4 ms·
Violence is not an appropriate response. The first two are sufficient.
by ataggart 13y ago
Violence is not an appropriate response. The first two are sufficient.
- kintamanimatt 13y agoI'm not sure what you mean. Suing someone isn't an act of violence.
- ataggart 13y agoWhat do you imagine the state uses to compel obedience to its laws, if not threats of violence? Sometimes that violence might be appropriate, but some firm sending you an unwanted email falls short of the mark.
- kintamanimatt 13y agoAustralia doesn't use crowbars or fists to remedy wrongdoings, therefore it's not an act of violence. If the punishment for sending bulk unsolicited commercial mail were canings, it'd be violence, but this isn't how civilized countries operate.
- ataggart 13y agoOf course it uses violence; try declining the "non-violent" penalties. Even criminals don't immediately resort to physical violence, but you still know precisely why you should hand over your wallet.
- kintamanimatt 13y agoShow me an instance where a modern Australian court has ordered corporal punishment and I'll agree with you.
- jes 13y agoWith respect, I think attagart has a valid point. Violence can also be confining someone to a jail cell, or confiscating (taking without voluntary consent) some or all of their property (e.g., imposing a fine on a person) Your modern Australian courts must do this, to compel compliance with their decisions.
- wpietri 13y agoNot really. If you lose a lawsuit and fail to pay, then they just come and take your money and/or your possessions. If you attack the sheriff's deputies carting off your stuff, or assault the bank manager for having given away "your" money, then yeah, you are in for a world of hurt.
- tbrownaw 13y agoThe existence of those laws says that society has decided that yes it is appropriate (largely because nothing else seems to work, I think).
- ataggart 13y agoMany people, from Thomas Aquinas to Martin Luther King, would disagree with that principle. Further, I disagree with the notion that a violent response to a non-violent act is justified simply because you can't think of a non-violent way to get people to do what you want.