3 ms·
What if they did expect a response, and then simply answered violence with violence? Typically the person considered to be at fault is the initiator of violenc
by Danihan 9y ago
What if they did expect a response, and then simply answered violence with violence?
Typically the person considered to be at fault is the initiator of violence.
- kafkaesq 9y agoIn deciding to encroach upon those tribal properties (and hence, implicitly threatening the long-term physical survival of the people currently living there), clearly it's the miners who initiated violence, in this case.
- Danihan 9y agoTrespassing is an "implicit threat" that justifies initiation of violence to you? That's fine if they want to attack anyone they perceive as being intruders. But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.
- kafkaesq 9y agoTrespassing is an "implicit threat" that justifies initiation of violence to you? You're dodging the central issue: that it was the miners' act of trespass that, in itself, constituted the "initiation of violence" in this case. But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well. Sorry, but there's a very clear moral gradient at play here. It seems like you're trying to suggest there's at least some rough equivalence between the actions of the two parties. But if so, then I just don't buy that argument, at all.