Sure thing. It’s a parable wherein you are menaced by a creature dead set on devouring you and choose to react by pretending that violent self defense is an an unreasonable response.
Okay. That’s what I thought. So can you see where my confusion is coming from? Because I didn’t dismiss the utility of violence.
Did you possibly misunderstand my comment? I described violence and non-violence as synergistic practices and ridiculed people who fail to understand that neither one can function independent of the other.
You replied to something nobody said, talking as if somebody said “hey guys let’s always do violence in every situation and nothing else”. Some real “So you hate waffles” shit.
“Only violence works!” is stupid for exactly the same reason as “only non violence works!”
The two are synergistic and contextual, fool.
-you, having your legs eaten by a bear
Can you clarify what this actually means?
Sure thing. It’s a parable wherein you are menaced by a creature dead set on devouring you and choose to react by pretending that violent self defense is an an unreasonable response.
Okay. That’s what I thought. So can you see where my confusion is coming from? Because I didn’t dismiss the utility of violence.
Did you possibly misunderstand my comment? I described violence and non-violence as synergistic practices and ridiculed people who fail to understand that neither one can function independent of the other.
You replied to something nobody said, talking as if somebody said “hey guys let’s always do violence in every situation and nothing else”. Some real “So you hate waffles” shit.