4 ms·

Is this not affirming the consequent? Violence for A ends is Terrorism Intimidation for A ends is terrorism ∴ Intimidation for A ends is violence. <--- does

• varispeed 1y ago
  No, that’s a misread. I’m not collapsing “intimidation” into “violence”. I’m pointing out that psychological and coercive violence are legally and medically recognised forms of harm. The distinction you’re making is rhetorical, not substantive. The state can’t redefine violence narrowly to exclude itself while criminal law already accepts non-physical violence as real. The argument is about consistency, not syllogisms.
  • nandomrumber 1y ago
    Get your own words, we’re already using these ones. Violence is a category of harm. Definitions matter. If speech is violence then execution is a suitable punishment.