Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?

  • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are situations where people have created a situation where you don’t have total knowledge of the future, but acting in defense seems justified.

    I think we can quibble over the specifics about what’s reasonable, but you don’t have to wait until you’re bleeding out to defend yourself.

    • Tamo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For me personally, the answer to the original question would be “only once no other non-violent means are available”.

      Does this resonate, or would you consider it different to your perspective? I see them as similar.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Personally, I’d prefer non-violent over violent means for myself. If other people are involved it would depend - I won’t risk someone else’s life if I can avoid it. I tell my niece that she’s allowed to stab dudes that don’t respond to “no”.