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

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    Self defense. But also like someone else said proportionate response is key. If someone gets mad at you in a bar and throws a punch, pushing him away is fine. Hitting him to subdue him is probably okay. Shooting him dead is not.

    I’m also not really okay with people using murder to defend their stuff. Like if someone sneaks into my house and I catch them going out the window with my tv, shooting them is not to me justified. There are more TV’s. That guy gets one life. Remember what Gandalf said.

    I think a lot of people have like tough guy fantasies about shooting a burglar and it always makes me uncomfortable.

    On the other hand, if someone was on trial for shooting a Nazi dead I would find them not guilty. Shame that Nazi spontaneously bled out. But at least he’s gone before he killed my entire family and friends.

    • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m good with you shooting someone entering your house, but not when they’re leaving. I don’t expect people, especially vulnerable ones, to bet their life that the guy breaking in is a thief and not a rapist or murderer.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        It might be availability bias or similar, but there are a lot of stories about people shooting people entering their house or property that should not have been shot.

        There was one about a kid who went to the wrong house https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ralph-yarl-shooting-victim-highly-intelligent-gentle-soul-former-teach-rcna80024

        There was a story about delivery drivers who got shot at recently. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/23/1171507677/south-florida-shot-at-instacart-delivery-driver-wrong-address. That’s actually a good example of the shooter unnecessarily escalating. He could’ve just… Not shot at them. They were trying to leave.

        There’s the related story of https://www.npr.org/2023/04/18/1170593395/kaylin-gillis-new-york-driveway-kevin-monahan that page links

        None of these are okay.

        It’s possible there’s a bunch of unreported instances of people successfully defending themselves with guns. Scenarios like that where the person on the property really was there with deadly intentions. But I kind of feel like no. I’m pretty sure the scenario of “someone breaks into your house to murder you!” is actually extremely rare. (or if it does happen, it’s the police)

        We should also take a moment to think on the chilling effect accepting this level of violence has. I don’t want this to be a world where I have to worry about being shot because some idiot feared for his life or property.

        I was visiting a friend in upstate New York and I was legit worried walking from the train to their place. I wasn’t sure which house was my friend’s. I called them and had them come out and greet me because I didn’t want to risk going to a neighbor’s house by accident, and have that neighbor shoot me because they thought I was a burglar. And I’m a white guy.

        • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would agree those are unreasonable uses of force. And bad raids don’t end with LEO getting shot nearly enough.

          The comment I was replying to mentioned someone stealing a TV through a window if I’m not mistaken, and that’s what I’m referring to. But if you decide to force your way into someone’s house, it’s not on them to interrogate you to determine your intent. I have respect for people that would risk themselves in a situation they didn’t create, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to force everyone to behave as tho the guy that just broke your window or forced his way into your house is just there for a cup of tea.

  • dingus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    When someone who I was supposed to be able to trust kept repeatedly trying to record me naked in the shower, I retaliated once by kicking him hard in the face. I was told that what I did was wrong and violence was never the answer. I disagree.

    • andrewta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you and disagree with anyone who said it’s not OK.

      Some people will learn with a gentle hand. Some learn with a slightly firm hand. Some only learn when you pick up a 2x4 and beat them.

      • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whenever my father’s family wanted to convey what an injury felt like or needed a theoretical weapon the humble 2x4 was always used. Thanks for bringing back memories of the old folks telling stories around a fire or in a crowded, smoky kitchen. :)

    • aksdb@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As a kid another kid regularly bullied me. Nothing extremely serious… pushing me, grabbing me, putting me in a headlock, stuff like that whenever he felt like it and/or wanted something. Parents and teachers were not able to stop it and I basically just got retaliation. One day when he came at me I simply kicked and managed to hit right in his balls. He ran away crying. Never bothered me again afterwards. Still feels good.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nobody else has mentioned proportionality.

    When responding to aggression, the response should not significantly escalate the risk. So lethal force should only be applied in scenarios where there is a lethal threat, etc.

  • hungryphrog
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Self defense, as part of a game (such as wrestling) or in BDSM, when both sides are okay with it and don’t face actual danger.

  • Starshader@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Self défense, yep. On a battlefield ? Let these old fuck fight one vs one to resolve their conflict. A noble end is so fucking subjective that I think it would be a terrible idea.

  • MrAlternateTape@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Violence is justified when you have no other means left to defend yourself or someone else otherwise.

    At which point I would like to add that people will sometimes not be able to see the means they have left because they are put in a stressful situation in a second. I feel like you can’t really blame them for that.

    Violence as a response should always be in proportion. That should avoid escalation. In an ideal world.

    Unfortunately some people won’t stop. Those people need to be put into prison where they cannot hurt anyone anymore.

  • arthur@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Use of some violence is justified to stop another bigger, ongoing violence.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

          • arthur@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • arthur@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year 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 )

  • LemmyFeed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I heard a quote that has really stuck with me, it goes something like “violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived”

    I don’t really condone violence, but this quote has really gotten me thinking.

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It works out just fine if you don’t think self-preservation is the most important aspect of life. Buddhist moral development demands realizing the temporary nature of life. A massacre is just another means by which one’s life ends. A person is still responsible for upholding moral principles.

        • BitSound@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I realize we’re probably not going to convince each other over some internet comments, but that’s not a philosophy I’d sign up for. Morality is subjective, and I’d rather choose moral principles that don’t involve me accepting being massacred.

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          A massacre, or a genocide, is more than just “one’s” life ending. It is one’s own life, the lives of one’s loved ones, and the lives of one’s people.

    • sngoose@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just a curious question: Would that also apply to your loved ones being savagely killed?

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol, I told her recently that if she dies giving birth to our child, I will be totally devastated. I didn’t have a mom because she did giving birth to my sister when I was baby.

        But, if someone is responsible for her death, of course I’ll be both devastated and vengeful. Even so, a part of me will want peace and serenity, and that part of me will see accepting what happened is the best way to do that.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can do no violence but also feel sorrow at violence being done. Not only are those stances not incompatible but I’d argue they’re in alignment. Violence, done by you, to you or simply involving others, is an occurrence to weep for. Some people are being put through unnecessary pain and some people are of an unsound mind and believe putting others through pain is justified.

          I won’t judge someone who defends themselves for self preservation but I will applaud someone who continues to try and deescalate violence even as it’s being enacted on them… though I will clarify this is all at the adult level, children take some time to come to awareness of who and what other people are and are still growing into their full selves.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force. If a use of force is justified then it isn’t violence.

    For example, suppose you’re walking across a bridge and you see someone about to jump to their death. So you run over, pull them back from the brink, knock them down, and sit on them. Have you committed an act of violence? I would say not.

    On the other hand, suppose the person is just standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change. If you run over, pull them back from the curb, knock them down, and sit on them, that would in fact be an act of violence.