“Not the best” is minimizing in a way that suggests that it is merely less acceptable.
unless of course you are in fact saying that violence, though not necessarily the preferred solution, is acceptable.
are you?
“Not the best” is minimizing in a way that suggests that it is merely less acceptable.
unless of course you are in fact saying that violence, though not necessarily the preferred solution, is acceptable.
are you?
I would say that violence should never be the preferred solution, but that at times it's the only solution that has any chance of success. This is not to say that it's a "good" approach, or something you should enjoy doing. However, if you (or your people) don't have any other way to facilitate changes that are non-negotiable for you (such as your fundamental right to live being threatened), should you turn the other cheek? Is resorting to civil violence unacceptable in such situations?
We've had examples of civil violence bringing drastic changes when people's lives are being threatened by governments, hunger or societal structures. Notably, the French Revolution. Is it unacceptable for people to kill their king if they don't have anything to eat, and the queen tells them to eat cake if they can't eat bread? Depends on your moral stance. Would the issues that the revolution focused on change if people weren't violent? Highly doubt it.
Of course, I am not equating the French Revolution to the Unabomber: it's drastically different to kill innocent civilians with mailed bombs because of "principles" than it is to behead your king because you don't have anything to eat. Violence is the only reasonable choice in some (albeit rare) situations. The acceptability of it very much depends at what's at stake.
thank you.
I think we can all agree that Kaczynski's bombing campaign is completely and unambiguously unjustified, but I don't see the need for pearl clutching over the quoted statement.
hypothetically if Donald Trump poured crude oil on your mom, you might find it just to hit him. you might say you would do just that. if that’s not likely to happen to you, you’re blowing smoke. which is bad for the environment.
Yes, but I don't see how that's some kind of a "gotcha". I think most people endorse violence when all other options have been exhausted. If the police catches someone in the act of doing what you describe and they resist arrest, violence is likely to occur and is probably justified.