Mucker brings in an interesting point; punishment methods seems to be gender specific. But is it true that girls and boys are different, and should be punished differently for the same acts? Or is it just that girls and boys act like we expect them to, and we’ve taken a dislike to how we expect boys to behave?
There was another thread which highlighted the US statistics for gun shootings, and I’m thinking that the US might want to consider how it raises its children. Which means that it is the publics interest to know how children are reared. . .?
btw I’m not sure that I agree that WWII is a good example of violence solving problems. I am unsure of what about WWII was violent (as apposed to WWI which I would have thought was more violent at a micro level). To be sure the death squads are an example of violent killing, but I don’t anyone is arguing that these people ‘solved’ a problem. Terrorism might be a suitable example of violence solving problems. A couple of instances spring to mind, such as the Malaysian independence movement. The problem would be that Malaysia was governed by the British, and it was ‘solved’ by terrorist acts. Without a doubt they were an influence in bring independence, but the political movement was equally, if not more so of an influence. I would say that violence is a technique, and the solution is given by the people who use the technique, not the technique its self. I.e. violence has no inherent solving properties.