4 ms·
> But I recognize that violence can sometimes become a necessity—which is why I say that people should forgo the use of violence unless all non-violent paths to
by rasengan 1y ago
> But I recognize that violence can sometimes become a necessity—which is why I say that people should forgo the use of violence unless all non-violent paths to resolve a conflict have either been exhausted or taken off the table.
> Lethal violence is the line that should only be crossed when it, too, is the last available option.
No, violence is never necessary. Once you use violence, you start the downward spiral of perpetual hatred; after all, if someone harms one that you love, forgiveness becomes difficult.
The only solution to perpetual hatred is peace, understanding and love.
As long as you think violence is a solution, you'll gravitate toward the short term gratification that may or may not come therewith.
Get that out of your head.
Violence is never the answer.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoSo if you were in Utah yesterday and came upon the shooter preparing to fire, you wouldn't kick the rifle out of his hand?
- nullocator 1y agoI don't think this is a fair question. Answering the question you asked to someone else: It's hard for me to personally know how I'd react in such a situation. I'd like to say that I'd do everything possible to stop one person from killing another even if (lesser) violence is required to do so, and I think that's okay. But I think it's equally likely that I could be afraid or unsure of how to react in such a situation and therefore fail to act which is also okay I think? Not everyone wants to be or can be a hero or a statistic.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoIt's perfectly fine that you wouldn't know what you'd do in that hypothetical. But you answered the question I asked, you'd choose the lesser violence to stop the greater violence. I think a lot of people would agree. The person I asked said "violence is never the answer" so I wanted to explore that.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Violence is never the answer Violence can be the answer. We are nowhere near that point in America. The murder of Kirk wasn’t a thoughtful application of violence. It was a tantrum, and this being the U.S., one acted out with a gun.
- teachrdan 1y agoAre there any circumstances under which you would call the police if you felt unsafe? Because any time the police intervene with someone there is a chance, however small, that it will escalate into violence. (Assuming you are in the US where the police can use up to lethal force with near-impunity.) If you are indeed willing to call the police then you are simply outsourcing your violence to someone else. I personally do have friends who are proper pacifists -- they would not fight an attacker (but would try to deescalate them or run away), and they would not call the cops under basically any circumstances. That has taught me that pacifism requires a lot of bravery. Whereas saying "violence is never the answer" is usually cheap, thoughtless rhetoric.
- dns_snek 1y agoNever? What are your views on violence as self-defense, violence against tyrannical governments, and the 2nd amendment?
- johnnyanmac 1y agoSelf defense is fine. Rebellion is less and less viable, but your unalinebale rights to life and liberty means that it's within your means to fight against anything oppressing you. 2nd amendment, ehh. Most of the world requires permits. A gun isn't a toy, nor a tool we use in everyday modern society. If we use 2A to justify a way to rebel, we need to examine what an "arm" really is in the modern war. The useful ones are still banned from civilian use.
- CamperBob2 1y agoThat .30 Mauser bolt-action job was pretty darned "useful," I'd say.