The Ultraviolent Spectrum and Perils

It’s not necessarily wrong to include violence and the like but there are other times one has to draw a line. It’s not necessarily wrong to discuss about why animal cruelty’s bad, at other times it’s best left to nonfiction (news reports, scientific studies and anecdotes) to do the work. Even a comics writer would realise it in the future.

Violence, like sex, aren’t inherently bad. The real issues are that one has to draw a line and sometimes certain things do have a time and place. You’d be better off understanding animal cruelty through nonfiction reports and studies. It’s not wrong to be curious about those things, it’s just that you have to learn to comparmentalise.

But that’s realising there’s a time and place for those.

Sorry to say, that’s wrong

Reading up on the article/epiphany that martial artist Bruce Lee went to hell and why violence is wrong, I admit being of the opinion that violence itself’s not necessarily good or bad. A good number of Christians support war, God himself condones it when convenient. I suspect the criticisms made about Bruce Lee could also be applied to writers like even most conservatives.

The real issue I think with conservatives is that they make an idol out of war and gun violence. Guns aren’t necessarily wrong and of themselves. If they’re used to game or even pests, that’s justified in some cases. Same with war. The real problem I think lies with glorifying violence. Treating it as cool instead of something unpleasant for various reasons. It can be sadistic.

It can be impulsive or painfully utilitarian with damning consequences like German hunters shooting somebody’s pet cat or dog. It’s not wrong to use violence but the real issue I think lies with glorifying violence whilst ignoring the bad consequences like traumatised victims and the shooter themselves having serious issues needing to get over. That’s something conseratives should take to heart.