Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?
When folks are mean to service staff.
If I’m out by myself and I see someone hassling an employee, I get some enjoyment out of being a Large, Unpleasant Man™ and hassling them right back. It’s funny how little they care about their little problem when some random weirdo who doesn’t work there gets involved.
Striking someone that could cause lots of violence to others otherwise…
Of course violence would be the last resort in this case as well, in my opinion, but it would be the lesser evil.Some people use violence to fuel their morbid curiosity.
Can it help an individual who delves into such topic through discussions and material?Punching nazis. Always acceptable, even encouraged.
It’s kind of infuriating how many un-punched Nazis there are out there.
I want to hear from the two down votes who didn’t comment. Fuck nazis and their shitty sympathizers. A punch isn’t enough
Only when all other options are ruled out. And obviously, you should not be the aggressor in any situation
Nobody else has mentioned proportionality.
When responding to aggression, the response should not significantly escalate the risk. So lethal force should only be applied in scenarios where there is a lethal threat, etc.
Nope. That’s the logic cops use when shooting people in the back or kicking a guy in the head who’s lying on the ground.
deleted by creator
You’re not required to risk your life for someone that’s victimizing you. You didn’t create the situation and your responsibility is to defend yourself and your loved ones.
Sure I’ll keep a knife on me and shank every cunt that walks near me as they might be a threat
Sounds totally fucking sane. No wonder this planets fucked when there’s people looking for an excuse to put someone six feet under.
You should chill a bit and not make wild assumptions.
Can you respond to me directly with what you find wrong with the idea, or present an actual situation you think I’d be okay with?
I’m talking about clear and obvious aggression. If someone pulls a knife, you’re allowed to defend yourself. You don’t have to wait to get stabbed.
And I would recommend a firearm for defense, but that’s on you. I carry a knife so I can kill myself if I feel like it.
deleted by creator
I’ve been caught in a bomb scare, guns would have done fuck all when there was a massive police presence that the trains were stopped and the shut down a whole part of a city. In fact a gun would have made me more likely to be killed than going the fuck home.
deleted by creator
Self defense comes to mind, but probably there are other examples.
Self defense, as part of a game (such as wrestling) or in BDSM, when both sides are okay with it and don’t face actual danger.
Safe, sane, consensual.
Just a curious question: Would that also apply to your loved ones being savagely killed?
Lol, I told her recently that if she dies giving birth to our child, I will be totally devastated. I didn’t have a mom because she did giving birth to my sister when I was baby.
But, if someone is responsible for her death, of course I’ll be both devastated and vengeful. Even so, a part of me will want peace and serenity, and that part of me will see accepting what happened is the best way to do that.
You can do no violence but also feel sorrow at violence being done. Not only are those stances not incompatible but I’d argue they’re in alignment. Violence, done by you, to you or simply involving others, is an occurrence to weep for. Some people are being put through unnecessary pain and some people are of an unsound mind and believe putting others through pain is justified.
I won’t judge someone who defends themselves for self preservation but I will applaud someone who continues to try and deescalate violence even as it’s being enacted on them… though I will clarify this is all at the adult level, children take some time to come to awareness of who and what other people are and are still growing into their full selves.
It’s a nice thought, but doesn’t work out so well
It works out just fine if you don’t think self-preservation is the most important aspect of life. Buddhist moral development demands realizing the temporary nature of life. A massacre is just another means by which one’s life ends. A person is still responsible for upholding moral principles.
I realize we’re probably not going to convince each other over some internet comments, but that’s not a philosophy I’d sign up for. Morality is subjective, and I’d rather choose moral principles that don’t involve me accepting being massacred.
There are a lot of things one can conclude from the ‘temporary’ nature of life (we know of several species whose sole cause of death is ‘eaten by predator’ or ‘died in an accident’ so life is not neccesarily temporary) and the buddhist interpretation seems to be a bit defeatist to me. “Life is short so I may as well throw it away” would have gotten humanity extinct at several points in history. If all life lived according to this mindset nature would be imbalanced and collapse immediately. Why should the deer rum from the wolves? Why should the rabbit from the fox? Without a drive to survive life would not have evolved past the microbial stage because there would have been no selection bias favoring individual genetic traits. As a result no single trait would get popular enough to get life out of the microbial stage. Now there can be a discussion about whether or not life should have evolved but that’s on another page entirely.
You cannot reason that life shouldn’t have evolved because any argument you can make is thanks to the fact that it evolved.
Violence is justified when you have no other means left to defend yourself or someone else otherwise.
At which point I would like to add that people will sometimes not be able to see the means they have left because they are put in a stressful situation in a second. I feel like you can’t really blame them for that.
Violence as a response should always be in proportion. That should avoid escalation. In an ideal world.
Unfortunately some people won’t stop. Those people need to be put into prison where they cannot hurt anyone anymore.
Use of some violence is justified to stop another bigger, ongoing violence.
I would argue to stop other violence, not necessarily bigger, is also justified. It’s never allowed unrestricted, especially as the bigger entity, but a tactical or measured response to prevent further violence can make sense.
Ah yes dropping a 2kton tactical Nuke to stop a mugging
Not even you believe that is what I meant.
I don’t believe that is what you meant, but @dewritoninja has a point: on your definition, where is the acceptable limit for the violence-to-supress-violence?
PS: “An eye for an eye” (law of exact retaliation) was written to suppress escalation of violence. And usually people consider even that excessive.
My point is that it’s an absurd argument.
Let’s talk real world, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think a reasonable argument can be made that those bombings made sense? If not, what about in 1945?
I’m not asking you to agree, just to understand the argument. It’s a discussion worth having, even if you disagree with the answer.
I don’t think it made sense, even at that time. Those cities were mainly built with wood, and US used a lot of fire against Japan.
The use of nuclear power against Japan was more like a test and a message, it was not needed to win the war. (At least this is what I remember from this documentary )
Self défense, yep. On a battlefield ? Let these old fuck fight one vs one to resolve their conflict. A noble end is so fucking subjective that I think it would be a terrible idea.
I heard a quote that has really stuck with me, it goes something like “violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived”
I don’t really condone violence, but this quote has really gotten me thinking.
Hey, cool it with the Ayn Rand - I’ve lost a lot of friends to Libretarianism.
So your comment made me find the origin of the quote. While it’s not verbatim, the quote comes from starship troopers apparently, definitely not Ayn Rand.
Heinlein is honestly just the sci-fi Ayn Rand.
I think you would be interested in reading a bit on the philosophy of Thomas Hobbs and “the monopoly of violence”.
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.
Weird. The question was asked in English.
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”
As someone who uses the original definition of fascism (before liberals changed it to exclude themselves) people generally don’t like that.
A legal arrest can be violent. A soldier killing another is definitely going to be violent. Both can be legitimate uses of force.
when someone is WRONG on the internet
You are wrong
this is where the mythological concept of sin sorta helps. So its a bad thing but basically you decide at what point doing the bad thing is worse than other bad things but you can’t ever make it not a bad thing. You just accept its price at some point and its ultimately and individual decision and I don’t think many will know until that moment. For myself I try to avoid it as much as I can but I don’t know in what situation I will be driven to it.
