And it's only January!

If violence worked as a strategy, then it would work better the more of it was applied. Instead, what we see is that the more violence applied, the worse the outcome in the long run.

This indicates it’s not a solution.

If taking Tylenol worked as a strategy to reduce pain, it would work better the more of it was applied. Instead, what we see is the more Tylenol taken, the worse the outcome in the long run (taking the whole bottle will destroy your liver...)

Just yesterday I was reading a list of logical fallacies, and between this comment and your previous one I think you've hit at least 3 or 4 of them.

That logical fallacy list is required reading here, it's practically a holy text.

This is astonishingly illogical.

> If violence worked as a strategy, then it would work better the more of it was applied.

This does not follow at all. This whole argument is total bullshit. It may end up being the right answer for parenting (don't use violence against your kids) but the reasoning is astonishing. Every single one of the statements is false and only the conclusion is true. What a masterpiece!

Ok, you’re right.

(I’m reminded how difficult it is to make full arguments over text.

Rather than flog a dead horse, I’ll just accept that I’m not able to make my point clearly enough.)

> If violence worked as a strategy, then it would work better the more of it was applied.

I am generally opposed to violence, but...that really doesn't make sense. It's not generally true that, if <foo> fixes something, 10*<foo> fixes it 10 times better.