The Resistance pinned down occupation troops that otherwise would have been available to fight opposing armies.
Anyway, it’s different committing violence against people who kill you if they catch you disobeying them, versus committing violence against people who are only presenting a verbal argument. Some of us take the moral stand that it’s wrong to hurt people just for what they say, while others of us figure that the practical thing is to stop bad stuff at whatever stage is most effective.
About violence and society. What do we define by violence? Do we also define intrusion in our personal sphere, psychological re-programming, etc. as violent activities?
Gutzperson, if by “intrusion into our personal sphere” you mean saying things in our presence we don’t want to hear, I’d have to say that isn’t violence. If it means breaking down our doors and pointing guns at us, that comes a lot closer.
Similarly for psychological reprogramming. If it involves coercion where you give people intense negative reinforcement—electric shocks, beatings, sleep deprivation, etc—then that pretty much includes violence. If it’s just telling them things they aren’t psychologically ready to handle, I tend to think not although it’s maybe a gray area. People ought to be ready to handle anything anybody says to them. But sometimes they aren’t. Do we have a responsibility to respect other people’s fragile mental stability by never saying anything that might unsettle them?
while others of us figure that the practical thing is to stop bad stuff at whatever stage is most effective.
You’re only stopping bad stuff if it’s something like a threat—in other words, a declaration of intent. I can’t imagine thinking it is appropriate to “sock” somebody for a dissenting opinion. Surely this is how the Inquisition, or Stalin’s U.S.S.R, was justified.
I guess you wouldn’t complain if I hit you for expressing these opinions.
The Resistance pinned down occupation troops that otherwise would have been available to fight opposing armies.
Anyway, it’s different committing violence against people who kill you if they catch you disobeying them, versus committing violence against people who are only presenting a verbal argument. Some of us take the moral stand that it’s wrong to hurt people just for what they say, while others of us figure that the practical thing is to stop bad stuff at whatever stage is most effective.
About violence and society. What do we define by violence? Do we also define intrusion in our personal sphere, psychological re-programming, etc. as violent activities?
Gutzperson, if by “intrusion into our personal sphere” you mean saying things in our presence we don’t want to hear, I’d have to say that isn’t violence. If it means breaking down our doors and pointing guns at us, that comes a lot closer.
Similarly for psychological reprogramming. If it involves coercion where you give people intense negative reinforcement—electric shocks, beatings, sleep deprivation, etc—then that pretty much includes violence. If it’s just telling them things they aren’t psychologically ready to handle, I tend to think not although it’s maybe a gray area. People ought to be ready to handle anything anybody says to them. But sometimes they aren’t. Do we have a responsibility to respect other people’s fragile mental stability by never saying anything that might unsettle them?
You’re only stopping bad stuff if it’s something like a threat—in other words, a declaration of intent. I can’t imagine thinking it is appropriate to “sock” somebody for a dissenting opinion. Surely this is how the Inquisition, or Stalin’s U.S.S.R, was justified.
I guess you wouldn’t complain if I hit you for expressing these opinions.
(Woo, necromancy!)