Comment by eesmith | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eesmith | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Logic does work that way.

Just war theory is completely based in the moral logic that committing violence now can be acceptable to prevent violence in the future.

The police are authorized, within limits, to use violence to prevent future violence. An officer, for example, may get end up getting into a fight with someone being arrested for conspiring to commit murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Violent_vs.... is a section on violence in the context of civil disobedience. "Zinn states that while the goals of civil disobedience are generally nonviolent, 'in the inevitable tension accompanying the transition from a violent world to a non-violent one, the choice of means will almost never be pure, and will involve such complexities that the simple distinction between violence and non-violence does not suffice as a guide ... the very acts with which we seek to do good cannot escape the imperfections of the world we are trying to change.'"

Lastly, "[T]here is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

No it doesn't work that way. Your arguments don't support your claim in the least.

Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists. I mean, was Japan justified in going to war with the US because it felt a conflict was inevitable? Of course not, because such a conflict was not inevitable.

The police are empowered with special rights to use violence, not sure how that's at all applicable to an average person.

Nobody cares about Godwin's law. If Nazi Germany is a good analogy, it's a good analogy.

I notice you left out my civil disobedience example.

> Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists.

Yes, that's EXACTLY MY POINT. It's an example of a logical argument used to justify when violence can be used to prevent future violence.

It doesn't say that all war is just war. That's why it uses the word "just".

Your argument seems to be that no threat justifies violence. Ukraine shouldn't fight back against Russia. Those held as slaves shouldn't be violent to self-styled "owners." Thoreau, author of Civil Disobedience, famously supported John Brown's violent raid on Harper's Ferry, arguing Brown's commitment to justice required him to fight a government which enforced the injustice of slavery.

You would deny all of these cases of using violence to (at least try to) prevent future violence by characterizing them as equivalent to an un-just war with horrific genocides? Really?

It's actually a horrible analogy because by your logic the US should not have gotten involved in the European theater of WWII - why use violence to prevent future violence?

I agree with dgb23 - your view is incredibly naive. Simply say you are a pacifist and reject all violence. That's fine. But that's a moral argument, while you asserted there was invalid logic.

MLK Jr. commented that 'A riot is the language of the unheard'. I agree with King's characterization of the riots he was talking about.

dgb23's point is a direct parallel: "Violence is inevitable, in some form or another, if the climate effects are ignored to such a degree."

I also agree with dgb23.

All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive.

Russia attacked Ukraine. The slave is a victim of violence.

Your argument doesn't even make sense in a situation where violence hasn't occurred.

> All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive.

Incorrect. One of my examples was "An officer, for example, may get end up getting into a fight with someone being arrested for conspiring to commit murder." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37145828

Is dumping poison into the town's water supply, knowing it will kill plants, animals, and people, an act of violence?

If it is violence, it's acceptable to use violence to prevent that act, correct?

If it isn't violence, suppose a staff member see someone about to do that. May that person use violence to prevent the act from happening?

May a police officer?

If not, and it's too late to try any other options, is it really logical to avoid preemptive violence in order to save lives?

Next, re-run the example with someone actually pouring poison into the town's water system, but it will take a day before the first people are affected, and a week until the toxic effects start killing people.

When is it acceptable to use violent methods to stop the poisoner? In 23 hours? In 6.9 days? Or right now?

Or is that enough that that we can should avoid violence and instead, say, install water filtering systems in everyone's sink and make everyone pay for new filters each month?

It’s really hard to follow your train of logic since it keeps changing.

Preemptive use of violence is generally seen as acceptable when it: 1) is equal to the level of violence faced (e.g. you don’t shoot someone in the head if the look like they are going to punch you) and 2) the threat of violence is imminent and threatens humans life.

Violence due to climate change doesn’t fulfill any of those requirements: 1) it far exceeds the violence being committed now, 2) the future violence isn’t imminent and 3) it’s unknown if the future violence will threaten human life.

My responses shift because I am trying to understand your position.

Your original position was "Commuting violence now because you think it’ll happen in the future is a horrible argument and can be used to justify anything."

Your current position is that some level of violence is acceptable to prevent some types of future violence.

It therefore seems that you agree with the logic of "just war".

Why then did you write "Logic don’t work that way."?

You seem to only allow violence when faced with violence.

Is dumping toxic pollution into a drinking supply, knowing it will cause deaths in the future, a form of violence?

If yes, then violence can be used to oppose such action, proportionate to the expected deaths, illnesses, etc. based on your best model of the effect.

If no, then poisoning the drinking water for the board of BigOilCo. is a form of non-violent eco terrorism.

> Violence due to climate change doesn’t fulfill any of those requirements

Has ExxonMobil committed any form of violence in its contribution to CO2 emissions? Remember, their own staff scientists sounded the warning about future dangers back in the 1980s.

The level of eco terrorism now are things like deflating the tires of SUVs. This is not violence, so appears to meet your criteria.

However, your comment was in responded to a prediction about the future: "Violence is inevitable, in some form or another, if the climate effects are ignored to such a degree." at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37144135

If things progress as many fear, then your own logic says that eco terrorism may be justified, agreeing with dgb23.

“Logic doesn’t work that way” in the sense of equating an immediate, personal, lethal threat to distant, indirect and vague lethal threat.

> Is dumping toxic pollution into a drinking supply, knowing it will cause deaths in the future, a form of violence?

That is such a vague statement I’m not sure anyone can answer that. If someone puts cyanide in my bottle of water? Sure. If someone dumps a chemical into a river that eventually gets treated and tested such that the threat to me is minimal, then no.

> Has ExxonMobil committed any form of violence in its contribution to CO2 emissions?

No because there is no proof that CO2 emissions are a direct lethal threat to you personally. We don’t know what the consequences of climate change will be to the degree to say “it’s going to kill this person”.

I mean by your logic if your neighbor decides to burn plastic in a camp fire you’re allowed to kill them because “they released carcinogens that I could breath and give me cancer that kills me”.

> equating an immediate, personal, lethal threat to distant, indirect and vague lethal threat

You are missing something very fundamental.

Eco terrorism requires neither personal threats nor lethal threats.

I already gave the example of deflating the tires of SUVs.

Spiking trees is a classic example for woodland preservation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking . The primary goal is to increase the economic cost (increased damage to saws) and decrease the profit (by causing discoloration). The goal is not to harm people. Common practice is warn people that given area of woods has been spiked.

By your definition, this sort of eco terrorism is a valid response. There is no direct lethal threat to spiking a forest and posting plenty of warning signs, so it is not a violent action. Logging the forest becomes riskier, but then again, swimming in many rivers became riskier due to industrial pollution.

> That is such a vague statement

It was a reminder of the scenario I previously posed, with details that already answered your questions.

The main goal is to get you to realize that you are too focused on requiring violence, when there are many other ways to harm or kill people.

As a matter of general good governance we must often be informed by statistical models estimating the numbers of people affected and severity, rather than names. We know lead causes health problems, even if we can't single out who will be affected, so we've worked to phase out lead.

> I mean by your logic if your neighbor decides to burn plastic in a camp fire you’re allowed to kill them because “they released carcinogens that I could breath and give me cancer that kills me”.

There is nothing in what I wrote whereby one can logically draw that conclusion.

> Eco terrorism requires neither personal threats nor lethal threats

I know, that's why we call it terrorism.

> There is no direct lethal threat to spiking a forest and posting plenty of warning signs, so it is not a violent action

No, because spiking is done because loggers can get killed sawing down a spiked tree. Sounds violent to me.

> The main goal is to get you to realize that you are too focused on requiring violence, when there are many other ways to harm or kill people.

What do you mean "too focused"? I think the problem is you fail to see any difference between someone shooting you in the head and someone poisoning a river. There is no logical train of thought where someone can claim those are equivalent.

> There is nothing in what I wrote whereby one can logically draw that conclusion.

Of course there is - you've been claiming violence like "polluting" justifies violence and reduced it down to "my life is threatened, so I can threaten yours".

> that's why we call it terrorism.

Is tree spiking an act of violence directed to someone personally?

You clearly say "yes."

> spiking is done because loggers can get killed sawing down a spiked tree. Sounds violent to me.

Yet earlier you said ExxonMobil has not committed any form of violence in its contribution to CO2 emissions "because there is no proof that CO2 emissions are a direct lethal threat to you personally."

Have tree spikers made a direct lethal threat to you personally? I assume not, so either they are not violent or your mean "you personally" in the more wider sense of "someone personally."

Have all tree spikers personally threatened someone? I'm sure some have, but your view requires that all tree spikers personally threaten someone, and I know that's not true of all tree spikers.

You write "loggers", but that's not a direct personal threat but a career threat. People are not intrinsically loggers who must cut down trees. They could decide to stop being loggers and do something else, though emotional and financial reasons make that a difficult choice.

I'm a swimmer. If I get ill from swimming in polluted waters, who is at fault - me for swimming in waters I know are increasingly dangerous, or the polluter knowingly dumping dangerous materials into the water?

Does the polluter commit a violent act by continuing to pollute the waters knowing that swimmers and those who must drink the water, or live off of fish caught in those waters, are very likely to suffer as a result, even if the polluter isn't personally threatening anyone?

Your answer to that seems to be "no", yet I can't discern a difference between that and violence you see in tree spiking. Both lead to death and injury, but one is called "violence" and "terrorism" while deaths from the other are .. what .. the cost of doing business?

> you've been claiming violence like "polluting" justifies violence

I've never said disproportionate violence is justified like you claim I did. I started off by talking about just war theory, as an example of logical justifications for when it is okay to use violence to prevent future violence. I believe violence may be justified to prevent future harm, even when that future harm is not due to violence.

For some reason, you do not, and I truly do not understand why, given that you are not a pure pacifist.

That some examples may be justifiable (to a non-pacifist like me) does not mean I think all examples are justifiable as you wrongly assume I must.

I’m not sure why it’s so hard for you to grasp the nuance here. You seem to view everything as black and white. Shooting someone in the head is equal to contributing to CO2 which may or may not threaten someone’s life in the distant future.

I mean it’s pretty clear a spiked tree is a danger and potentially lethal.

And it’s pretty clear climate change isn’t. And it’s pretty clear pollution isn’t a lethal threat to a swimmer.

If you cant grasp the gray area here I’m not sure it really worth more discussion. It’s a very common logical mistake I see on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com