Here's a question to ponder: what do you consider to be "violence" and what not? Who benefits from the definition you follow?
Here's a question to ponder: what do you consider to be "violence" and what not? Who benefits from the definition you follow?
@joepie91 Is an interesting question. If the bank siezed your home, they have done more harm to you than a lot of cases of physical attack, but this is not seen as violence. If a police officer throws a gas cannister at you but you pick it up and throw it back, you are both considered to have participated in violence.
As it stands I separate violence and harm and don't treat violence as necessarily bad? But is subject to change.