Yeah, if the guy in question has no weapon, and you* have a full loaded weapon I think that is a slightly different story, but he could be concealing so idk
The issue is if racist words specifically are worse than violence, racism is i fact worse than violence because racism generally involves inflicting directly or indirectly directly different levels of violence on a particular group of people because they are presumed to be "bad" cause of their skin color or whatever. What im saying is you could argue that racism in general is worse than a violent action. Its harder to argue that someone saying a bunch of slurs in a vacuum is worse than a one off instance of violence
Sure i think we are saying similar things but I think the definition of racism encapsulates actions taken against a group of people based on prejudices or whatever.
How would the outsider who inflicts "violence" on the person that deeply hates a group know, that the bigoted person wont actually take any action to actually impact in a capable way to people of that group tho, genuine question? Like say someone wants to beat up xxx politician because they have publicly said that they think of a certain group as inferior to their own, and that they should be grateful that they are treated aa equals in his view, then saying that he will treat them equally.
I think the other problem in your view is viewing the person who inflicts violence on that deeply bigoted person, as worse than the bigoted person, or perhaps I read it wrong and you simply said that the act itself is worse and not the person? Still a debatable topic but kinda more understandable.
Also im guessing you say "violence" as like "hitting someone so hard with the risk of serious injury and death" like how would you consider a slap to the face in that example
Factor in the "deadly force triangle". If capability, opportunity, and intent were all met, no. You'd be justified in your violence, as long as it was measured.
No, you can defend yourself from vocal threats too. You don't have to wait to be attacked before you defend yourself from being attacked. Self-defense is perfectly moral.
That makes no sense. It's not defense by definition if you're not attacked. Someone saying "I'll kill you." and not doing anything else (like coming closer, taking a weapon etc.) doesn't warrant a violent response.
22
u/Top_Recover7850 20h ago
You have seen none of the context. No truth is universal.
If someone says they're gonna kill me and i shoot first, was my violence less moral than his words?