[Unthinking Majority]

Violence would be justified if the benefits from the violence are more than the costs, and there's no possible other non-violent solutions to obtain the benefits.

So if you get in a knife fight over a spilled drink you're probably an idiot.

[ckaihatsu]

Violence would be justified if the benefits from the violence are more than the costs,

That's *economics*, not morals / ethics / value judgments.

[ckaihatsu]

Violence would be justified if the benefits from the violence are more than the costs,

Gotta tie-up loose ends here....

That's might-makes-right. Gotcha.

[Unthinking Majority]

That's *economics*, not morals / ethics / value judgments.

Fair enough.

Violence would be justified if your basic human rights or existential security are threatened to the point that the benefits from the violence are very likely to be more than the costs, and there's no possible other non-violent solutions to obtain the benefits. The violence also needs to be the minimal amount possible to achieve these needs.

So if you start a knife fight over a spilled drink you're an idiot. But if you're starving to death and the only way to acquire food is to punch a rich person in the mouth in order to steal some food you're acting ethically.

[ckaihatsu]

Fair enough.

Violence would be justified if your basic human rights or existential security are threatened to the point that the benefits from the violence are very likely to be more than the costs, and there's no possible other non-violent solutions to obtain the benefits.

'Self-defense'.

The violence also needs to be the minimal amount possible to achieve these needs.

So if you start a knife fight over a spilled drink you're an idiot. But if you're starving to death and the only way to acquire food is to punch a rich person in the mouth in order to steal some food you're acting ethically.

Um, UM, we *don't* live in villages anymore.

Sorry, let me *repeat* that. Villages, *uh-uh*.

Wanna take some *time* to *adjust* to that -- ? (grin)

Since you *owe* me for the 'gotcha', you gotta *call* this one:

Marissa Alexander case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In May 2012, 31-year-old Marissa Alexander was prosecuted for aggravated assault with a lethal weapon and received a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. Alexander said that she fired a warning shot after her husband attacked her and threatened to kill her on August 1, 2010, in Jacksonville, Florida.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case

[Unthinking Majority]

'Self-defense'.

Basically.

Um, UM, we *don't* live in villages anymore.

Sorry, let me *repeat* that. Villages, *uh-uh*.

Wanna take some *time* to *adjust* to that -- ? (grin)

Since you *owe* me for the 'gotcha', you gotta *call* this one:

I'm not a might-makes-right guy, so not much of a gotcha.

[ckaihatsu]

Basically.

Well, self-defense happens to be valid legally and 'politically', so-to-speak (interpersonal 'dynamics').

I'm not a might-makes-right guy, so not much of a gotcha.

Yes, you're correct. I misspoke. I meant *this*:

That's *economics*, not morals / ethics / value judgments.

Fair enough.

So, if you would, the Marissa Alexander case -- ? Maybe a quick 'summary' / initial kind of conclusion, from the event itself?


---


F.y.i.:


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show

[Unthinking Majority]

So, if you would, the Marissa Alexander case -- ? Maybe a quick 'summary' / initial kind of conclusion, from the event itself?

I don't know that case in all its details, but if you're being abused by a partner, spouse, or anyone, you have a right to defend yourself with violence if necessary, and previous trauma from abuse should be taken into consideration if someone lashes out to harm their abuser.

[Politics_Observer]

@ckaihatsu

What does religion have to do with my position. I think if you are able to retreat instead of fight then that's the smart move given the consequences involved if you chose to stand and fight when you had the option to retreat. However, if you are a cornered with no way to retreat and you will most certainly be attacked regardless, then I can see where you have very little choice to fight because of the consequences if you did not chose to fight when cornered with no possible avenue of escape.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't know that case in all its details, but if you're being abused by a partner, spouse, or anyone, you have a right to defend yourself with violence if necessary, and previous trauma from abuse should be taken into consideration if someone lashes out to harm their abuser.

Okay, good to hear. Thanks.

The *problematic* of the case is in this headline -- feel free to continue, if you like.


Florida Woman Whose ‘Stand Your Ground’ Defense Was Rejected Is Released

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/m ... round.html

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu

What does religion have to do with my position. I think if you are able to retreat instead of fight then that's the smart move given the consequences involved if you chose to stand and fight when you had the option to retreat. However, if you are a cornered with no way to retreat and you will most certainly be attacked regardless, then I can see where you have very little choice to fight because of the consequences if you did not chose to fight when cornered with no possible avenue of escape.

I'm not going to *bicker*, PO -- the reason why I call that 'religion' is because it's a one-size-fits-all prescription / presumption, as though people could run their lives better by becoming programmed robots.

There's another current thread -- titled 'groupthink'.


Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show

[6] Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

Also, back to this --

Violence would be justified if the benefits from the violence are more than the costs,

That's *economics*, not morals / ethics / value judgments.

Fair enough.

Would you like to address *this* problematic, of your own ethos / politics -- ?

[late]

By the *numbers* alone there's a huge 'gap' in civil rights for blacks / BIPOC, compared to *women* -- there *was* the immense women's march immediately after Trump took office, but obviously *still*, what about *abortion*. (!) What about women's civil-society rights in *Afghanistan*.

And only a little additional thought would bring forth *numerous* more similar specific situations.

Was there a point to that?

You wander, and you have trouble explaining where your idea is going, and to top it all off; you have delusions of expertise.

[ckaihatsu]

Was there a point to that?

You wander, and you have trouble explaining where your idea is going, and to top it all off; you have delusions of expertise.

*Or* -- you could address the points I *do* make.

I'll *reformat*:

By the *numbers* alone there's a huge 'gap' in civil rights for blacks / BIPOC, compared to *women* -- there *was* the immense women's march immediately after Trump took office, but obviously *still*,

[POINT #1] what about *abortion*. (!)

[POINT #2] What about women's civil-society rights in *Afghanistan*.

[late]

*Or* -- you could address the points I *do* make.

You didn't make a point, that's the point...

[ckaihatsu]

You didn't make a point, that's the point...

I even *labeled* them.

[ness31]

Speaking of violence, someone tried to take out Imran Khan

[late]

I even *labeled* them.

You didn't connect women to political violence, the topic.

So you introduce something that looks irrelevant and didn't explain what the hell you think you are doing.

[ckaihatsu]

You didn't connect women to political violence, the topic.

So you introduce something that looks irrelevant and didn't explain what the hell you think you are doing.

Okay, those are now *delegated* to you. Enjoy.

[late]

Okay, those are now *delegated* to you. Enjoy.

Ahh, you can't run with the big dogs so you've regressed, and you're trolling.