4 ms·

I notice you left out my civil disobedience example. > Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists. Y

I notice you left out my civil disobedience example. > Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists. Yes, that's EXACTLY MY POINT. It's an example of a logical argument used to justify when violence can be used to prevent future violence. It doesn't say that all war is just war. That's why it uses the word "just". Your argument seems to be that no threat justifies violence. Ukraine shouldn't fight back against Russia. Those held as slaves shouldn't be violent to self-styled "owners." Thoreau, author of Civil Disobedience, famously supported John Brown's violent raid on Harper's Ferry, arguing Brown's commitment to justice required him to fight a government which enforced the injustice of slavery. You would deny all of these cases of using violence to (at least try to) prevent future violence by characterizing them as equivalent to an un-just war with horrific genocides? Really? It's actually a horrible analogy because by your logic the US should not have gotten involved in the European theater of WWII - why use violence to prevent future violence? I agree with dgb23 - your view is incredibly naive. Simply say you are a pacifist and reject all violence. That's fine. But that's a moral argument, while you asserted there was invalid logic. MLK Jr. commented that 'A riot is the language of the unheard'. I agree with King's characterization of the riots he was talking about. dgb23's point is a direct parallel: "Violence is inevitable, in some form or another, if the climate effects are ignored to such a degree." I also agree with dgb23.

refurb 3y ago
All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive. Russia attacked Ukraine. The slave is a victim of violence. Your argument doesn't even make sense in a situation where violence hasn't occurred.
- eesmith 3y ago
  > All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive. Incorrect. One of my examples was "An officer, for example, may get end up getting into a fight with someone being arrested for conspiring to commit murder." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37145828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37145828 Is dumping poison into the town's water supply, knowing it will kill plants, animals, and people, an act of violence? If it is violence, it's acceptable to use violence to prevent that act, correct? If it isn't violence, suppose a staff member see someone about to do that. May that person use violence to prevent the act from happening? May a police officer? If not, and it's too late to try any other options, is it really logical to avoid preemptive violence in order to save lives? Next, re-run the example with someone actually pouring poison into the town's water system, but it will take a day before the first people are affected, and a week until the toxic effects start killing people. When is it acceptable to use violent methods to stop the poisoner? In 23 hours? In 6.9 days? Or right now? Or is that enough that that we can should avoid violence and instead, say, install water filtering systems in everyone's sink and make everyone pay for new filters each month?
  - refurb 3y ago
    It’s really hard to follow your train of logic since it keeps changing. Preemptive use of violence is generally seen as acceptable when it: 1) is equal to the level of violence faced (e.g. you don’t shoot someone in the head if the look like they are going to punch you) and 2) the threat of violence is imminent and threatens humans life. Violence due to climate change doesn’t fulfill any of those requirements: 1) it far exceeds the violence being committed now, 2) the future violence isn’t imminent and 3) it’s unknown if the future violence will threaten human life.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      My responses shift because I am trying to understand your position. Your original position was "Commuting violence now because you think it’ll happen in the future is a horrible argument and can be used to justify anything." Your current position is that some level of violence is acceptable to prevent some types of future violence. It therefore seems that you agree with the logic of "just war". Why then did you write "Logic don’t work that way."? You seem to only allow violence when faced with violence. Is dumping toxic pollution into a drinking supply, knowing it will cause deaths in the future, a form of violence? If yes, then violence can be used to oppose such action, proportionate to the expected deaths, illnesses, etc. based on your best model of the effect. If no, then poisoning the drinking water for the board of BigOilCo. is a form of non-violent eco terrorism. > Violence due to climate change doesn’t fulfill any of those requirements Has ExxonMobil committed any form of violence in its contribution to CO2 emissions? Remember, their own staff scientists sounded the warning about future dangers back in the 1980s. The level of eco terrorism now are things like deflating the tires of SUVs. This is not violence, so appears to meet your criteria. However, your comment was in responded to a prediction about the future: "Violence is inevitable, in some form or another, if the climate effects are ignored to such a degree." at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37144135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37144135 If things progress as many fear, then your own logic says that eco terrorism may be justified, agreeing with dgb23.
      - refurb 3y ago
        “Logic doesn’t work that way” in the sense of equating an immediate, personal, lethal threat to distant, indirect and vague lethal threat. > Is dumping toxic pollution into a drinking supply, knowing it will cause deaths in the future, a form of violence? That is such a vague statement I’m not sure anyone can answer that. If someone puts cyanide in my bottle of water? Sure. If someone dumps a chemical into a river that eventually gets treated and tested such that the threat to me is minimal, then no. > Has ExxonMobil committed any form of violence in its contribution to CO2 emissions? No because there is no proof that CO2 emissions are a direct lethal threat to you personally. We don’t know what the consequences of climate change will be to the degree to say “it’s going to kill this person”. I mean by your logic if your neighbor decides to burn plastic in a camp fire you’re allowed to kill them because “they released carcinogens that I could breath and give me cancer that kills me”.

refurb 3y ago

All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive. Russia attacked Ukraine. The slave is a victim of violence. Your argument doesn't even make sense in a situation where violence hasn't occurred.

eesmith 3y ago
> All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive. Incorrect. One of my examples was "An officer, for example, may get end up getting into a fight with someone being arrested for conspiring to commit murder." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37145828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37145828 Is dumping poison into the town's water supply, knowing it will kill plants, animals, and people, an act of violence? If it is violence, it's acceptable to use violence to prevent that act, correct? If it isn't violence, suppose a staff member see someone about to do that. May that person use violence to prevent the act from happening? May a police officer? If not, and it's too late to try any other options, is it really logical to avoid preemptive violence in order to save lives? Next, re-run the example with someone actually pouring poison into the town's water system, but it will take a day before the first people are affected, and a week until the toxic effects start killing people. When is it acceptable to use violent methods to stop the poisoner? In 23 hours? In 6.9 days? Or right now? Or is that enough that that we can should avoid violence and instead, say, install water filtering systems in everyone's sink and make everyone pay for new filters each month?
- refurb 3y ago
  It’s really hard to follow your train of logic since it keeps changing. Preemptive use of violence is generally seen as acceptable when it: 1) is equal to the level of violence faced (e.g. you don’t shoot someone in the head if the look like they are going to punch you) and 2) the threat of violence is imminent and threatens humans life. Violence due to climate change doesn’t fulfill any of those requirements: 1) it far exceeds the violence being committed now, 2) the future violence isn’t imminent and 3) it’s unknown if the future violence will threaten human life.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    My responses shift because I am trying to understand your position. Your original position was "Commuting violence now because you think it’ll happen in the future is a horrible argument and can be used to justify anything." Your current position is that some level of violence is acceptable to prevent some types of future violence. It therefore seems that you agree with the logic of "just war". Why then did you write "Logic don’t work that way."? You seem to only allow violence when faced with violence. Is dumping toxic pollution into a drinking supply, knowing it will cause deaths in the future, a form of violence? If yes, then violence can be used to oppose such action, proportionate to the expected deaths, illnesses, etc. based on your best model of the effect. If no, then poisoning the drinking water for the board of BigOilCo. is a form of non-violent eco terrorism. > Violence due to climate change doesn’t fulfill any of those requirements Has ExxonMobil committed any form of violence in its contribution to CO2 emissions? Remember, their own staff scientists sounded the warning about future dangers back in the 1980s. The level of eco terrorism now are things like deflating the tires of SUVs. This is not violence, so appears to meet your criteria. However, your comment was in responded to a prediction about the future: "Violence is inevitable, in some form or another, if the climate effects are ignored to such a degree." at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37144135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37144135 If things progress as many fear, then your own logic says that eco terrorism may be justified, agreeing with dgb23.
    - refurb 3y ago
      “Logic doesn’t work that way” in the sense of equating an immediate, personal, lethal threat to distant, indirect and vague lethal threat. > Is dumping toxic pollution into a drinking supply, knowing it will cause deaths in the future, a form of violence? That is such a vague statement I’m not sure anyone can answer that. If someone puts cyanide in my bottle of water? Sure. If someone dumps a chemical into a river that eventually gets treated and tested such that the threat to me is minimal, then no. > Has ExxonMobil committed any form of violence in its contribution to CO2 emissions? No because there is no proof that CO2 emissions are a direct lethal threat to you personally. We don’t know what the consequences of climate change will be to the degree to say “it’s going to kill this person”. I mean by your logic if your neighbor decides to burn plastic in a camp fire you’re allowed to kill them because “they released carcinogens that I could breath and give me cancer that kills me”.