this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
71 points (98.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43947 readers
638 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wagesj45@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

It's always a matter of degrees. The bigger the injustice, the more violence is justified to rectify it. It is in the disproportionality, in my view, where the problem arises.

Never forget that humans are just barely evolved apes. Sometimes a swift knock to the head is required to activate those neural pathways to discourage anti-social behavior. Not always, but also not never. Claiming otherwise is just self-aggrandizing moralization that people use to make themselves sound and feel superior.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Damaskox@kbin.social 2 points 1 year 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?

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I think it is hard to list all the situations but in the end it boils down to situations where both you personally as the person considering using violence and the average person could live with that decision in the long term. Both because that covers situations where you personally are a lot less or a lot more concerned with the consequences of your actions than the average person. And the average person instead of every single person because there are always some individuals whose views on the matter are a bit too extreme to be practical. Maybe instead of the average person it might make sense to use something like "90% of the population" but in the end you can't measure things that accurately anyway.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When folks are mean to service staff.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If I'm out by myself and I see someone hassling an employee, I get some enjoyment out of being a Large, Unpleasant Manβ„’ 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.

Usually never.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

All of the above that you listed

[–] Macaroni_ninja@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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

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

I'm the one defining violence here.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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