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.
lmbo This actually reminds me of children who are asked to do something, and scream, "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!!!"
Did I ever say I was "the arbiter of definitions?" No. But what I AM saying is that you're exaggerating and attempting to mislead.
As I've already explained, YOU brought up an emotionally-charged word "violence," and used it outside of its normal usage to suggest that caring for the poor with tax revenue is done through violence. Or "the threat of violence," whatever nonsense you're trying to use. When you're called out on it and asked to explain, you whine about how I'm not the arbiter of definitions. Nice try, but that's not a way to crawl out of the hole you dug for yourself.
Thanks for posting those links, and trying to apply them to your case, because they do an excellent job at proving my point. You, sir, are grossly exaggerating, and they don't fit. You have to resort to imagined, nightmarish scenarios of kicking in doors, and being "thrown" into cells in order to even make your point remotely relevant. Poor doors. Any meaningful use of "violence" that I've ever seen implies the use or fear of physical injury against the person. If it doesn't, then you come up with grossly overbroad, and absurd consequences.
I bit pretty hard into a carrot stick. That was violence.
I pressed the button on my remote control pretty hard. That was violence.
I suddenly, and intensely walked by someone on the sidewalk today. That was violence.
Appeal to the World Health Organization, and see if they buy your argument against this terribly, violent IRS.
Your "threat of violence" argument miiiiight be relevant if it weren't for the simple fact that doing so would be illegal at most, and would cause an uproar at the least. If actual physical injury results from the police because of a tax evasion arrest, there is guaranteed to be a lawsuit, and firings or suspensions over it. Fortunately, we have standards in this society. Even though we're dirty tax proponents.
The same parchment that was used to legitimize slavery for over a hundred years? Yeah, I have some problems with it.
Aaah, yes. The good ole' appeal to slavery, which is what fringe folks like yourself love to use to scoff at the Constitution. Laughably, the same folks who often love to use Revolutionary War imagery *ahem*, and appeals to the Founding Fathers, etc. Yeah, that good ole' nasty "parchment," huh?
Ok, first of all, where, in the Constitution, does it explicitly grant the power to hold slaves? You could argue it doesn't forbid it so it's fine, but um....it doesn't exactly forbid killing one's neighbor, either. The closest thing you have is the "3/5ths Clause," which the Founding Fathers used as a weak compromise to pay it lip service. They didn't even have the heart to justify it enough to use the word "slaves." You can't compare slavery in the Constitution to the explicit right of Congress to levy taxes for the general welfare.
Second of all, ironically, the people who tried to defend slavery usually used a justification that doesn't sound very far away from a certain argument I've been hearing in this thread. "The government is trying to tell us what to do, and threatening our property rights, and threatening us with violence!! Just to say they're trying to look after folks who are less fortunate!!"
Here's the bottom line. The fact that you would try to appeal to imagery of violence, and then even true-blue human slavery to defend your position that caring for the poor with some tax revenue is despicable. Stop the madness. You obviously don't see the massive disconnect, and I thank the Good Lord everyday that it's extremely rare that I encounter people who would rather plunge a society of over 300 million people into the dark ages by presumably doing away with taxes, and social programs.
And by the way, I won't have the time to log onto CF for the next 3 weeks or so, so I won't be reading anymore of your nonsense for at least that time. Goodbye.
