Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3661516" data-attributes="member: 4937">I've been trying not to follow this discussion because it seemed like it didn't have anything to do with role playing.  However, some one brought up word games and I've a weakness for lexicography.  I find I mustl say that I see no sign that Felix is playing word games.  Using sudden strong force against a person or object is violence, regardless of the intent or outcome.  If noone gets hurt in a football game, and if no one wants to hurt anyone in a football game, it remains a 'violent sport'.  This is easily seen in that if something goes wrong, a severe and even life threatening injury can occur.  How did that happen if there was no violence present?   Rather, the injury occurred because of the violence of the activity that is being engaged in.  To the same or a lesser extent, this is true of all sports because by thier nature sports involve sudden, rapid, and forceful motion.  Sudden rapid and forceful motion is violence.  A hurricane doesn't intend to harm anyone and has no moral character at all because its an object, but its still violent.  At the very least, even in the 'non-contact' sports, you can inadvertantly do voilence to yourself, your surroundings, or spectators (consider the classic boy hits ball through window).  You certainly do violence to the ball, and it is no less violent because the ball doesn't usually break.  Even in 'non-contact' sports, say Ultimate, inadvertant contact will inevitably occur and result in pain and injury.I wonder where green slime thinks of this.  Is football or other contact sports because of its violence inherently evil?  Or is it merely a 'justifiable evil'?  Boxing?  Soccer?  Is the risk of inadvertant evil being done sufficient to make playing even a non-contact sport unjustifiable?  Because of the clear and undeniable risk of violence, is playing soccer negligance on my part?  Does green slime believe violence is inherently evil but negligence is not?  Or even further, how about violence against self?  Clearly there is nothing necessary in the practice of surfing or water skiing or many other acts of controlled violence?  Does the risk that I will do violence against self (harming myself, my loved ones, and my community) render surfing evil?  If not, how would I justify engaging in this highly unnecessary practice if all violence is evil?  What is the justification for surfing?But, just so I don't set up too much of a straw man, green slime clearly a rightly makes a distinction between objects and others.  Doing violence to a ball probably isn't evil even under his claim that all acts of violence are evil, because its implied I think that he means violence against others (not objects or even necessarily self).  (Although, we both probably agree that there are cases where violence against objects is evil because they are indirect attacks on an other.)  So, lets deal with what I do consider a word game worth calling out someone for.This is a serious contridiction in his position.  How can a thing be both evil and justifiable?Isn't this the definition of justifiable: "capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible?"Those things that are not justifiable are wrong.  Those things that are justifiable are right.  An evil act is precisely identical to an act that is not justifiable.  We know that it is evil because there can be no justification for it.  If on the other hand the act was right and just, then it can't be evil.  "Justifiable evil" is an oxymoron, and in my opinion a very subversive and evil phrase.  Because the implication of that phrase is that we can do things that we know to be wrong, unjust, and evil, but it was ok to them nonetheless.  That seems to me to be a very dangerous line of thinking.I don't think you can reasonably distinguish between acts of force - especially force against a person - and violence.  If I push a guy around, its still violent even if my intention is good and he suffers little pain and no lasting injury.  If a guy cooperates with me in my pushing him around, but does so out of fear of greater violence, its also violent.  I don't think green slime thinks otherwise, otherwise he couldn't condemn the police for using violence.  When I say to my child, "It's time to take a bath.", and as sometimes happens she says, "Nooooo." when I pick her up bodily and put her in the bath that is violent to.  I'm completely disregarding her wishes and forcing her into the bath, sometimes kicking and screaming.  Similarly when I insist on holding her hand as we cross the street, and she picks her legs up in an attempt to struggle free from me in the midst of the street.  I'm not going to let her go or stop dragging her right there, no matter how much evil someone thinks I'm doing to her.  Since green slime clearly is quite intelligent (he agrees with me) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />, I'd like to here about these alternative forms of child raising that don't involve any violence.  Do they come from someone with actual children?  Likewise, I'd like to hear about these alternative forms of rule of law that don't involve society empowering some few to have a legal monopoly on active and proactive violence.  I refer you back to my cautious nature mentioned earlier.  I don't think you can pass judgment on whether some new social innovation is working until you've had a couple of generations go by.  Talk to me about it in 20-40 years.  If it works then, I may advocate it.Ok, I'll be back on topic after this... so long as we don't get into an argument about what words mean. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification