KoboldCoterie

The real problem I have with this entire discussion is that (as you've been called out for here already), you're basing it on a straw man. You're taking statements like "Violence is sometimes the answer" and twisting that to mean "Violence is [often / always] the answer" or "Violence is the solution to the problem in this article", and trying to paint your view as the moral high ground based on that misrepresentation. In fact, that's the whole reason we're even having this discussion, now - you did that to [i]my[/i] first comment in this chain. You're trying to position other people as unreasonable and violent by misrepresenting their viewpoints.

That's well and fine, but if your honest opinion is that violence isn't justified in even the above scenarios, I think you're living in a fantasy world of idealism. If violence is being done, and you have the power to stop it (even through violence) but choose not to, you're complicit in that violence.

I'll also point out that this wasn't a case where you were minding your own business and people started calling you out; you were the first one to reply in this comment chain. You opened the debate, and you seem very willing to criticize other peoples' views, but when yours start to be examined critically, you seem to shy away.

Let's say, hypothetically, there's a mass shooting in progress. Literally a gunman shooting people in the street. How are you going to solve that situation with non-violence?

Another hypothetical. There's someone with the detonator to a bomb that's planted in a full stadium. You have a gun. If you don't shoot them, they will detonate the bomb. Are you still advocating for pacifism?

You can't make a statement like 'Violence is never the answer' if you're not willing to apply it to these situations, too, so is your position that it's better to let tens, hundreds or thousands of people die if the only way to prevent it is with violence?

The alternative, of course, is to acknowledge that sometimes, though regrettable, violence is the answer, and once we've established that, we can start examining where the line is where it becomes justified.

Don't listen to them, you can be as enthusiastic about chocobos as you like! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Man, I'd forgotten how utterly baller that theme is.

Marathon 2 (1995) let you go underwater.

Neither would I.

I kind of hate the 'Violence is never the answer' rhetoric. Violence should not be the first course of action, nor is it a desirable one to have to resort to, but sometimes there's simply not another reasonable way to resolve a problem.

I fully support that shift to AI customer service, on the condition that everything their AI support bot says is considered legally binding.

Tangentially, I hope that that’s the point where the national guard switches sides and starts shooting at ICE.

I feel like this is what it's really going to come down to. If the military sides with Trump and turns on the citizenry, it's going to be a massacre. If the military sides with the constitution and turns on the executive branch, they'll be quickly overthrown.

The whole situation feels like a powder keg. The police / ICE / etc. are just pushing and pushing and eventually someone's going to get shot, people will fight back, and it'll turn into a shootout. I'm convinced that's what Trump wants, so he can use it for justification.

Shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That... that's about it.