my family is dying and i dont like it, atleast get me on the tracks with them, would not be able to live with the guilt anyway

I live in a country where 10s of millions died, due to partition. So i have seen blood. And what were believes of the people who saw it first hand - just stop where we are and restart building from here. The thing is, we believe violence can solve everything, it is the last weapon of game, that when we pick, we end story there, but that is not always the case, believing that violence is last resort - is also very naive according to me - From a fellow naive. Consider this a goodbye from me for today, hope to meet you in some other post (or irl) someday.

Also from the evolutionary biology perspective - top of food chain is the worst place to affect anything. These top pedators depend on all the bottom clogs to spin well, and if they dont, almost always top of food chain suffers. Dinos were wiped because they were just too big to handle suffocation, there prey (for carnivore dinos) were either dead or in burrows which they could not access. One of the only good top of food chain members are sharks - because they are just built good and still have large varied diets, and it is not like all shark species have survived.

I am not really trying to find it either, consider this just a rant at clouds.

this is from my original post - last line.

I dont want an answer for whether war or violence is bad or not - I never did. My title was bad, and you gave an answer which felt like answering just the title - because in the middle, I ask many questions, and even answer them myself. Also now post title is also changed for that

As a person who has lost folks in communal violence - yes you do. You dont want more violence. Many of my folks died, or changed religions, but eventually everyone was just tired of riots, and stopped. That is reasoning - your resources are dwindling and you can not out last - try to reason out.

Also since I am not out for your life - try to reason with me - instead of throwing big statements - which you and i both know i would not stop you from defending yourself. try to reason. If you will, please read the edits and replies I give to others (more opportunities for you to downvote me) maybe you find flaws in my arguments - present them - and on there basis - reason with me

edit - spelling

sorry, i am tired, but i have answered your question above. In short - we are shortsighted, and not really that smart. we always view history from tinted scoped lenses, if we find situations where violence was necessary, then we also find situations where it did not result in violence. And even if last time it required violence does not equate to violence this time to. Re-evaluate all situations, That is the least we can do, and getting violent is a very taxing activity on us. If try to reason, the time it would take for it to be just as taxing is much larger, so reasoning well is still pretty beneficial.

Sorry but now you are being unreasonable - I make a statement - Try to reason with nazi - you oppose that - now you present me with info that they were historically unreasonable - I ask there must have been a reason - you reply that i should keep my head in sand (Ostrich-ising aren’t we?)

Should we start afresh? We (I am assuming you and I are both on this one) consider Nazis bad. Historically, these were people who believed certain race (presumably theirs) is superior - and there are inferior races who have looted these supreme races - so they conquer half the europe to reach former glory. They also had very misogynistic view point, and believed females were only for breeding. People who became nazis, became nazis because they were in a financially bad situation, and in such situations, your abilities to reason are reduced, and some godly figure comes and tells them yada yada yada, they follow the figure, because the figure gave them hope.

I think If we now reason with them, they would be hesitant, since they have tasted hope, and we are not offering them any.

Now if we clearly elaborate to them the hope is just a hoax, eventually understand, if not, then it is okay for them. As long as they are no longer harming anyone (emotionally or physically). If they are harming, then saving the people from them would be moral, which may include violence, which would give them further scars, and reasons to believe that these groups are not good.

I dont even know why I am trying to reason with you, is it because I believe back and forth brings people on same page, maybe. Maybe it is because (presumably), you have been just downvoting me for no reason other than disagreeing. If so, atleast try to reason and maybe bring me to your viewpoint. I am not saying you are bad, but try to reason

When we get to fungus killing bacteria - we are discussing ethics of food chain, which is absurd. It is not about survival. If we go by your reasoning (which if i read correctly is definitely a bit sarcastic, so not taking at face value), is survival the only aim? if so, why even bother doing most things?

then why did they become a nazi in first place - did they randomly started killing people. I am not saying nazi’s had good reasoning, but they had some reasoning

assuming that the said nazi would not reason, most people only do something severe because they are down very low, and some visionary comes and enlightens them, by telling whom should they target, they got swayed, because someone gave them some causal reasoning. To now change there opinions, we have to be more thorough and reasonable.

they are not really unreasonable, but atleast presumptuous, which is not great either.

my definition of morals (which maybe is wrong) - is according to your knowledge, what is and is not acceptable to be do. As knowledge, updates, you move a action from one bucket to another - morals to me is not a list of things to do or not to do, it is framework, a constitution you form, according to which you deem a action moral or immoral.

my question is should your constitution deem a action moral/immoral in some situations, and opposite in others, and if so, where and how can you define such limits, and is it good to define such limits

Problem is, people are not good at predicting, most people cant think much in future, not really because of our limits, but the problem itself, and having moral allowance ever, allows for being corruptible, and assuming that current situation requires violence, when in actuality it did not

unless violence is necessary and matches the profundity of the situation

Are you not being unreasonable here?

The question is not about politics, but morals and having select applicability.

Sorry to be rude, but did you read more than title

Can we not achieve peace without violence? What really stops us? Is it just that people are corruptible, and they would when given chance. I dont think so, maybe my naivety, but people are not inherently evil, they are just lazy, and would do nothing in most situations, and beyond certain trigger, most people people try to seek a new lazy spot, for that most people try the laziest approach.

sorry, i have not seen it, but that basically seems like giving up on the whole species, based on very little sampling. To which I would ask, who gave us that power, and if we have that power, should we keep that power?

sorry to be rude - but the question is not about violence. If violence is inescapable - then for whom is the violence justified - who gets to choose that. I went into more detail about this on someone else’s reply, but it is the flexibility is what i am questioning

by stature, I meant in context of power sharing in the dynamics.

unless violence is necessary and matches the profundity of the situation

I also replied to someone else, but how do we know when violence is necessary? And how much?

how do we know we have exhausted all options? could it be our ignorance just getting the better of us?

sorry, I have not seen much horror (or hardly any).

morals ARE inherently flexible. If they weren’t, we would never learn anything or progress as a society or even as individuals.

I dont think so. Why would morality inhibit progress. Stale knowledge does prevent, but morals dont really change. By morals being flexible, I mean - “Killing is very bad, except in so and so situations, you have to”.

but you absolutely have direct control over the actions you take to influence it and the way you adapt and react to it

someone else also mentioned this, but i dont agree with this either, there are situations where you are blinded, in such situations, knowledge is not free, and only a few control it, and I find them to be the wrong-doers. If someone uses gun to commit crime, then these blind people are essentially just weapons.

Morals can’t be absolute. Tolerance can’t be absolute. Everything is flexible and eternally changing. It’s scary and it’s complex but people have to come to terms with it.

I agree with the scary and complex part, but i still uncertain about morals.