Jainism

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Violence is a spectrum. It ranges from pure evil to something that is holy.

Ha ha.

The fek it does.

That's almost on a par with "I only beat my wife a little bit."

No, violence is always a bad thing. That's why the word maps to certain behaviour.

[Tulayhah-Asadi]

At work.

Violence is a spectrum. It ranges from pure evil to something that is holy.

Ha ha.

The fek it does.

That's almost on a par with "I only beat my wife a little bit."

  No, violence is always a bad thing. That's why the word maps to certain behaviour.

That's your subjective opinion. If we go by rational ethics, violence is not always a bad thing, but at the most it can be said is generally a bad nothing. Who can deny, for example, that violence for the purpose of self-defense is not a bad thing? The very State itself is an institution whose power rests on its capability to inflict violence on those that challenge its writ. Is the existence of the State a bad thing? And do you disagree with the Just War Theory?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

The fek it does.

That's almost on a par with "I only beat my wife a little bit."

  No, violence is always a bad thing. That's why the word maps to certain behaviour.

That's your subjective opinion. If we go by rational ethics, violence is not always a bad thing, but at the most it can be said is generally a bad nothing. Who can deny, for example, that violence for the purpose of self-defense is not a bad thing? The very State itself is an institution whose power rests on its capability to inflict violence on those that challenge its writ. Is the existence of the State a bad thing? And do you disagree with the Just War Theory?

Okay, first off semantically it's not "My opinion" the word really does map to specific behaviour.

My subjective wishing it mapped to unicorn farts means nothing.

In your mention of "Self defence" of course is the unmentioned violence already being perpetrated to which the 'Defense' is a reaction. Also there is the possible option (Of course not always) of "De - escalation".

Now if you live under such a tyranny of government in which you fear for your safety I truly feel sorry for you.


My Puk-ish nature has me continue with "So....how often is it that you beat your wife?"

[Tulayhah-Asadi]

At work.

That's your subjective opinion. If we go by rational ethics, violence is not always a bad thing, but at the most it can be said is generally a bad nothing. Who can deny, for example, that violence for the purpose of self-defense is not a bad thing? The very State itself is an institution whose power rests on its capability to inflict violence on those that challenge its writ. Is the existence of the State a bad thing? And do you disagree with the Just War Theory?

Okay, first off semantically it's not "My opinion" the word really does map to specific behaviour.

My subjective wishing it mapped to unicorn farts means nothing.

In your mention of "Self defence" of course is the unmentioned violence already being perpetrated to which the 'Defense' is a reaction. Also there is the possible option (Of course not always) of "De - escalation".

Now if you live under such a tyranny of government in which you fear for your safety I truly feel sorry for you.


My Puk-ish nature has me continue with  "So....how often is it that you beat your wife?"

 

And your opinion of Just War Theory?
Self-Defense is a reaction to violence, but it is also violence. So like I said, violence is not absolutely a bad thing, it generally is, but in some circumstances it is a noble and praiseworthy.

Every State in the world is built on the foundation of violence. Study basic political theory to understand this fact. Even the most benign State in the world cannot persist without the underline threat of violence to those that challenge its writ.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are some people who believe that violence is, absolutely, a bad thing. People who do not believe that euphemized violence is meaningfully different from any of it's plainer and more direct expressions. Those people can agree with you about the nature of states, that they are that way - and assert that they should not be. That this is a sub-optimal state of affairs.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

And your opinion of Just War Theory?
Self-Defense is a reaction to violence, but it is also violence. So like I said, violence is not absolutely a bad thing, it generally is, but in some circumstances it is a noble and praiseworthy.

Every State in the world is built on the foundation of violence. Study basic political theory to understand this fact. Even the most benign State in the world cannot persist without the underline threat of violence to those that challenge its writ.

Well there's a "Boop-in'."

But antyways.

If you're still reading along.

I note you're asking for my subjective opinion now about 'Just war theory'. Interesting turn of phrase there.

No, even though my country and relatiges have been involved in wars there are no 'Just' ones.

Your second phrase does not lead on from thd preceeding 'Self defence' comment and I see you're still happy with your opinion of adding 'Nobel' and 'Praiseworthy' to yoyr violence. It doesn't change the violence inherent in the language. (Come see tha' violence inherent in'a system! Help! Help! I'm bein' oppressed!)

Again your claim that 'Every' State is built upon voilence.

In a broad, historic, sense I can see some glimmer of truth in that.

However I'd also point to those governing systems which have matured and outgrown such.

B'bye.

[Belacqua]

Again your claim that 'Every' State is built upon voilence.

In a broad, historic, sense I can see some glimmer of truth in that.

However  I'd also point to those governing systems which have matured and outgrown such.

B'bye.

One of the traditional definitions of a legitimate government is that it maintains a monopoly on violence. 

Regular citizens are expected to be peaceful, but governmental institutions are allowed to do violence when necessary. So for example if a crazy man is shooting people, it should be the police who shoot back. 

One of the reasons that the US is going fast into chaos is that this is no longer recognized. The police have abused their power, the executive branch uses violence to enforce oil company profits, and idiot gun owners think they can just step in whenever they judge it's OK.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

That's an interesting definition.

I don't quite see it being accurate, historically or otherwise, for a few Democratic countries.


Hmmm.....

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be interesting to see which countries you had in mind. A monopoly on violence is an important part of what enables a democratic country to be democratic. A democratic country which allowed for armed rebellion in the case of a lost election, or who did not intend to enforce the results of an election, would seem to be a failed democratic state.

As an example, for all the bellyaching about a peoples right to rebel before the US was formed, we shut the door pretty quick on any further violence once the ink had dried - asserting a monopoly on violence.

[Militant_Atheist]

BTW those of you who think Jains are peaceful. Current fascist hindutva government's 'himmler' is a jain. His name is Amit Shah.