This one was easy at first glance, then harder after a moment's reflection.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
To clarify: "force/violence" as you intend it here can also be non-aggression, is proportionally defensive/punitive, right? In that case for example I see no retro avoid it. If if was intended mostly as aggression, I'd change my answer.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Some will misconstrue the second into means that are inappropriate, so I must stick with the first, only then can I morally accomplish the second
-
You could make the exact same argument vice versa
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The first is a necessary condition for the second. Although certainly not sufficient.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not _initiating_ force. Force has its place: defense and retaliation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wouldn't have lumped force with violence. You can exert force without it being violent.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Between action and inaction, I think action is more powerful, right? Not using force/violence doesn’t mean that you are actively constructing a better world.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The problem here is that these aren't really directly comparable in a vacuum, "not doing" vs. "doing", and context changes everything, in a self-defense scenario I value caring for the poor/weak "more", but in that instance it doesn't matter
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.