• Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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… 🤷‍♂️

    • milkjug@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • BeegYoshi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds like the end justifies the means, which is itself a tricky statement. Though I think I know what you’re saying.

        • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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).