|
|
|
|
|
|
by cyberax
536 days ago
|
|
|
> What is the point of this experiment? To see if your methods will actually result in anything good. > Is it OK to propose for Ukrainians to sabotage the lives of Russian generals? Of course. Top military personnel are a valid target in a war. > I'm trying to apply good faith, in which case I'm going to assume you're not arguing that there has never existed a set of circumstances under which such actions would be "OK". Pretty much. If you have to resort to terrorism, then your goal is probably indefensible. Violence is defensible only as a response to violence. |
|
|
How about if I flood your entire state/region permanently, both destroying your living, as well as that of your friends and families, as well as forcing you to relocate to a region you have nothing in common with?
Someone throwing a punch in your face is violence. Is that more acceptable to counter with violence than the previous scenario? I haven't met a single person who genuinely believes that.
"violence" can express itself in many ways.
> Pretty much. If you have to resort to terrorism, then your goal is probably indefensible.
Terrorism is a meaningless tern used to appeal to emotion. One's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Nearly every colonizer was overthrown by such a group. In many places, slavery was overturned by such groups.