In your ranking of things you value, which is ranked higher:
-
-
Presumably if you don't care for the poor/weak they will by default try to just take what they need, and violence would then be required of you want to stop them. Maybe violence justified by some framework of principles, but still violence nonetheless.
-
Unless you can somehow rely on either purely passive barriers or incentives fully unconnected to physical force to sufficiently incentivize compliance. But the latter tends to be easier when people's basic needs are cared for.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The choice to harm
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not caring for the poor / weak at societal level leads to structural violence towards them (e.g. hostile architecture, prison for those who can’t pay the bail). Physical violence is often the product of more insidious forms of violence.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Neglect can be a form of abuse, but need not be (failing to ever call your parents). And abuse can take violent forms, but it need not either (demeaning insults). This isn’t surprising because neglect is pretty obviously not violence in any normal sense of the word.
End of conversation
-
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.