Asklemmy

43495 readers

1350 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

When do you think violence is justified? (kbin.social)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MimicJar 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Ah yes dropping a 2kton tactical Nuke to stop a mugging

[–] MimicJar 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not even you believe that is what I meant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] MimicJar 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

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 )