Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?
Self defense. But also like someone else said proportionate response is key. If someone gets mad at you in a bar and throws a punch, pushing him away is fine. Hitting him to subdue him is probably okay. Shooting him dead is not.
I’m also not really okay with people using murder to defend their stuff. Like if someone sneaks into my house and I catch them going out the window with my tv, shooting them is not to me justified. There are more TV’s. That guy gets one life. Remember what Gandalf said.
I think a lot of people have like tough guy fantasies about shooting a burglar and it always makes me uncomfortable.
On the other hand, if someone was on trial for shooting a Nazi dead I would find them not guilty. Shame that Nazi spontaneously bled out. But at least he’s gone before he killed my entire family and friends.
Remember what Gandalf said.
“You haven’t aged a day”?
For anyone who sincerely didn’t get the reference:
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
“Fool of a Took”
When the rich break the social contract.
Punching nazis. Always acceptable, even encouraged.
Punching nazis is always self defense.
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
When someone who I was supposed to be able to trust kept repeatedly trying to record me naked in the shower, I retaliated once by kicking him hard in the face. I was told that what I did was wrong and violence was never the answer. I disagree.
I agree with you and disagree with anyone who said it’s not OK.
Some people will learn with a gentle hand. Some learn with a slightly firm hand. Some only learn when you pick up a 2x4 and beat them.
Whenever my father’s family wanted to convey what an injury felt like or needed a theoretical weapon the humble 2x4 was always used. Thanks for bringing back memories of the old folks telling stories around a fire or in a crowded, smoky kitchen. :)
This guy knows his Zen.
As a kid another kid regularly bullied me. Nothing extremely serious… pushing me, grabbing me, putting me in a headlock, stuff like that whenever he felt like it and/or wanted something. Parents and teachers were not able to stop it and I basically just got retaliation. One day when he came at me I simply kicked and managed to hit right in his balls. He ran away crying. Never bothered me again afterwards. Still feels good.
Violence is justified when it’s needed to protect yourself or someone else from violence. That’s about it, honestly.
I am not a fan of pre-emptive violence.
What about post-emptive violence?
Surely protecting is by definition preemptive since it means you are not allowing the violence against yourself or someone else to occur? Not saying your first point is wrong just doesn’t seem consistent to me.
Only revenge/retribution would not be preemptive which imo is not better.
Preemptive is a different word from defending because they mean different things. Preemptive violence is violence that happens before a threat exists because of the possibility of a threat.
So shooting your neighbor on Tuesday because think he might be violent on Wednesday. If on Wednesday he shows up and makes verbal threats of imminent violence, responding to the threat of violence by being violent first would be self defense and not preemptive because the threat actually exists at the time. Timing and context matter, not who literally who gets off the first shot/punch/violent act.
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.
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.
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 )
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.
I think you would be interested in reading a bit on the philosophy of Thomas Hobbs and “the monopoly of violence”.
when someone is WRONG on the internet
You are wrong
When you are the victim of a loot ninja
Speaking of which, do you know where your toilet is?
To protect against violence
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.
Yes, hate does not solve anything. Gun does.
I’d argue removing the bandits ability to cause further dismemberment by means of violence against them and being consumed by rage and hatred are two different things.
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.
A massacre, or a genocide, is more than just “one’s” life ending. It is one’s own life, the lives of one’s loved ones, and the lives of one’s people.
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.
There is no need of hate. You can defend and retaliate, but hate is pointless. Do it out of necessity, out of love of your neighbors and the need to protect them, not out of hate to the attackers. That’s what it is about.
