this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
49 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43394 readers
1693 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a β€˜noble’ end?

(page 2) 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

I think it is hard to list all the situations but in the end it boils down to situations where both you personally as the person considering using violence and the average person could live with that decision in the long term. Both because that covers situations where you personally are a lot less or a lot more concerned with the consequences of your actions than the average person. And the average person instead of every single person because there are always some individuals whose views on the matter are a bit too extreme to be practical. Maybe instead of the average person it might make sense to use something like "90% of the population" but in the end you can't measure things that accurately anyway.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago

Only when all other options are ruled out. And obviously, you should not be the aggressor in any situation

[–] GreyTechnician@lemm.ee -4 points 10 months ago

Violence is never the answer.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website -4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force. If a use of force is justified then it isn't violence.

For example, suppose you're walking across a bridge and you see someone about to jump to their death. So you run over, pull them back from the brink, knock them down, and sit on them. Have you committed an act of violence? I would say not.

On the other hand, suppose the person is just standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change. If you run over, pull them back from the curb, knock them down, and sit on them, that would in fact be an act of violence.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force.

Downvoted for being factually incorrect. Nowhere in the (non-doctrinal) definition of violence does it include "unjustified"

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm the one defining violence here.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

As someone who uses the original definition of fascism (before liberals changed it to exclude themselves) people generally don't like that.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The OP is a prompt as to the nature of violence. I don't know what you're on about.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί