The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “Violence is the Language of the Oppressor!“…
Rayn: The Non-Aggression Principle is the foundation of True Peace! Violence is the language of the Oppressor, and “the last refuge of the incompetent.” Those who follow after Cain will indeed find themselves among their brethren… in the Pit!
Oh, you believe in violent revolution? Tell me about how your use of violence is different than the State’s use of violence?
Adam G.: My violence is different from the state’s because I am protecting myself. If you can’t see the difference, then you either have a metric fucktonne of privielge or don’t pay attention.
Rayn: Hmmm… To begin, Adam, if you can’t see the difference between physical self-defense and violent revolution… please let me know, and I will be more than happy to explain! I would never deny another the right to physical self-defense in the event of an immediate threat of violence. That is a personal CHOICE, to be made with respect to each situation, even. 🙂
Second, you have committed three logical fallacies in your conclusion. (1) The False Dichotomy: There are many more reasons than the two you have presented to explain why I would be unable to see difference between “[your] violence” versus the State’s use of it. (2) An Ad Hominem Attack: Claiming me to have either a “metric fucktonne of privilege or to be “not paying attention” are unsubstantiated personal jabs at me, and do nothing to further an explanation of your position, and really only support your last error, (3) An Appeal to Ridicule: Mocking what you believe is my position does nothing to explain your position. This is true, regardless of what form of mockery you engage in, really.
I will be happy to continue this discussion with you, but you must stay on track. Let’s share ideas. I enjoy it. Also, be sure to let me know if you are referring to physical self-defense, or violent revolution, when you mention “[your] violence,” as I am not sure, since your wording leaves much room to interpret “protecting [your]self” as self-defense, especially since you did not elaborate on your position whatsoever, and presented an Appeal to Ridicule. To me, this means that we might just be dealing with a matter of semantics, here. 🙂
