General / Off-Topic ......and down we go, into the rabbit hole!

[Chris Simon]

Oh Chris...no. I don't think you can re-define it that way

I think I can.
Where I live, the self defense is described as a use of an amount of physical force against other person necessary and sufficient to avert, avoid or prevent an assault on yourself or another person.
Violence on the other hand is described as a use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.

So there is a line between the self defense and violence defined by the amount of force and the intent and they ARE defined as two separate things. Naturally there is a grey area between them and you can easily turn your self defense into an assault by using unreasonable amount of force (Which in our law system is loosely defined as using an attack that causes more harm than it potentially prevents (i.e. don't bring a gun into a knife fight))
So on purely personal level, you actually CAN distinguish between the two.

 

[jasonbarron]

I think I can.
Where I live, the self defense is described as a use of an amount of physical force against other person necessary and sufficient to avert, avoid or prevent an assault on yourself or another person.
Violence on the other hand is described as a use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.

So there is a line between the self defense and violence defined by the amount of force and the intent and they ARE defined as two separate things. Naturally there is a grey area between them and you can easily turn your self defense into an assault by using unreasonable amount of force (Which in our law system is loosely defined as using an attack that causes more harm than it potentially prevents (i.e. don't bring a gun into a knife fight))
So on purely personal level, you actually CAN distinguish between the two.

I think we agree on the use of violence, but you guys are arguing over semantics, and getting the definition wrong to boot: to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy is mostly the same, regardless of being in the right or not. In other words, if a cop shoots a bank robber (one is clearly the "good" guy discharging his duty in a righteous cause, while the other is clearly a "bad" guy in need of correction), he is clearly using "violence" in order to stop the criminal. Even if the cause is just, braining someone with a club is still an act of violence.

 

[Chris Simon]

I think we agree on the use of violence, but you guys are arguing over semantics, and getting the definition wrong to boot: to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy is mostly the same, regardless of being in the right or not. In other words, if a cop shoots a bank robber (one is clearly the "good" guy discharging his duty in a righteous cause, while the other is clearly a "bad" guy in need of correction), he is clearly using "violence" in order to stop the criminal. Even if the cause is just, braining someone with a club is still an act of violence.

Yes, but those examples you've used still fit into the framework I posted. A cop is a special case of a human who is allowed to use self-defense preemptively on behalf of the society. Because cop's job is a prevention, not retribution (or vengeance). But it's not violence. Violent cops get punished the same way ordinary violent people do.

Anyway, yeah. I agree it's semantics.
But you kind of started it reacting on Arry's statement that personal violence is always bad (which it is) by paining self-defense the same colour, with which I disagree.

Fire and water are both elements that will destroy your house and water used by firefighters usually does more property damage than the fire they've just put out, yet we are not throwing firefighters into the same bag with arsonists.

 

[Arry]

I think we agree on the use of violence, but you guys are arguing over semantics, and getting the definition wrong to boot: to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy is mostly the same, regardless of being in the right or not. In other words, if a cop shoots a bank robber (one is clearly the "good" guy discharging his duty in a righteous cause, while the other is clearly a "bad" guy in need of correction), he is clearly using "violence" in order to stop the criminal. Even if the cause is just, braining someone with a club is still an act of violence.

Legally. Legally, it is all down to intent. What did you intend to do? "Officer, he came into my and so I got my gun and as is my rights, I shot him dead!" Makes you liable to murder. Or. "Officer, I heard someone in my house, I got my gun to defend myself and scare him away. But he attacked me and I don't know what happened, the gun just went off." Is self defence. Sort of. The law, basically, asks. What was your intent at the time. You just have to be very careful, how you answer that question.

 

[Arry]

I agree, they're two dramatically different positions. I was specifically probing Arry's stance to see how far he's thought that through.

Since my drunken researching error, last week, I am being very thoughtful.

These days, I will normally offer, a credible threat of violence, to prevent violence happening. Is that justified?

I have an ability, to communicate, at a level and in a way, people from most walks in life, will understand. I will adapt, that level, to the situation, in hand.

 

[Demascus]

Legally. Legally, it is all down to intent. What did you intend to do? "Officer, he came into my and so I got my gun and as is my rights, I shot him dead!" Makes you liable to murder. Or. "Officer, I heard someone in my house, I got my gun to defend myself and scare him away. But he attacked me and I don't know what happened, the gun just went off." Is self defence. Sort of. The law, basically, asks. What was your intent at the time. You just have to be very careful, how you answer that question.

Deadly Force: That force which a person uses with the intent of causing death or serious bodily harm, or which a reasonable and prudent person would consider creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.

US military code of conduct shorthand I had to learn and use when engaging my firearm against someone. Every branch, security force and law enforcement has some version of it. This is used in par with "Escalation of force".

Leading reason of why "unarmed" people get shot. They don't listen to directions, they act nervous, they reach for something in the car, in their pocket or behind them. Sometimes its their papers or wallet sometimes it is a gun.

As for civilian use, varies from state to state. I live in PA, which is a stand your ground and castle doctrine state. You are correct, it is very important in your statement of "self defense". Application of "escalation of force" verbal warnings etc. Before the use of self defense goes a long way to not get imprisoned.

 

[IPFreely]

Altercations? >IMO<
War is the most ridiculous idea mankind has developed - A country wastes resources in order to destroy another country's resources - The initiator constructs items with the only purpose of destruction of life and property of the country under animosity - That country's response is by either manufacturing their own deterrents or wasting money buying from another supplier, which in turn escalates continuously - While at the same time harming both country's citizens by reducing the materials and items needed for sustaining life and livability - The whole of Earth is based on this concept - WAR and products dedicated only to WAR.

 

[Demascus]

Altercations? >IMO<
War is the most ridiculous idea mankind has developed - A country wastes resources in order to destroy another country's resources - The initiator constructs items with the only purpose of destruction of life and property of the country under animosity - That country's response is by either manufacturing their own deterrents or wasting money buying from another supplier, which in turn escalates continuously - While at the same time harming both country's citizens by reducing the materials and items needed for sustaining life and livability - The whole of Earth is based on this concept - WAR and products dedicated only to WAR.

I would the violence and war is human nature. People have been killing eachother since the dawn of time. Not likely to change imho. Not sure what "products dedicated only to war" bit is. My toaster has never declared war or harmed anyone..... That I know of...

 

[lysan]

Violence used to protect property and life is basically self defense. The aggressor is the initiator to the violence.

Now if someone use physical force to stop a person in expressing an opinion, it’s violence and those who are the target should have the right to respond.

That’s how I see it anyway.

 

[MaxG10]

It was the 18th century when the categorical Imperative was written as part of a moral philosophy by Kant.

I appologise, but I too did not watch the entire film, but going back to the original question whether violence, whereby we would certainly need a clear definition what is considered violent, is acceptable to change society, I have a clear answer for myself.

100% no it is not acceptable

Violence produces victims, hence it can never be a legitimate force to achieve social changes.

Apart from that, recent civil disobedience movements understood the impact of this:

Why nonviolent resistance beats violent force in effecting social, political change

Harvard Professor Erica Chenoweth discovers nonviolent civil resistance is far more successful in effecting change than violent campaigns.

news.harvard.edu

 

[MaxG10]

P.S. A quick search leaves me with the question, who is IPOT Presents anyways?.... Strange stuff, certainly nothing I personally would consider a valid source for research.

 

[MaxG10]

Then discussion is not about politics, it’s about if anyone can justify the use of violence to change the society.

I’m of the opinion it’s not.

P.P.S. It escapes me how any discussion around this issue can be apolitical. <shrugs>

 

[MaxG10]

Violence used to protect property and life is basically self defense. The aggressor is the initiator to the violence.

Now if someone use physical force to stop a person in expressing an opinion, it’s violence and those who are the target should have the right to respond.

That’s how I see it anyway.

But Iysan, is that not in contrast to your opening statement?

...if anyone can justify the use of violence to change the society.

I’m of the opinion it’s not.

 

[Patrick_68000]

The violence can be justified by the one who gives it, but also by the one who receives it.

This is valid for an individual but also for a whole society.

The violence in extreme cases can be a necessary evil.

A blessing in disguise.

 

[Patrick_68000]

If a cop shoots a bank robber (one is clearly the "good" guy discharging his duty in a righteous cause, while the other is clearly a "bad" guy in need of correction)

Yes, but if the bad guy is Robin Hood ?

 

[jasonbarron]

But Iysan, is that not in contrast to your opening statement?

Yes, that's a good point.

 

[lysan]

But Iysan, is that not in contrast to your opening statement?

No, using violence to change society is not expectable, using force to protect your property and family is.

 

[jasonbarron]

No, using violence to change society is not expectable, using force to protect your property and family is.

What about the Civil War in America? That was extremely violent, the purpose of which was to change society.

 

[lysan]

Actually is was one part defending itself against the other part my rule still applies.

 

[Arry]

What about the Civil War in America? That was extremely violent, the purpose of which was to change society.

Errr.... Sort of. What history tells us about those events and what really happened, are slightly different. It was more about who rules who, north and south. The slavery questions, were just a part of that issue.