- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Has the appearance of a transient ischemic attack. But apparently “he’s fine”
Has the appearance of a transient ischemic attack. But apparently “he’s fine”
I don’t believe self-defense is violence. For example, I believe Ukraine has every right to capture, injure, kill, and drive out all Russian invaders as they protect their country.
I get what you’re saying, but believe me: I understand how broad my brush is, yet I still don’t like violence. In my opinion some things are just black and white… 🤷♂️
A little surprised that you’re getting downvoted for this, but I suppose your opinion on what constitutes violence is a value judgment rather than a dispassionate definition. Ukraine driving out Russian invaders from their homeland using whatever means necessary, including violence to the fullest extent allowed by the Geneva Convention, is absolutely justified in my book.
Remember, one of the biggest instances is Lemmy.ml, run by Tankies. Fuck fascism.
being justified or not has nothing to do with whether something is violent. if someone is getting hurt, maimed, or killed, that’s violence, no matter how much they deserve it.
Sounds like the end justifies the means, which is itself a tricky statement. Though I think I know what you’re saying.
Not even close to what I’m saying. But I’m glad you’re listening…
I think it is what you’re saying but not what you are intending to say. It sounds like there are conditions under which violence is ok, though violence itself is something to be avoided. Eg. Ukraine can defend itself using violence because violence in defence is ok, which in my mind sounds a lot like the end (self preservation) justifies the means (war).