3 ms·
I'm afraid I am still unable to see where you have been able to make the connection in a satisfactory manner. I do concede that you have found something which s
by bloodorange 6y ago
I'm afraid I am still unable to see where you have been able to make the connection in a satisfactory manner. I do concede that you have found something which says the definition is not the same for everyone. Otherwise the definition you listed in quotes is about intentional use of force. The other definition is specifically called "psychological violence" in the part you quoted. There too, I have on complaint and no disagreement. That, however, is not the same as "violence". To be able to communicate the concept you had in mind, without conflating the two, that part you quoted specifically adds the qualifier "psychological". With that qualifier, I think it's just easier to communicate and we probably wouldn't even be having this long exchange.
- soulofmischief 6y agoI used a qualifier: emotional violence. I felt like I didn't need to be redundant and use the word "psychological" as well. You are shifting goal posts and clinging to quite a small island at this point, and it's kind of sad, so I am done with this conversation.
- bloodorange 6y ago> I am done with this conversation. Excellent, goodbye! For making things clear, however I'm not done and will leave quotes from your original post here: "Theft of resources to a point of detriment is always violence." "Destroying the ecosystem which Farmer John uses to grow his apples, so that you can have more apples, is violence. Overfishing in or near territories to the point of resource scarcity is 100%, always violence." I see no qualifiers there and this does conflate the two concepts.