4 ms·
One country using the threat of violence to stop non-violent (but still bad) acts by citizens of another country in neutral territory seems like a bad idea.
by bequanna 3y ago
One country using the threat of violence to stop non-violent (but still bad) acts by citizens of another country in neutral territory seems like a bad idea.
- bequanna 3y ago> It's not non-violent if it's causing harm. Oh man… that’s a slippery slope. Allows you to justify using force against all sorts of non-violent things you don’t like. See the many examples where aggressive force was used “for the greater good” in the 20th century if you want some spoilers for how that turns out.
- rexpop 3y agoIt's not non-violent if it's causing harm.
- sshine 3y agoShooting a ship with a gunboat is still more violent than tossing a used fishing net.
- rexpop 3y agoTossing a million such nets is a more fair comparison.
- sshine 3y agoThe catastrophe of tossing plastics into the ocean is arguably worse than the combined sinking of ships with cannons. But to call it violent because of the cumulative pain it indirectly causes is still a different, more abstract concept of pain than direct infliction. I’m not opposed to acknowledging either as pain, or to say that either is the worst, but they’re different.
- fennecfoxy 3y agoThis is basically all of human history, laws and being imprisoned - holding someone against their will counting as a more modern, refined form of violence, though necessary. But for that specific scenario, yes it is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons. But only because we're just a bunch of animals on a rock and we just can't seem to agree to play nice with each other. I blame evolution.