Whining about "semantics" after you've been called out on purposefully used an emotionally charged word outside of its normal usage to exaggerate the evil of an entire system, and to justify scaremongering, is cheap. Words can be pretty important, Zoink. Imagine if Congress cried, "Semantics!!!" over the pizza=vegetable thing. lol.
I was just a little taken aback as I've never encountered someone who didn't think that forcefully entering a person's domicile, subduing, and confining them was a violent act. I've run across many people that have made fantastic arguments that it is a legitimate use of violence, just never someone willing to plant a flag on it not being violence. That's just my anecdotal experience though. Maybe there's a massive group of people who don't consider such things violence that's I'm just not aware of. Thankfully I've never encountered those people in person, as having to constantly repair my door would be rather annoying.
I was purposefully being diplomatic with "threat of violence." Some people don't consider there to be a difference between the threat of violence and violence.
The World Health Organization defines violence as:
"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
As we can see in the instance of someone kicking in one's door and dragging one to a cage we have multiple violations.
The
Online Etymology Dictionary defines violence as:
"physical force used to inflict injury or damage,"
So we have kicking in the door at a minimum for damage. Being forced into a cage causes both injury and damage.
If we refer to the Merriam-Webster on
Violent:
1. marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity
Violence:
3
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force
Synonyms:
force
In the end you are not the arbiter of definitions. You have the same amount of authority as I do to define words. You can say water isn't wet, you can call violence "crème brûlée" if you want. I never intend to advocate that aggression, force, violence or "crème brûlée" be initiated against anyone.
Well, in short, if it's constitutional in this country (basic art. 1 sect. 8 issue), then yes. Is that a problem to you?
The same parchment that was used to legitimize slavery for over a hundred years? Yeah, I have some problems with it.
