I want to be very clear: I will never support or condone violence. But when this parasite dies (from natural causes), the entire country will be massively better off for it.
All violence is not equal. Unjustified and unprovoked violence is not the same as justified violence in self defense, for example. To say that one does not support violence is to paint with a very large brush and over important nuance and context
I don’t believe self-defense is violence. For example, I believe Ukraine has every right to capture, injure, kill, and drive out all Russian invaders as they protect their country.
I get what you’re saying, but believe me: I understand how broad my brush is, yet I still don’t like violence. In my opinion some things are just black and white… 🤷♂️
A little surprised that you’re getting downvoted for this, but I suppose your opinion on what constitutes violence is a value judgment rather than a dispassionate definition. Ukraine driving out Russian invaders from their homeland using whatever means necessary, including violence to the fullest extent allowed by the Geneva Convention, is absolutely justified in my book.
being justified or not has nothing to do with whether something is violent. if someone is getting hurt, maimed, or killed, that’s violence, no matter how much they deserve it.
I think it is what you’re saying but not what you are intending to say. It sounds like there are conditions under which violence is ok, though violence itself is something to be avoided. Eg. Ukraine can defend itself using violence because violence in defence is ok, which in my mind sounds a lot like the end (self preservation) justifies the means (war).
I know it’s frustrating, but some things are more important than the end result. People who have to kill someone are often traumatized. For life. We weren’t built to destroy each other, and by doing so, we also lose some of our humanity…
If you go out and kill a murderer… the net total of murderers in the world remains the same.
I think we are lucky to not have to make those choices.
My uncle was murdered and my grandma ended up spending a lot of time talking with the murderer. That’s one way. There is also no shortage of stories about people killing those who have traumatized family members (rape and murder). In my case the murderer was troubled, but in other cases (Mitch) they are psychopathic people who I think should be removed from society one way or another. That’s my sentiment towards Mitch and his health problems. I am completely ambivalent about his well being. To be completely anti-violence is a position, but it is a hard one to hold in reality.
I want to be very clear: I will never support or condone violence. But when this parasite dies (from natural causes), the entire country will be massively better off for it.
Why? Violence inflicted by pen is still violence. He’s killed thousands.
I want to be very clear: I will never support or condone violence. But when this parasite dies (from natural causes), the entire country will be massively better off for it.
All violence is not equal. Unjustified and unprovoked violence is not the same as justified violence in self defense, for example. To say that one does not support violence is to paint with a very large brush and over important nuance and context
I don’t believe self-defense is violence. For example, I believe Ukraine has every right to capture, injure, kill, and drive out all Russian invaders as they protect their country.
I get what you’re saying, but believe me: I understand how broad my brush is, yet I still don’t like violence. In my opinion some things are just black and white… 🤷♂️
A little surprised that you’re getting downvoted for this, but I suppose your opinion on what constitutes violence is a value judgment rather than a dispassionate definition. Ukraine driving out Russian invaders from their homeland using whatever means necessary, including violence to the fullest extent allowed by the Geneva Convention, is absolutely justified in my book.
Remember, one of the biggest instances is Lemmy.ml, run by Tankies. Fuck fascism.
being justified or not has nothing to do with whether something is violent. if someone is getting hurt, maimed, or killed, that’s violence, no matter how much they deserve it.
Sounds like the end justifies the means, which is itself a tricky statement. Though I think I know what you’re saying.
Not even close to what I’m saying. But I’m glad you’re listening…
I think it is what you’re saying but not what you are intending to say. It sounds like there are conditions under which violence is ok, though violence itself is something to be avoided. Eg. Ukraine can defend itself using violence because violence in defence is ok, which in my mind sounds a lot like the end (self preservation) justifies the means (war).
Before you commit to that statement remember that peaceful protests work about 1% of the time.
I know it’s frustrating, but some things are more important than the end result. People who have to kill someone are often traumatized. For life. We weren’t built to destroy each other, and by doing so, we also lose some of our humanity…
If you go out and kill a murderer… the net total of murderers in the world remains the same.
I think we are lucky to not have to make those choices.
My uncle was murdered and my grandma ended up spending a lot of time talking with the murderer. That’s one way. There is also no shortage of stories about people killing those who have traumatized family members (rape and murder). In my case the murderer was troubled, but in other cases (Mitch) they are psychopathic people who I think should be removed from society one way or another. That’s my sentiment towards Mitch and his health problems. I am completely ambivalent about his well being. To be completely anti-violence is a position, but it is a hard one to hold in reality.
Why? Violence inflicted by pen is still violence. He’s killed thousands.