The best method

[KR Skull]

A lot of people say that using force is the best method to teach someone something.

If i may humbly speak up!

I disagree with everyone who says that. Because i used to be a person who uses force to finish everything. and from my experience the only thing i gained is pain and sorrow. So in the past few months i made learned a lot of things. and listened to a lot of people who talked about using force in every single thing.

" To make someone yield without a fight is the best thing! Because we are humans! Battles involve contriving! It means to draw him\her in as an ally without hurting or tormenting him\her. By not losing your life. You can attain complete victory. To win without a fight, is the best thing you can do, so to trick the enemy and beat him\her in resourcefulness is the best strategy you can have in your life. " Yamamoto Kansuke.

So the best method to deal with your enemies is to do what i quoted.

 

[Donald Trump]

A lot of people say that using force is the best method to teach someone something.

If i may humbly speak up!

I disagree with everyone who says that. Because i used to be a person who uses force to finish everything. and from my experience the only thing i gained is pain and sorrow. So in the past few months i made learned a lot of things. and listened to a lot of people who talked about using force in every single thing.

So the best method to deal with your enemies is to do what i quoted.

I don't have any respect for any Japanese generals given their WW2 record. He missed out the part where they murder and rape everyone.

Also what is this thread about?
The use of force? Or teaching?
The use of force can be necessary if all other measures fail, and it's always nice to be able to threatne with force.
As for teaching, meh. I couldn't care less.

 

[KR Skull]

This thread talks about the best method that someone should use to win any fight. And with all do respect using force never been useful to teach someone something. Using force will only make things worse than how they already are. And about Yamamoto Kansuke, He lived in the 16th century. And the WW2 happened in the 20th
century. So things are diffrent.

 

[Moogles]

I agree that the world would be a better place if conflicts could be resolved in a peaceful manner. Unfortunately, force has proved to be effective in solving disputes as well...

 

[zombies[INC]]

This thread talks about the best method that someone should use to win any fight. And with all do respect using force never been useful to teach someone something. Using force will only make things worse than how they already are. And about Yamamoto Kansuke, He lived in the 16th century. And the WW2 happened in the 20th
century. So things are diffrent.

Do you mean any fight in general, or perhaps any physical fight? Could this thread include arguments? Disagreements? Etc? "Any fight" doesn't exactly narrow the field...

I don't believe in using force with some things, but with others, it could very well be more useful than harmful. Sometimes someone simply will not listen, to anyone, or anything, and force may be the only way to stop them from going through with whatever act they wish to execute.

 

[KR Skull]

Do you mean any fight in general, or perhaps any physical fight? Could this thread include arguments? Disagreements? Etc? "Any fight" doesn't exactly narrow the field...

I don't believe in using force with some things, but with others, it could very well be more useful than harmful. Sometimes someone simply will not listen, to anyone, or anything, and force may be the only way to stop them from going through with whatever act they wish to execute.

a fight is a fight no matter how you see it. it has many forms just like everything else. using force will only make things really bad that how they are. for example two friends A and B had an argument. A said a lot of bad thing to B. B tried to end this argument without using force. but he failed and made A cross the line and talk bad about B's parents. B got angry and started to talk bad about A. A got pissed off and start to attack B physically. B fought back and both ended up in the hospital. A's family and B's family began to blame each other. A' family said that B's family is the reason why A entered the hospital. and B's family said it was A fault. then next thing we see is war.

 

[KR Skull]

strength without intelligent is like an empty tank in the middle of the battlefield. strength alone won't do any good. becuse no matter how strong you are an intelligent person will defeat you.

 

[Ness]

strength without intelligent is like an empty tank in the middle of the battlefield. strength alone won't do any good. becuse no matter how strong you are an intelligent person will defeat you.

I'd argue this isn't an absolute truth. Someone having more strength then their opponent won't guarantee victory, but I imagine it certainly helps.

Sure, intelligence is useful; but there's a point where the gap in power is too large to be overcome, even by the greatest of intellects.

 

[KR Skull]

i disagree with you. becuse if an intelligent person like a teacher used strength to make his\her students learn something then they won't learn it.

 

[zombies[INC]]

strength without intelligent is like an empty tank in the middle of the battlefield. strength alone won't do any good. becuse no matter how strong you are an intelligent person will defeat you.

At times, strength alone can be enough. At times, force can be enough. It's quite a generalization to say force is never useful, or strength alone isn't enough. Also, using strength doesn't mean there's no intellect behind the decision(s). Try to keep an open mind. Ai... this is an extremely general thread, it's hard to really give a decent opinion.

 

[KR Skull]

BDK, take a look at international politics. America uses a combonation of intelligence and force to protect its interests around the world, and maintain its political and military strength.

Put simply, if your opponent is strong and you are weak, but you are both equally intelligent, using force is the smart thing for them to do. Using force can, and sometimes is, the intelligent route.

no it isn't. if what you say is true then why do we still hear news about people being killed in Palestine, Mog. Sudan. and a lot of countries?

if my opponent was strong and i am not then i will change the fight into an intelligent fight.

 

[KR Skull]

oh and if both you and your opponent were of equal intelligence, you wouldn't be able to do that. So they would win, and you would lose. =)

i disagree with that becuse there is no way that two people have equal intelligence. even if they had equal intelligence. they won't have the same strong spirit and they don't face each other for the same reason. so that will make thing diffrent.

 

[Hera Ledro]

I disagree that force is the best method for everything, but when all else fails...it may be necessary.

Even if you want to look at it from a Psychological level, physical 'convincing' can often be misinterpreted as positive punishment, which (much like negative reinforcement) can be severely detrimental to the individual in terms of moral and ethical development.

However, when you look at things like war, or even the more common example of bullying, the short-term suffering may be the cost for a long-term gain. If I had to choose between letting a bully walk all over me and fighting back, I'd fight back, because if I let him walk all over me he'll learn that he can keep doing that, and won't stop. I can't let that happen, for anybody, so force here is necessary, but only when all else fails.

It's always better to minimize the suffering when you can, and more often than not, this should involve talking it out instead of fighting it out. But sometimes, there are cases when you need to use force. The necessity for force is often rare (far rarer than one may observe), but it still exists.

 

[KR Skull]

well you want examples. i will give you one. me i got banned from this forum becuse i was behaving bad. i got suspended and that didn't made things better. no it made things worse i hurted most of the staff members and got banned. and now i am back and i haven't changed at all. i am still the same as before. they used force to change me but nothing happened.

 

[KR Skull]

I disagree that force is the best method for everything, but when all else fails...it may be necessary.

Even if you want to look at it from a Psychological level, physical 'convincing' can often be misinterpreted as positive punishment, which (much like negative reinforcement) can be severely detrimental to the individual in terms of moral and ethical development.

However, when you look at things like war, or even the more common example of bullying, the short-term suffering may be the cost for a long-term gain. If I had to choose between letting a bully walk all over me and fighting back, I'd fight back, because if I let him walk all over me he'll learn that he can keep doing that, and won't stop. I can't let that happen, for anybody, so force here is necessary, but only when all else fails.

It's always better to minimize the suffering when you can, and more often than not, this should involve talking it out instead of fighting it out. But sometimes, there are cases when you need to use force. The necessity for force is often rare (far rarer than one may observe), but it still exists.

well there are more than one way to stop a bully without a fight. becuse every bully lost something that is why he transfer his sadness into anger

Um... thats not evidence. Evidence would be two comparable situations where one had force used and one didn't.

Oh and since the forum got peace and quiet for a while, and since you are following the rules now, their force clearly DID have an effect, so it must have worked, thus rendering your example incoherent.

no it didn't

actually merc is the one who changed everything. after a long and friendly talk in the msn. i began to change.

 

[Hera Ledro]

well there are more than one way to stop a bully without a fight. becuse every bully lost something that is why he transfer his sadness into anger

While you can claim this, can you back it up? Speaking from Psychology lessons, I can tell you that that's not always the case.

As a matter of fact, bullies aren't always aggressive because they are sad, but because it's what they learn. If the father or mother is as aggressive or more aggressive than the child, then the child will learn to be aggressive through observation and Operant Conditioning. They don't even have to be abused or anything, they can just watch their father beating on something and then mimic it. It's not an uncommon thing.

So yes, some bullies do transfer depression into aggression, but that's not always the case.

Oh, and speaking as a fellow debater, it wouldn't be a bad idea to put a bit more into your posts and use proper grammar It makes the post a lot easier to read, and your point becomes a lot clearer.

 

[KR Skull]

While you can claim this, can you back it up? Speaking from Psychology lessons, I can tell you that that's not always the case.

As a matter of fact, bullies aren't always aggressive because they are sad, but because it's what they learn. If the father or mother is as aggressive or more aggressive than the child, then the child will learn to be aggressive through observation and Operant Conditioning. They don't even have to be abused or anything, they can just watch their father beating on something and then mimic it. It's not an uncommon thing.

So yes, some bullies do transfer depression into aggression, but that's not always the case.

not all bullies become aggressive through observation. some of them do and some don't. sometimes some childrens become a better person than there fathers. and sometimes a person becomes blind and go on a rampage becuse that person lost someone important to him\her. i know that becuse i have been in there. i lost someone and i walked and attacked and hurted everyone around me. my family, , relatives and friends. old and young. i just walked and hurted them physically and emotionally. at that time all what i have gained is pain and sorrow.

 

[Hera Ledro]

Well, that's your issue to deal with. But remember, this is only one example. I agree (both here and in my previous post) that depression DOES have an effect, but it's not exclusively the only way for a bully to develop into the way that they do. You're hitting the strawman.

But this whole bully topic is also a strawman. Our main topic is force as a method of teaching.

Now I think we can safely say that it's not always the BEST method, but sometimes it's a NECESSARY method. Force should be used only when no other means are available or effective.

 

[KR Skull]

Now I think we can safely say that it's not always the BEST method, but sometimes it's a NECESSARY method. Force should be used only when no other means are available or effective.

using force is ONLY necessary when you are in the middle of a fight to protect someone or something very important to you. not as a person who attack but as a defender. but whe it comes to teaching people something force isn't the best thing to use. NO it is the worst method.

 

[Hera Ledro]

using force is ONLY necessary when you are in the middle of a fight to protect someone or something very important to you. not as a person who attack but as a defender. but whe it comes to teaching people something force isn't the best thing to use. NO it is the worst method.

I think in this case, we have to agree to disagree. I agree that force shouldn't be necessary for all things, but I don't see it as black-and-white as you do. It's one of those grey areas where somebody has to think critically about the situation and analyze all possible viewpoints, then determine the right course of action. A scenario such as the one Decado presented is one such example; are you right in throwing the first punch if you are only standing up for somebody else?

Now, I think what we have to do is have you define your idea of 'force'. There seems to be a contradiction between your apparent definition and the actual definition. What I see from your definition is referring to physical or aggressive force. You can be forceful without being aggressive, such as how Ryan was to you in your MSN convo (if what you said was true). He wasn't aggressive, but he was still firm and forceful. You can be friendly and forceful at the same time, but it's just that it's easier to notice when someone is being aggressive and forceful.

Here's an analogy: a schoolyard bully's attitude vice that of a loving parent. The schoolyard bully is aggressive, physical, possibly even unstable. They haven't a clue what it means to be nice to other kids. Their upbringing here is irrelevant, however, simply because we are looking at the current attitude in and of itself. This is an example of an authoritarian or child. The victims of the bully become frightened and loathing of the bully, but they still become obedient.

Now we look at the loving parent. They are kind, but firm, and love their child(ren) to death. However, they won't let them get away with everything, and through Operant conditioning, punish things such as hitting other kids and teasing people. The punishment is non-physical, and is instead mental (e.g. a grounding, a time-out, etc.). The child learns that it is wrong to hit people and tease them, and gains a sort of empathy which allows them to see what it would be like from the victim's end.

Both of these methods are forceful, and both are effective. However, the latter example is simply more effective than the former, since the child learns to be empathetic and kind to others, as well as obedient to an acceptable moral degree. The victim of the bully just learns to be afraid of the bully and obedient to his wishes, but gains no autonomy whatsoever.

What you argue is that force is an ineffective method of teaching, yet all teaching is done forcefully in one way or another. Even a school teacher does it through homework and assignments and tests; these are all examples of forceful methods of teaching. In fact, if referring to fundamentals, the force is the best way to teach, and it is only aggressive force that is not always effective.

But there are times that it is effective. We would not have won the Second World War if there had been no D-Day (though we would have won it a lot faster if the Americans had joined sooner). If it weren't for aggressive force, there wouldn't be a free world in which you can now type your views and have them respected.

Sometimes, force is the only way you can accomplish anything properly, and sometimes that does have to be aggressive force.