7 ms·

> I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact. This is one of the most debated topics in all of human history. You make an excellent point, o

> I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact. This is one of the most debated topics in all of human history. You make an excellent point, one which Noam Chomsky addressed by saying[1] > "If we're interested in let's say diminishing the amount of violence in the world, it's at least arguable and perhaps even sometimes true that a terroristic act does diminish the amount of violence in the world. Hence a person who is opposed to violence will not be opposed to that terroristic act." Edit: The context was the use of violence to stop a hypothetical "train" from transporting munitions to help the criminal US war in Vietnam. [1] http://www.eduqna.com/Quotations/495-quotations-5.html http://www.eduqna.com/Quotations/495-quotations-5.html

proksoup 13y ago
Another Chomsky example has used frequently is pulling a child by the arm out of the street. It's violence, and it's moral certainty is debatable depending on the specific context.
- maaku 13y ago
  How is yanking a child's arm not less violent than getting run over by a bus? Being against violence means wanting to minimize the amount of violence in the world, no? It's a strange strawman to say that being against violence means never taking any forceful action whatsoever - that just leads to violent outcomes through inaction.
  - corin_ 13y ago
    Sure , but that's the entire debate. In that example it's easy, of course you'd rather cause a child a little discomfort rather than let them get run over. But what about more serious examples? Would you support the people behind 9/11 if it lead to less deaths overall over an X year period? If yes, would everyone? It's easy to make your decision when the potential downside (a child cries for 5 minutes) is so minor and the potential upside (a child gets saved from dying) is so much bigger in comparison - it only becomes an interesting debate when you up the stakes considerably. For example, the debate about whether what Mandela did, back in his "terrorrist" days, was justified.
    - meowface 13y ago
      You can't compare "minor violence against one person vs. extreme violence against one person", and "extreme violence against one/a few people vs. extreme violence against numerous people." Can anyone think of a terroristic act that resulted in one or more deaths actually leading to less net violence? Most seem to cause more violence: Dorner shooting police, causing police to open fire on civilians they thought were him. 9/11 leading to many innocent deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. People are much more likely to respond to violence with violence, than they are to respond with it to peace.
    - dsuth 13y ago
      That is not the entire debate. Pacifism and non-violence are not the same as inaction. It's a question of intent. It's indisputable that yanking a child's arm to remove them from danger is NOT violence, because the intent is one of protection.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Adding to your point, here is another example: Would you assert that the people on United Airlines Flight 93 should have practiced non-violent resistance when the intent of their hijackers became clear? Their use of violence against the hijackers was not pacifist, and because they were not pacifists many lives, arguably countless lives, were spared.
      - meowface 13y ago
        They did it out of self-defense (and also general defense). Violence from self-defense is completely different from retaliatory and/or "message-sending" violence.
        Crito 13y ago
        Sure. I agree. Violence for self-defense isn't pacifism though. Pacifism is not "only use violence when it is justified". That you recognize that violence can be justified (for instance, in self-defense) means that you're not a pacifist. That is okay, most people are not. The author asserts that violence used to prevent additional violence is illogical. You and I both recognize that as false, as both you and I recognize the value that violence can have when it is used for self-defense.
- enriquepablo 13y ago
  I think that you should discriminate between "violence" in Physics and "violence" in Ethics.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    Why? it seems to be just a matter of scale.
  - icegreentea 13y ago
    Well, if you agree that physical violence is application non-consensual force, then it works out fine, since then any force applied without warning is an violent act. I think its a fine definition of violence, IF you accept that violence is sometimes necessary (I think most people hold this view), or even that violence may not be inherently wrong (really a logical extension of the first... but I feel that less people would say they agree with this view).
    - CatMtKing 13y ago
      Um, I think of violence as application of force to cause lasting or permanent injury or death.
      - entropy_ 13y ago
        Slapping someone in the face is definitely a violent act, in most cases though, it won't cause any lasting or permanent injury and definitely not death(unless you are the hulk or something).
    - maaku 13y ago
      Non-consensual force is enslavement, not violence. In my view any reasonable definition of violence has to involve injury of some kind.

proksoup 13y ago

Another Chomsky example has used frequently is pulling a child by the arm out of the street. It's violence, and it's moral certainty is debatable depending on the specific context.

maaku 13y ago
How is yanking a child's arm not less violent than getting run over by a bus? Being against violence means wanting to minimize the amount of violence in the world, no? It's a strange strawman to say that being against violence means never taking any forceful action whatsoever - that just leads to violent outcomes through inaction.
- corin_ 13y ago
  Sure , but that's the entire debate. In that example it's easy, of course you'd rather cause a child a little discomfort rather than let them get run over. But what about more serious examples? Would you support the people behind 9/11 if it lead to less deaths overall over an X year period? If yes, would everyone? It's easy to make your decision when the potential downside (a child cries for 5 minutes) is so minor and the potential upside (a child gets saved from dying) is so much bigger in comparison - it only becomes an interesting debate when you up the stakes considerably. For example, the debate about whether what Mandela did, back in his "terrorrist" days, was justified.
  - meowface 13y ago
    You can't compare "minor violence against one person vs. extreme violence against one person", and "extreme violence against one/a few people vs. extreme violence against numerous people." Can anyone think of a terroristic act that resulted in one or more deaths actually leading to less net violence? Most seem to cause more violence: Dorner shooting police, causing police to open fire on civilians they thought were him. 9/11 leading to many innocent deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. People are much more likely to respond to violence with violence, than they are to respond with it to peace.
  - dsuth 13y ago
    That is not the entire debate. Pacifism and non-violence are not the same as inaction. It's a question of intent. It's indisputable that yanking a child's arm to remove them from danger is NOT violence, because the intent is one of protection.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Adding to your point, here is another example: Would you assert that the people on United Airlines Flight 93 should have practiced non-violent resistance when the intent of their hijackers became clear? Their use of violence against the hijackers was not pacifist, and because they were not pacifists many lives, arguably countless lives, were spared.
    - meowface 13y ago
      They did it out of self-defense (and also general defense). Violence from self-defense is completely different from retaliatory and/or "message-sending" violence.
      - Crito 13y ago
        Sure. I agree. Violence for self-defense isn't pacifism though. Pacifism is not "only use violence when it is justified". That you recognize that violence can be justified (for instance, in self-defense) means that you're not a pacifist. That is okay, most people are not. The author asserts that violence used to prevent additional violence is illogical. You and I both recognize that as false, as both you and I recognize the value that violence can have when it is used for self-defense.
enriquepablo 13y ago
I think that you should discriminate between "violence" in Physics and "violence" in Ethics.
- gcb0 13y ago
  Why? it seems to be just a matter of scale.
- icegreentea 13y ago
  Well, if you agree that physical violence is application non-consensual force, then it works out fine, since then any force applied without warning is an violent act. I think its a fine definition of violence, IF you accept that violence is sometimes necessary (I think most people hold this view), or even that violence may not be inherently wrong (really a logical extension of the first... but I feel that less people would say they agree with this view).
  - CatMtKing 13y ago
    Um, I think of violence as application of force to cause lasting or permanent injury or death.
    - entropy_ 13y ago
      Slapping someone in the face is definitely a violent act, in most cases though, it won't cause any lasting or permanent injury and definitely not death(unless you are the hulk or something).
  - maaku 13y ago
    Non-consensual force is enslavement, not violence. In my view any reasonable definition of violence has to involve injury of some kind.