this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
66 points (98.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43810 readers
1 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

(page 2) 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Damaskox@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

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?

[–] Macaroni_ninja@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Self defense comes to mind, but probably there are other examples.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

All of the above that you listed

[–] charonn0@startrek.website -2 points 2 years ago (6 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 -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm the one defining violence here.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The OP is a prompt as to the nature of violence.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί