Inclusion Debate 010
"Violence is never justified" ~atypican
In Free Press Bible current version, section: Formative Agreements
This article has been modified. Therefore this thread is closed. Discussion about the updated entry is at : http://freepressbible.createdebate.com/moderate/edit/Inclusion_Debate_010b
Worthy
Side Score: 2
|
 |
Remove or Rephrase
Side Score: 4
Winning Side! |
|
|
|
|
Demoting violence is a great way to start. However, validating the claim 'violence is never justified' may be hard to do. A great number of people are willing to kill for their beliefs, however oxymoronic that may be. A good example of this would be military-religion social complex in America. Investigating in the matter may prove vital in solidifying your claim. Side: Worthy
Demoting violence is a great way to start. Thank you. I hope you will read through the following debate and comment about my assertion that the popular definition could use some refining. http://freepressbible.createdebate.com/ validating the claim 'violence is never justified' may be hard to do. If you notice in the debate linked to above, I was convinced to reprhase the debate. After all, violence is justified all the time is it not? Can you think of a more succinct and easily understandable way to make the point? Side: Remove or Rephrase
Hmm, - Violence serves no purpose, rather than to prove a lack of moral judgement. Violence is at the expense of reason. (expandable, but inferrable) Violence is the inability to cope with fear and ability to resort to injustice. - I'm more than sure there are others, an at better approaches. And I already had partaken in that debate. Check your original post. Side: Worthy
|
You might guess that my sentiments concerning violence are strong. I have already been convinced that "Violence is never justified" needs to be rephrased. I am looking for a simple statement that better makes the underlying point which I still hold a strong conviction about. Meaningful discussion about this subject requires that we come to terms regarding the meaning of violence. To be frank, I am not concerned with it's common use definition. For the purpose of this project the current definition of violence is : The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries Since every portion of this work is open to debate, you are welcome to criticize the glossary entry for violence and explain why we ought to modify our definition. So please consider how we are interpreting the word differently and how that effects the logic we use to defend and promote the philosophy of non-violence. What it seems like to me is that the word "violence" in most of your arguments could be readily replaced with "use of dangerous force." I do not think that violence and use of dangerous force mean the same thing. So according to the way you (and most others me thinks) interpret the word, your arguments are sound. You are welcome to interact as a critic if you disagree with fundamental (or any) principles promoted by Free Press Bible. Obviously I am interested in considering opposing viewpoints or I wouldn't be here. But so you know, I am more immediately interested in articulating agreements for a small team (The first Free Press Bible Canonization Group) to build upon. Thank you for contributing your thoughts, I hope to read more of your comments. Side: Remove or Rephrase
|
