[Retra]

Emotional harm can be violent if it is forcibly inflicted on someone. If they volunteer themselves to be emotionally harmed of their own volition, this is hardly violence.

Rational thought is not violent, no matter how much it pains you to hear what it concludes. Disagreeing with someone is not violence, even if they can't bear to suffer it.

[Jtsummers]

And no violence occurs if I ask you to punch me and you do.

[Retra]

You're really not special, though. Why should I care if you asked me, your family asked me, your culture asked me, or nature itself forced my hand? As long as I have a justifiable reason for doing it, I should do it, whether you think it violent or not.

[Jtsummers]

What does being special or not matter, where did that come from? Violence is violence. It may or may not be morally justifiable. Justifiable violence is still violence.

Is the issue that you think violence only occurs when it's somehow immoral by some code? Hitting someone is violent regardless of the reason why. Applying verbal and emotional force in a way that causes someone distress is violence regardless of the reason why.

Nothing in my posts says that violence itself is inherently wrong. It's a thing, the reason and effect in the situation it occurs determine the rightness or wrongness of the act. Scolding a child can cause temporary distress. This is violence though possibly necessary and right. Telling a child they're worthless repeatedly is violence and also wrong.

Volunteering for violence also doesn't make it not violent. It's still violent. It just changes the calculus on the morality of it.