Defense Is Not Violence

in #defence7 years ago (edited)

Greetings steemians! Today I want to talk to you about violence and defense. This seems to come from the misconception that force is equivalent to violence. Force can be defined as the capacity to do work or cause physical change. Violence is the immoral use of force to coerce someone to do something that is contrary to their free will. Anything that impedes the ability of someone to act according to their will so long as they harm none is an act of violence. When an act of violence is committed against an individual it is not only that person's right but their moral duty to act with sufficient force to get that person to stop.

If one person is verbally abusive to another then the one who is being verbally abused has the moral obligation to try to get that person to stop. They may try to calmly explain why they should not be treated in this manner but if that person refuses to let them speak then they might have to raise their voice. This is not abuse. Indeed, that person has the moral obligation to persist in their efforts until their voice is heard to prevent further abuse.

If someone is physically abusive to another then that person has the right to strike back with sufficient force to make the other person stop. Really, if someone has resorted to physical violence to escape hearing the other's defense against their verbal abuse then that is a particular vile form of violence. If that person did not respond to those acts of physical violence with equal physical force then that person has exercised a remarkable amount of restraint and should be commended for their patience.

Dishonesty is also a form of violence. While this certainly includes blatant lies, it is not limited to this. Selectively telling the facts in order to get someone to act a certain way while omitting those that would lead to a different perspective is an act of violence and is abusive to everyone that it effects. This is particularly relevant when someone tries to present another's use of defensive force as an act of violence by omitting the abusive actions that the person was defending against. When this happens the dishonest person has committed an act of violence against the person they presented this misleading information to and the person they painted a false picture of as well as anyone else that would be affected by this.

Removing monetary rewards from someone with no explanation is an act of violence particularly if they were going to use those monetary rewards to benefit others. Then the person who committed the act has committed an act of violence against everyone who would have benefited from those rewards.

When these acts of violence occur they don't just happen to one person, they happen to everyone that is affected by them. This means that all of those people have the moral obligation to respond with sufficient force to correct the situation and prevent further acts of violence. These are not acts of violence. They are the right and the duty of those that have had these acts of violence occur against them.

I've ranted enough for one day but I will leave you with this thought provoking video by a man who has done more than almost anyone to expose how people have been manipulated to have false impressions, the great Mark Passio.

Sort:  

Removing monetary rewards from someone with no explanation is an act of violence particularly if they were going to use those monetary rewards to benefit others.

By flagging, we DO NOT remove any reward but avoid the potential reward from pilfering out of the reward pool. Just by looking at the figure of potential reward, it's wrong to assume one's right over that sum. Potential figure is NOT real and can change in any direction. And you have not removed any monetary reward as it was never there.

On the contrary, not removing/flagging an undeserving post/comment is violence as it is a theft due to your negligence. And the theft is of common property i.e. common reward pool. It is your moral responsibility to protect the common reward pool.

The bigest form of violence is tray to present yourself as victim ................

Yes false victimhood especially when it is from someone who is the actual abuser is the worst type of deception. The people who do this are the worst kind of scum especially when they try to benefit from it personally.

well, if anyone would know....

resteemed, upvoted and followed.

I disagree only in your definition of violence. All violence equates to is force that is designed to cause physical injury or damage, up to and including lethal force. For example, self-defense is violence, particularly if it's in response to violence initiated against you. I've spent a lot of time and consideration on this topic, and semantics in general, because having a clear, precise explanation - being able to precisely articulate your message - is vitally important.

The distinction that makes some violence moral and other violence immoral is whether or not it was initiated. Reciprocal violence is not immoral; that's self-defense. Initiatory violence, on the other hand...

I think the definition of violence here is specific only to this article, for philosophical reasons.

Not sure though. Sometimes I'll define a term at the beginning of an essay, to ensure that the use of that term has been defined already, so there are no misconceptions.

I blame English, and its limited amount of words. When will Lojban be popular...?

The other issue I have is that his definition isn't even internally consistent. Words are not force. Neither is fraud. Neither of those are uses of force. What he's describing, using different and ambiguous language are acts of trespass, of which words still don't qualify.

Sure it is... I defined force as the capacity to do work or cause physical change. Verbal abuse such as yelling at someone if they don't do what you want is you trying to cause the physical change of them doing what you want and is therefore an (abusive) use of force. Misleading someone to take a particular action is causing the physical change of them taking the particular action and is therefore a use of force and since that person wouldn't take that action without being mislead it is a form of violence.

Your equating physical violence and verbal abuse, for example. These two are qualitatively different things, and confounding the two allows one to draw the conclusion that verbal abuse can be met with physical force in retaliation. In other words, I can beat you because your words "harmed me." How do you quantify harm from words? What measure could you possibly use?

Financial losses are one way that comes to mind. Words can also be used to incite physical attacks. I did qualify it with "sufficient force to get the person to stop". It's not an open-ended excuse for the use of force.

But that's an overbroad qualification when it comes to words and speech. Does it have to be an imminent threat of attack? Or can it just be violent speech. Would a phrase like "all X should kill themselves" warrant a physical response? What metric can you use to determine what warrants physical violence and what doesn't?

A general phrase like that is a statement of opinion. When I speak of verbal abuse I am talking about specifically directed towards a person. This actually has a measurable physically damaging effect upon the person that it is inflicted upon. Getting upset over someone's statement of their opinion is you causing yourself stress but when someone you live with is specifically directing abusive language to you in an abusive tone you can't escape the stress it causes and the resulting physical effects.

Lozban! Never heard about this language before. Interesting! Do you speak this language? How difficult or easy it is to learn?

A cartoon by xkcd. Click this link for English version 😊

Thank you post amazing I like

fair enough - violence is a shocking thing in a world where we need to cooperate more in a spirit of loving kindness to all, however of course retaliation is another thing and defence is only a logical response. I like your writing and considered thought -David

Good point... there is a difference between defense and vengeance or retaliation. Vengeance serves no purpose and only perpetuates violence.

You got my vote and a resteem :)

nice write up but I'm with @anarcho-andrei on this. words are not violence and sometimes, self defence can be violence on it's own.
Let me give you a quick example.
Here in Nigeria, people believe in what is called Jungle justice. if someone steals from somewhere or rapes a woman and he's caught by the people of the community, he will e severally beaten if not killed before the police gets to the crime scene.
what do you call that? defence or violence?