benlehman

And let me clarify a bit...

The definition I found first online was, "An act of aggression."

Which lines up with Ralphs, as far as I'm concerned.

I see the phrase I just quoted, however, as valuable, because it puts the actual phyical harm on a continuum of agression. It may be at the far end, but it's on the continuum. Which is why Ralph assumes (correctly, I think) he, Ron and I are in agreement.

Because Ron didn't write, "Because the machine guns are firing, Mother Theresa is safe." He wrote that the emplacement are there, so Mother Theresa is safe. That is, putting the weapons out in view is an aggressive act . It falls short of actually causing harm. But unless one assumes that violence is implied in the placement of the machine guns, there's no point in putting them there. In short, putting them there is a violent act, in my view, even if they're not fired. Because if no one is willing to fire them, they're nothing but steel in the sun.

Because, let's be clear, neither Ron nor I said, "Go shoot everybody and take there stuff. I mean, not even close. The fact that he referred to violence being use to keep the peace: authories keeping the peace in India, the alliance the Quakers made with the Indians to serve as their proxies, suggests clearly he (nor I) am advocating a Road Warrior world.

I'll go out on a very sturdy limb and suggest Ralph sees things the same way.

Now, with that on the table, could you please tell me what you think I mean by violence?

Thanks,

Christopher