[flagged]

If you’re trying to make the case that “sometimes violence is the only answer”, please stop.

It’s the responsibility of thoughtful people in a civilized society to find ways of solving problems, even very large and deep ones, without violence.

As soon as we think “there’s no alternative other than violence”, we need to think harder. All the worst atrocities in history happened because enough people allowed themselves to think “violence is the only answer”.

▲

ethanwillis 2 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

tomhow 2 hours ago | parent [-]

On this site we want interesting new ideas, not humanity's most primitive urges replayed over and over again.

▲

ethanwillis an hour ago | parent [-]

So if it's not guillotines and instead massed autonomous attack drones that would be an acceptable way to discuss violence?

Just want to make sure I understand you fully.

▲

tomhow an hour ago | parent [-]

Please don't, in one comment, call me “naive and childish” then try this kind of switcheroo the next. The topic of “guillotines” relates to performative violence against fellow citizens over political/economic disagreement. National defense is a different topic. They're both important topics and if they’re going to be discussed they deserve to be discussed earnestly. Glorification of violence has never been within the guidelines or norms on HN.

	▲	ethanwillis 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Right so then that answers my question. Violence is okay as long as it is directed outwards and said to be defensive, thank you for answering. I'll remember this when my country of which i'm a citizen uses these same defensive weapons to secure any mineral wealth in Australia.