4 ms·
This is a "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" argument. That is more honest than the argument I was criticizing, which pretends that significant
by neonate 6y ago
This is a "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" argument. That is more honest than the argument I was criticizing, which pretends that significant harm isn't being done to people. You seem to be saying that they mostly deserve it, and if they don't, that's "unfortunate". Collateral damage, one might call it, in a righteous cause. I find it scary when people arrogate to themselves the right to injure others, and I doubt that it serves justice. But I appreciate the clarity.
- clairity 6y agoyou're welcome! you're missing some of the nuance, the asymmetry of cause and action, though. there is already historic, perpetual violence, acting to subjugate and disenfranchise, and it's quite understandable and reasonable to resist that subjugation. the resisters weren't initiating this thread of violence but rather had it thrust upon them. the initiators activate the risk of injury on the rebound, not the resisters. no initial violence, no rebound injury risk. asserting dominance is risky business, no two ways about it.