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”
Well, you don't age when you're dead. You just moulder.
It’s spelled Mordor, geez.
I'm good with you shooting someone entering your house, but not when they're leaving. I don't expect people, especially vulnerable ones, to bet their life that the guy breaking in is a thief and not a rapist or murderer.
It might be availability bias or similar, but there are a lot of stories about people shooting people entering their house or property that should not have been shot.
It's possible there's a bunch of unreported instances of people successfully defending themselves with guns. Scenarios like that where the person on the property really was there with deadly intentions. But I kind of feel like no. I'm pretty sure the scenario of "someone breaks into your house to murder you!" is actually extremely rare. (or if it does happen, it's the police)
We should also take a moment to think on the chilling effect accepting this level of violence has. I don't want this to be a world where I have to worry about being shot because some idiot feared for his life or property.
I was visiting a friend in upstate New York and I was legit worried walking from the train to their place. I wasn't sure which house was my friend's. I called them and had them come out and greet me because I didn't want to risk going to a neighbor's house by accident, and have that neighbor shoot me because they thought I was a burglar. And I'm a white guy.
I would agree those are unreasonable uses of force. And bad raids don't end with LEO getting shot nearly enough.
The comment I was replying to mentioned someone stealing a TV through a window if I'm not mistaken, and that's what I'm referring to. But if you decide to force your way into someone's house, it's not on them to interrogate you to determine your intent. I have respect for people that would risk themselves in a situation they didn't create, but I don't think it's reasonable to force everyone to behave as tho the guy that just broke your window or forced his way into your house is just there for a cup of tea.
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.
This guy knows his Zen.
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. :)
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.
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
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.
Perceived lethal threat
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.
But that’s all you have in the moment. There is nothing else.
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.
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.
There are situations where people have created a situation where you don't have total knowledge of the future, but acting in defense seems justified.
I think we can quibble over the specifics about what's reasonable, but you don't have to wait until you're bleeding out to defend yourself.
For me personally, the answer to the original question would be "only once no other non-violent means are available".
Does this resonate, or would you consider it different to your perspective? I see them as similar.
Personally, I'd prefer non-violent over violent means for myself. If other people are involved it would depend - I won't risk someone else's life if I can avoid it. I tell my niece that she's allowed to stab dudes that don't respond to "no".
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".
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.
You could just as easily end up on the opposite end of the spectrum, no?
When you are the victim of a loot ninja
Speaking of which, do you know where your toilet is?
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 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.
You cannot reason that life shouldn't have evolved because any argument you can make is thanks to the fact that it evolved.
among the reasons why that argument would never occur this is one of them. Another is that anyone seriously holding that belief should, unless they are a hypocrite, not be among the living anymore
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.
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.
when someone is WRONG on the internet
You are wrong
Yes.
Well put.
Self defense
Self defense but also including defending your rights, freedom, property, and sovereignty
Violence is a form of escalation. One should never cause a conflict to come to a new height and should only resort to something if in response to anything of that same height.
Also, if a ruler of a nation resorts to that, it shows they're not a great/effective ruler. Fluency in how to rule is determined by how much peace you can accomplish with as little change as possible. Less is more, as they say. If you have to punish people too often like some are doing, you're violating that "less is more" rule.
Only when all other options are ruled out. And obviously, you should not be the aggressor in any situation
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.
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.
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.
Usually never.
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?
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.
All of the above that you listed
Self defense comes to mind, but probably there are other examples.
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.
A legal arrest can be violent. A soldier killing another is definitely going to be violent. Both can be legitimate uses of force.
Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force. If a use of force is justified then it isn’t violence.
You're right, but just to be clear: That is an English differentiation that doesn't exist in many other languages.
That's just a rhetorical device. I'm not suggesting that word definitions are prescriptive.
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.
"You haven't aged a day"?
For anyone who sincerely didn't get the reference:
“Fool of a Took”
Well, you don't age when you're dead. You just moulder.
It’s spelled Mordor, geez.
I'm good with you shooting someone entering your house, but not when they're leaving. I don't expect people, especially vulnerable ones, to bet their life that the guy breaking in is a thief and not a rapist or murderer.
It might be availability bias or similar, but there are a lot of stories about people shooting people entering their house or property that should not have been shot.
There was one about a kid who went to the wrong house https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ralph-yarl-shooting-victim-highly-intelligent-gentle-soul-former-teach-rcna80024
There was a story about delivery drivers who got shot at recently. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/23/1171507677/south-florida-shot-at-instacart-delivery-driver-wrong-address. That's actually a good example of the shooter unnecessarily escalating. He could've just... Not shot at them. They were trying to leave.
There's the related story of https://www.npr.org/2023/04/18/1170593395/kaylin-gillis-new-york-driveway-kevin-monahan that page links
None of these are okay.
It's possible there's a bunch of unreported instances of people successfully defending themselves with guns. Scenarios like that where the person on the property really was there with deadly intentions. But I kind of feel like no. I'm pretty sure the scenario of "someone breaks into your house to murder you!" is actually extremely rare. (or if it does happen, it's the police)
We should also take a moment to think on the chilling effect accepting this level of violence has. I don't want this to be a world where I have to worry about being shot because some idiot feared for his life or property.
I was visiting a friend in upstate New York and I was legit worried walking from the train to their place. I wasn't sure which house was my friend's. I called them and had them come out and greet me because I didn't want to risk going to a neighbor's house by accident, and have that neighbor shoot me because they thought I was a burglar. And I'm a white guy.
I would agree those are unreasonable uses of force. And bad raids don't end with LEO getting shot nearly enough.
The comment I was replying to mentioned someone stealing a TV through a window if I'm not mistaken, and that's what I'm referring to. But if you decide to force your way into someone's house, it's not on them to interrogate you to determine your intent. I have respect for people that would risk themselves in a situation they didn't create, but I don't think it's reasonable to force everyone to behave as tho the guy that just broke your window or forced his way into your house is just there for a cup of tea.
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.
This guy knows his Zen.
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. :)
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.
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
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.
Perceived lethal threat
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.
But that’s all you have in the moment. There is nothing else.
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.
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.
There are situations where people have created a situation where you don't have total knowledge of the future, but acting in defense seems justified.
I think we can quibble over the specifics about what's reasonable, but you don't have to wait until you're bleeding out to defend yourself.
For me personally, the answer to the original question would be "only once no other non-violent means are available".
Does this resonate, or would you consider it different to your perspective? I see them as similar.
Personally, I'd prefer non-violent over violent means for myself. If other people are involved it would depend - I won't risk someone else's life if I can avoid it. I tell my niece that she's allowed to stab dudes that don't respond to "no".
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".
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.
You could just as easily end up on the opposite end of the spectrum, no?
When you are the victim of a loot ninja
Speaking of which, do you know where your toilet is?
Much more often than I actually do it.
To protect against violence
I live with this in mind every day.
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.
Yes, hate does not solve anything. Gun does.
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.
You cannot reason that life shouldn't have evolved because any argument you can make is thanks to the fact that it evolved.
among the reasons why that argument would never occur this is one of them. Another is that anyone seriously holding that belief should, unless they are a hypocrite, not be among the living anymore
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.
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.
when someone is WRONG on the internet
You are wrong
Yes.
Well put.
Self defense
Self defense but also including defending your rights, freedom, property, and sovereignty
Violence is a form of escalation. One should never cause a conflict to come to a new height and should only resort to something if in response to anything of that same height.
Also, if a ruler of a nation resorts to that, it shows they're not a great/effective ruler. Fluency in how to rule is determined by how much peace you can accomplish with as little change as possible. Less is more, as they say. If you have to punish people too often like some are doing, you're violating that "less is more" rule.
Only when all other options are ruled out. And obviously, you should not be the aggressor in any situation
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.
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.
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.
Usually never.
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?
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.
All of the above that you listed
Self defense comes to mind, but probably there are other examples.
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.
A legal arrest can be violent. A soldier killing another is definitely going to be violent. Both can be legitimate uses of force.
You're right, but just to be clear: That is an English differentiation that doesn't exist in many other languages.
That's just a rhetorical device. I'm not suggesting that word definitions are prescriptive.
Weird. The question was asked in English.
Downvoted for being factually incorrect. Nowhere in the (non-doctrinal) definition of violence does it include "unjustified"
I'm the one defining violence here.
As someone who uses the original definition of fascism (before liberals changed it to exclude themselves) people generally don't like that.
The OP is a prompt as to the nature of violence.