyone else be attacked like that. I don't do so to prove I'm tough. I do so to prove to those who feel the need to attack others that they can't get away with it. The police don't arrest everyone who beats on other people. So those people keep doing it, until someone stops them. At least around me, I dunno about other places but I'm fairly certain that happens to be common in other areas of the world.

So many people just avoid the situation, saying "Well, I can get away, and avoid these people and hope it doesn't happen again. I'll be responsible." Yep, they don't get hurt anymore, and avoid the problem, and all's well, right? What about that person that was trying to hurt you, do you think that person just stopped? No, they found another victim to pick on, just like they did you. I don't just up and pick fights. If someone hits me, I tell them to piss off or they'll be sorry. Generally, that works, a bully wants to see fear and pain, not anger and defiance. On the occasions that hasn't worked, I've followed through on that promise. I don't make threats, I give a warning. I'm fairly certain as a former martial arts student you know about that. You warn, injure, maim and kill in order for self-defence, right? That's the order of how things work if you're backed into a corner and forced to defend yourself?

For the people around me that aren't able to defend themselves, I step in. My 90 lb female friend having a panic attack because the guy who raped her is all up in her face and grabbing her wasn't able to defend herself, I told the guy to piss off and leave her alone, and he hit me. I push him off of her and he hit me again, so I dropped him to the ground. The kid that threw a hammer at my brother, I chased him away. Why? As my little brother was laying on the ground, and the kid went to get the hammer, and brought it up to hit him AGAIN, no one else did anything. The mother with her little kids stared in shock, the dad teaching his son how to ride a bike, stared in shock. No one did ANYTHING. They just look and say "oh my god, what's wrong?". Meanwhile, someone's getting hurt, and they let it happen. Then, then, when someone STOPS the person, and gets hit for it, and ends up defending themselves because they tried protecting someone else from being assualted, that person has "problems" and is "barbaric". Not the person beating someone for sheer fun, no, the person who defends someone else who is unable to? Oh, that's logical.

I have a friend who's gone through karate, he's a black belt, the guy who taught him opened up a new school in a town nearby and my friend was picked to run it because it was right near the college he was going to. He refuses to fight, to use what he knows to hurt another person. I can respect him for that, but the only time's he's ever been put into a situation where he had to decide on fighting were when he's been out drunk with my brother and someone's said something stupid and typical drunken male macho stupidity ensued from one of the people around. There's no reason to fight there, that's idiocy, and exactly as you said. Someone looking to fight to prove how tough they were.

I HATE fighting, because it reminds me of all of the times I've had to defend myself, and all of the time's I've been subjected to human cruelty. Whether from my mother and father, my peers, my teacher's, or my doctors. Yet, I take satisfaction in knowing, if a situation occur's I CAN protect myself, and if need be, other's. Why? No one should have to just take a beating because they can't fight back, and no one intervene's. No one should be terrified their whole life. I've had adult's say "oh, it's good for the boy, learns to defend himself". Yeah, if I wanted that, I'd have gone to classes in self-defense, not had someone 10 years older than me beating me down with three of his friends in a playground, thanks for watching and commenting though.

It takes a lot to set me off to be truly, physically violent. It really does, I may get pissed, curse and insult someone if they keep irritating and deliberately verbally assualting me. To push me to HIT someone, requires a certain set of circumstances, for the exact reason I know I DO have a temper. It's terrifying having that kind of rage built up inside you, and knowing your capable of truly hurting someone. I'm sure you can understand that second part given the training you have. I don't like seeing people hurt, I really don't, it makes me sick. Yet, if someone happens to take pleasure in hurting innocent people, yeah, I've gone out of my way to stop them. If those people haven't stopped, and caused trouble for me, then, then I've enjoyed teaching them a lesson.

Someone needs to, as I said, the police don't pursue every case of someone being bullied, or attacked. Kids who are beat up in school's are blown off as "Oh, kids do that kind of thing". Then people wonder why kids bring guns to school, and use them. Well, if I got beat up by 7 kids everyday, I'd be tempted to myself, and that happens a lot to a good number of kids, in each and every school. Rather than dealing with the people who cause the problem, the school deals with the smallest group of people. Expelling 1 student is better than 7 in the school's eyes. So, they deal with the one kid, getting beat up everyday. Then, the people attacking that kid, pick a new victim, over, and over, and over until they graduate. The problem's aren't being solved by the system, simply hushed and covered up. Now, if someone arrested those groups of kids, or if someone beat the piss out of them once or twice, chances are the problem would stop. Yet, people don't want to do anything, because that would look bad having 7 teenager's arrested for numerous counts of assualt and battery, harrassment and such.

[VonDondu]

Magrus, I was referring to people who get a thrill out of violence, not to people who find it necessary to defend themselves because they live in a violent world.

I don't know how to make the world a less violent place. But I like to believe that in a well-ordered civil society, you don't have to attack bad eggs to get results; there are alternatives, whether it's appealing to the law or using social tools like ostracism. Unfortunately, I think that densely-poplulated areas break the laws of human behavior, so it is much more difficult to deal with urban problems than it is to deal with, shall we say, small town problems.

I've also been influenced by the work of Lawrence Kohlberg, who postulated the six stages of moral development. Essentially, as children grow up, they develop a keener awareness of moral issues and base their own behavior on different lines of reasoning at each stage of development. At the first stage, babies don't misbehave because they don't want to be punished. "If I do something wrong, I'll be hit." At the second stage, the reasoning is, "I'll be rewarded if I'm good." There's also a sense of reciprocity (the Golden Rule): if someone hits you, you hit them back. At the third stage, children take other people's feelings and interests into account. They don't yet have a sense of "community"; it's more of a sense of "family": you're supposed to be nice to the people who are close to you. The fourth stage is the "law and order" phase, where people realize that a larger social order creates rights and duties for everyone. One must obey the law unless doing so conflicts with other social responsibilities. Most people never develop past the fourth stage. The fifth stage is where people base their moral reasoning on principles rather than norms. They look at underlying moral issues and reject a uniform application of rules and norms since one law does not fit all circumstances. The sixth stage of moral development is the natural theoretical next step. Unlike the five preceding stages, there's not a lot of empirical evidence that people ever reach it because it is so difficult to measure. I don't know if I can even describe it adequately. Essentially, it's the stage where people analyze morality itself, instead of merely applying moral principles to various issues. My own experience with philosophy and moral reasoning has taught me that this is a very difficult level to reach, because so much of what we think is merely the repetition of what we have learned rather than a true analysis of our own thoughts.

Anyway, using violence to keep other people in line essentially means that people at the second stage of moral development are treating others as if they were at the first stage of moral development. "I'll hit them back if they hit me, because the only thing that will stop them is the fear of pain." Do you see why I object to that? I'd hate to live in a world where people couldn't be better than that.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=VonDondu]Do you see why I object to that? I'd hate to live in a world where people couldn't be better than that.[/QUOTE]

I hate it myself, but pretending reality isn't what it is doesn't save you from it. For because some people can't rise above that kind of behavior and act in a respectful, responsible manner, I won't tolerate it. They SHOULD be behaving that way, and if they happen to be so dense and disrespectful they can't obey common decency and respect for other humans beings. That they can't learn any other way than either being bribed, or beaten to stop certain behaviors, the law fails to stop them. If someone doesn't teach them, in a manner they understand and accept, the won't change. Just because it's unfortunate and wrong, doesn't make it any less of a reality.

My own personal system in regards to that kind of thing, is my own moral's. Laws I follow only to avoid punishment. If they happen to coincide with my own moral's, all well and good. Some, are nonsense though and I treat them as such. I see no reason to follow anyone else's laws, rules or commands. So long as what I'm doing isn't hurting anyone, or causing some form of negative impact on my surroundings, I should be able to do what I want IMO.

For example...
Beating someone for cigarette money doesn't fit into it, so I wouldn't ever do that. Not that I smoke or anything, but just an example.

Yet, occasionally, I like to make myself a drink, and go for a walk through town while I enjoy my drink. This is against the law, for the reason that some people abuse it I'm assuming, getting drunk and causing trouble in public. Now, so long as I'm not wasted, stumbling around and cursing at other people I see no problems with me doing this. It's relaxing, exercise and soothing to me. However, I'll get fined or arrested if caught doing so, which makes no sense to me.

I don't respond well to bribes, or punishments. I'll do what I want, within reason, regardless of what anyone else says so long as it fits within my own code of ethics and moral standards.

[C Elegans]

[quote="Erenor]Sometimes the strong have to protect the weak. I wouldn't want some guy feeling up my little sister in the hallways of her high school"]
[quote="Magrus]
However"]

I understand you don't feel you have a choice, eat or be eaten, etc. Especially I understand this in Magrus' case, where a police report resulted in nothing due to corrupt policemen. However, I object to the idea that you can use violence in order to teach others not to use violence. Even if this person leave your sister/friends/close ones alone after you have abused them, it will not have the effect of teaching them not to use violence. Quite the contrary. And you reinforce the a system where violence is an acceptable way of dealing with things.

Numerous worldwide studies of violent offenders, violent gang cultures and bullies, demonstrate that people do not become less violent because you hit them. There are three possible outcomes of using physical violence as punishment:
1. The victim cannot defend him/herself, and thus becomes submissive due to violence. Very destructive. This you often see in children, or women who are beaten by their husbands.
2. The victim will hit back and take revenge some way or the other - at you or somebody else.
3. The victim ignores you and the people you defend, and go attacking somebody else instead.

So whereas you may feel you are doing something good by protecting your close ones, you are at the same time also just reinforcing a cycle of violence that noone takes responsibility to stop. People who use and receive violence do not learn any lessons from getting beaten up. They habituate both to hurting others and getting hurt themselves. Beating somebody up because they offend your little sister/friend will not make them think "aha, using violence and raping girls is wrong so I should go and mind my own business". Instead, it will simply make them go after somebody else who is less protected that your close ones. And your beating of them will add to their habituation and to the general cycle of violence in the world.

I realise there are situations where there is absolutely no other way to defend oneself than to use violence against a violent attacker. However, these situations are few, often there are other means that can be used that are both more efficient and less destructive, providing you are prepared to take the time and effort to coordinate systematic strategies do deal with the problem.

If violence had worked as a pedagogic tool to make people act in a more respectful and mature way to each other, this world would be a paradise of humanism by now.

@VonDondu: Regarding Kohlberg, who was also part of my education, I think his conceptualisation is very useful but I disagree about a few things. First, I don't view the stages as linear maturation stages that follow in an invariant sequence, especially not the latter ones. Second, whereas the first stages can and have been connected to the social and cognitive development of children (as you know Kohlberg developed the theory in line with Piaget's thinking), in most adult people the stages do not seem to be as discrete as Kohlberg suggests, they are mixed and coexist in a context-dependent fashion.

Despite this, I think this conceptualisation of moral thinking is highly useful: If anyone is interested, here is from a textbook I read during my basic education:
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

And here are a few of the Kohlberg dilemmas:
http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p ... emmas.html

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Numerous worldwide studies of violent offenders, violent gang cultures and bullies, demonstrate that people do not become less violent because you hit them.[/QUOTE]
I always thought that was just common sense. It's nice to have some scientific proof to show to those who believe otherwise.

"But at least they'll stop attacking me and go bother someone else."


[QUOTE=C Elegans]...you are...just reinforcing a cycle of violence that noone takes responsibility to stop. People who use and receive violence do not learn any lessons from getting beaten up. They habituate both to hurting others and getting hurt themselves...[/QUOTE]
I also thought that was just common sense. Kids who are abused grow up thinking that violence is part of the "real world", and it always remains a part of their lives. I think if they become aware of the problem, the best thing they can do is to break the cycle of violence and start treating violence as a rarity and, if it ever becomes necessary to defend against an attacker, as a tool of last resort. I don't know how to stop family violence, but if a violent parent never reforms, I think the best thing for their kids (and innocent spouses) to do is to move out and put violence as far behind them as possible. There's no reason it has to be a "normal" part of life.


[QUOTE=C Elegans]@VonDondu: Regarding Kohlberg, who was also part of my education, I think his conceptualisation is very useful but I disagree about a few things. First, I don't view the stages as linear maturation stages that follow in an invariant sequence, especially not the latter ones. Second, whereas the first stages can and have been connected to the social and cognitive development of children (as you know Kohlberg developed the theory in line with Piaget's thinking), in most adult people the stages do not seem to be as discrete as Kohlberg suggests, they are mixed and coexist in a context-dependent fashion...[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the links and your input.

I don't view the stages as discrete or completely linear, either. Kohlberg's main purpose in identifying those stages was to figure out the best way to give children a moral education, so it's more of a teaching plan than a cut-and-dried analysis of human development. Kohlberg's studies showed that conventional methods of teaching morality to children were ineffective (trying to set examples of good behavior, or trying to teach kids that morality is just a collection of vices and virtues and behaviors to avoid and behaviors to emulate, etc.), so he offered an alternative based on what works, as determined by empirical studies. The goal of every teacher/parent/mentor should be to help children reach the next stage of moral development by helping them learn how to reason at higher levels of development.

I've read some criticism of his work, including some criticism by a feminist (I can't recall her name) who believed that Kohlberg's focus on "justice" and its emphasis on rewards and punishments was male-oriented. She proposed that children should be taught principles of "caring" to emphasize the need to help others.

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't have the responsibility of teaching morality to other people. As you say, even if people are capable of using the moral reasoning of the higher stages of moral development, much of their reasoning often remains at the first, second, or third level. If people want to use the kind of reasoning that is found at the fifth and sixth levels, they have to make the effort themselves; I can't do it for them. So even if I lay out the best moral arguments I can make, they don't listen to me and they still do things like voting for Bush.

[Magrus]

I realise there are situations where there is absolutely no other way to defend oneself than to use violence against a violent attacker. However, these situations are few, often there are other means that can be used that are both more efficient and less destructive, providing you are prepared to take the time and effort to coordinate systematic strategies do deal with the problem.

I just have to ask, what is it you would do in say, a situation where you noticed someone being beaten on the side of the road and everyone simply staring at the problem? I'm curious now.

Whether or not it cures the larger problem this violent person has, I could care less. That's not MY job to do so. So long as those I care about are safe, I'm happy. Now, if it were my job to fix everyone, that'd be different. That would be the job of doctor's, lawmaker's and law enforcement. So far, I've seen all three fail at that terribly and if my bruising some idiot leaves my friends safe from them, well I'll continue to do so.

Waiting for someone to stop staring with their jaw hanging open, go to call the police, then waiting for the police to show up could mean the difference between life and death for someone being attacked. Not only that, if you've ever simply been beaten relentlessy and been helpless to stop it, that leaves scars, whether or not you end up with physical ones, the mental ones stick with you. Regardless of whether my actions can clinically help that person attacking someone else, pssht, I don't care. They're committing an evil act against an innocent being, it should be stopped ASAP. If the police want to come, cart the person away and subject him to some form of clinical treatment, so be it. Yet, I don't see lawmaker's setting up a structured system to do that. It's too costly.

[Cuchulain82]

I go on vacation for a week and I miss this great conversation...

@ Vondu, CE, Mag

I tend to agree with Magrus about this, as you can tell from my earlier posts. I think that violence is, practically speaking, a reality. I don't know Kohlberg, but if his/her stages of moral development cannot account for violence, is it reflective of the natural world? Most of my personal experiences with violence haven't been in situations like you, CE, described (the other researcher). The situations have usually been with stupid people, or maybe just people acting stupidly. There are whole bars full of guys who think that a great Saturday night is drinking 8 beers and sucker-punching someone. It is a lousy situation, but I don't know exactly how else I could respond to it.

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I don't know Kohlberg, but if his/her stages of moral development cannot account for violence, is it reflective of the natural world?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how you got that impression from what CE and I wrote. Kohlberg studied human behavior and moral development, so I'm sure he was familiar with violence. What impressed me the most about him is that he developed a coherent moral framework and studied ways that it could be taught to children, in contrast to moral relativists who believed that you should teach children the meaning of "virtue" (a subject which no two educators can agree upon) and then tell them to make their own choices, which leaves a lot to be desired, in my opinion.

I talked about Kohlberg's ideas to help explain why I object when people respond to violence with more violence. It offends my philosophical sensibilities because I like to see all people treated with respect, and I believe that people are capable of higher levels of moral reasoning than that. To make my case, I used Kohlberg's model of moral development. That has nothing to do with Kohlberg's stance on violence. I apologize if there was any confusion.

[Gwalchmai]

Normally I would say that I am more of a Clark Kent-type, but I had to check the occasional bursts of anger, because I've been known to have a bit of road rage at the snowbirds in town....

[C Elegans]

I always thought that was just common sense. It's nice to have some scientific proof to show to those who believe otherwise.

Sometimes "common sense" and science converge, sometimes they oppose - it's very much depending on whos' common sense it is

Kohlberg's main purpose in identifying those stages was to figure out the best way to give children a moral education, so it's more of a teaching plan than a cut-and-dried analysis of human development. Kohlberg's studies showed that conventional methods of teaching morality to children were ineffective (trying to set examples of good behavior, or trying to teach kids that morality is just a collection of vices and virtues and behaviors to avoid and behaviors to emulate, etc.), so he offered an alternative based on what works, as determined by empirical studies.

Yes, and my view on Kohlberg is very similar to my view on Howard Gardner and the 9 intelligences, that even though the concepts have some flaws from a scientific viewpoints, they have proven highly useful for the purpose which they were developed - education. They were not aimed to be scientific theories, they were aimed to be pedagogical methods.

I've read some criticism of his work, including some criticism by a feminist (I can't recall her name) who believed that Kohlberg's focus on "justice" and its emphasis on rewards and punishments was male-oriented.

Perhaps you mean Gilligan? Personally, I don't care much for Gilligan's critisism since, as far as I know, it is based on the idea that abstracts concepts of justice is typically "male", as if women had less sense of global justice. I have to admit though that generally, I don't pay much attention to specific "feminist perspectives" at all, since I am interested in human behaviour and not only in half of humankind.

As I stated in my previous post, I realise there are situations where use of violence to defend oneself or others is totally impossible to avoid, but in my opinion, you, Magrus, Erenor and others that agree with your view, support use of violence A) when it's not absolutely necessary but only one of several options and B) erranously believe that this use of violence will result in the violent offender using less violence in the future ("he will learn a lesson" etc) when the effect in reality is what VonDondu wrote, the offender will go bother someone else instead of you and your friends.

So what can you do instead? There are many options. You can avoid going to places where there are people who like drinking 8 beers and then start hitting people. You could stay in the background and call the police. You could leave. You could gang up with some friends or other guests and hold down the violent people, stick them to the ground or something so they can't move. There are many alternatives, depending on the situation.

There are many different options how to act in this situation apart from starting to beat up the offender or passively staring. You seem to polarise the situation into merely these two alternatives. The fact that I am against use of violence unless absolutely necessary, does not mean I'm pro passive staring. That's a false dichotomy.

Whether or not it cures the larger problem this violent person has, I could care less. That's not MY job to do so. So long as those I care about are safe, I'm happy.

This is exactly the reasoning I disagree strongly with. You use violence to protect you and those you care about, even though this means you allow the offender to go and attack another innocent victim. You just don't care about because you don't see it and you don't know this person. In my opinion, the better option would be to protect yourself and your loved ones by non-violence methods, in order not to escalate the cycle of violence.

Waiting for someone to stop staring with their jaw hanging open, go to call the police, then waiting for the police to show up could mean the difference between life and death for someone being attacked. Not only that, if you've ever simply been beaten relentlessy and been helpless to stop it, that leaves scars, whether or not you end up with physical ones, the mental ones stick with you.

I know, that's why I suggest to use passive methods. Stop the person by distraction or limitation of movement. If you are alone this may not be an option, but if there are some staring people there, recruit a couple of them quickly, pull the offender off the victim and push him to the ground until the police arrives.

I certainly realise that the social environment you and many others live in put you in more situations when use of violence is absolutely necessary, than the social environment I live in, but judging from the stories and the opinions stated in this thread, there are some who seem to take a certain joy and pride in beating others, and some who judge it as necessary although other alternatives exist. Well, once I lived in a very much more socially miserable and violent environment that I do now, but contrary to for instance Magrus, I have always had very good experience of the police although they are not always at handy when you need one. In general though, this is basically what I would do if I lived in a violent environment where the police was totally corrupt and unreliable:

1. Stop drinking and using drugs and convince everybody I know to do the same. Alcohol is involved in about 80% of all violent crimes in Europe. In the US, it's a little bit less but in a majority of violent crimes the offender, or both the offender and and the victim, are drunk. Other drugs also increase the risk to be victim or offender of violent crimes, so just stay away from all drugs if you want to minimise violence around you.

2. Organise yourselves. Make an agreement on how to act when you encounter violent situations. Avoid going outside alone, try to stick to your friends. When you encounter violence, quickly decide what to do and how, and who is doing what. Passify people, don't "beat them senseless" thereby escalating the circle of violence.

3. Use what power you have - complain to authorietes. If the police aren't doing their job, file complaints to higher instances. Again make sure you are not drunk and not on drugs, authorieties tend to listen less to people who are drug abusers.

4. If all else fails, move. Convince those that are dependent on you to move too.

[Magrus]

I know, that's why I suggest to use passive methods. Stop the person by distraction or limitation of movement. If you are alone this may not be an option, but if there are some staring people there, recruit a couple of them quickly, pull the offender off the victim and push him to the ground until the police arrives.

Which is why I've said I tell the person to stop, then attempt to restrain them. Usually it's ended up with me being cursed at, trying to restrain them, being struck, and being forced to defend myself. I don't just start pummeling them. It's a progression of failed options which leads to that.

In the event I'm forced to fight, ideally I would hope someone would call the cops. When they've been called and show up, I cooperate with them. Otherwise, I incapacitate the person, and get the "victim" somewhere safe to see whether or not they need a doctor.

As I said, it's not my job to be doing any of this, and simply want that person being attacked safe. If that person is safe, they can press charges, give a description and have the police go after the person. Standing around and letting the person keep beating on the victim while waiting for the police isn't something I'm willing to do. Regardless of what anyone thinks, unless you've been in a situation like that, the average time for a police officer to arrive after a call is 4-7 minutes in a normal town. If anyone's ever been beaten in the kind of ways I've dealt with before, 30 seconds is enough to land you in the hospital for a few days, let alone 8 times that length or more. By stopping the fight, and getting the person attacked to a safe place, I allow them to handle the police and an investigation. It still gets done in the end, and chances are, after I'm done with the attacker, he won't be getting away anytime soon either.

If they would simply be reasonable, stop when I said stop, and sit there for the police and wait for them, none of that would be necessary. Then again, if they were that reasonable, the whole situation wouldn't have happened in the first place anyways.