3 ms·

Riots are indiscriminate almost by definition. Has there ever been a riot whose targeted damage outpaced its collateral damage? We can imagine such a thing, but

Riots are indiscriminate almost by definition. Has there ever been a riot whose targeted damage outpaced its collateral damage? We can imagine such a thing, but if it's not practically likely to ever occur I don't know what the point would be of developing theories about it. On the other hand it's very straightforward to locate some justified wars in history. In fact I would say that most wars have a side that has a just cause, which is typically the defender.

noah_buddy 5y ago
> I don't know what the point would be of developing theories about it. Easy, the same reason most contrarian theories are developed: grant money and academic prestige. Most theories like this are woefully at odds with what the majority of society believes. If you asked most Americans whether or not they wanted a riot, just or not, in their neighborhood, you know what they would answer.
nuclearnice1 5y ago
You used two different standards for riots and wars. For riots you judged damage. For war you judged motivation. Most wars fail your targeted vs collateral damage test. Maybe the US drone war from 2001 to present as an exception. Although we don’t really have the full picture to say.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Hrm, neither of motivation nor damage are sufficient alone. It's something like the product of the two. For an action to be justified it must both have a just motivation and a reasonably predicted just outcome proportional to the motivation. If either of those two requirements are not met, then the action is not just. Happy to go into examples if it would help clarify what I'm thinking. Feel free to ask if you want me to, but I think you might already understand my pov from what I've said above. To be clear, I am not arguing that my point of view is or should be universal. I'm only sharing my own thoughts on the issue.

noah_buddy 5y ago

> I don't know what the point would be of developing theories about it. Easy, the same reason most contrarian theories are developed: grant money and academic prestige. Most theories like this are woefully at odds with what the majority of society believes. If you asked most Americans whether or not they wanted a riot, just or not, in their neighborhood, you know what they would answer.

nuclearnice1 5y ago

You used two different standards for riots and wars. For riots you judged damage. For war you judged motivation. Most wars fail your targeted vs collateral damage test. Maybe the US drone war from 2001 to present as an exception. Although we don’t really have the full picture to say.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Hrm, neither of motivation nor damage are sufficient alone. It's something like the product of the two. For an action to be justified it must both have a just motivation and a reasonably predicted just outcome proportional to the motivation. If either of those two requirements are not met, then the action is not just. Happy to go into examples if it would help clarify what I'm thinking. Feel free to ask if you want me to, but I think you might already understand my pov from what I've said above. To be clear, I am not arguing that my point of view is or should be universal. I'm only sharing my own thoughts on the issue.