71
When do you think violence is justified?
(kbin.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
71 points (98.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43859 readers
1475 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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 )