If Tolstoy were on posting in this thread, he'd know from personal experience that there can be good in anyone, even if people don't always show it.
Only a vocal minority believe in using violence for the things you listed. These minorities combined do not equal a great amount of people, but still can generate a large amount of news. I will admit there most people on this earth have times where they are angry, and for periods of time, might want to hurt something through violence, however, this periods of time are brief for normal people, and most of the time, self-restraint is used.
On a further note, it is also irresponsible to hold the acts of children to your beliefs, though I believe that privately, you do. Children can be violent, rambunctious, and energetic, and often times fight because they are too immature adequately express their energy and passions in positive directions.
You have to understand that your experiences are not the only experiences. That your eyes are not the only eyes out there, and that you could walk in other peoples shoes. Ask me how many times I've used violence to further any of my ambitions, beliefs, or feelings. It's none. At some points, I might become angry, yes, but I never attempted to hurt anyone. I think that I alone and not a representative for humanity or Americans, but then, ask me how many people I know, then ask how many of them have used violence to further their goals, feelings, or beliefs. I know tens of thousands of people, and I can think of perhaps ten or twenty tops that I know or even believe have.
I think that if you believe you fall into the '1%' you detail, you assume that it is human nature to be violent, and to use violence as a means to justify a goal. It is not. It is human choice. And the truth is, very few people make the choice for violence to happen. When they do, they usually make the choice to do so to defend, not destroy. Oddly enough, you have outlined scenarios where the few who are violent feel they are defending something. Not themselves, but their god/gods. Not themselves, but other's children. Not themselves, but they're spouse. Not themselves, but people in minorities whose numbers are too small for self-defense. Not themselves, but their children's future. Now, I disagree with using violence in these situations, but I have perspective on where it comes from, in a sense. The defense of the beliefs and people are mishandled.
If I were a father, and a man with a weapon broke into my house, where my children sleep, those who rely on me for food, for knowledge, for strength, and for guidance, would it not be my responsible to strike down the man with the weapon? Not for my sake, but for that of my children? Even if I have forsaken violence in my defense, I could not be a guardian for my family if I did not protect them from the attacks of others. Does this direct defense put me in your '99%?' Why? Why not? Are my ways misguided? What would you do in that situation?
Now, I am not a father, and I will say this: If someone were to break into my house this evening, in an attempt to harm me, I would not attack him. I would attempt to minimize the damage of his attacks, and I would also attempt to call the police, so that he would undergo the USA's justice system. However, the police might attack him when they arrive. Would this be wrong? Why? Should I just let a man who is walking the wrong path go on with his life? Wouldn't that be worse than attacking him?
Topic: Nintendo, 2d platformers, evil Colonel Sanders Spiders, what's not to like? (Read 30237 times)
