Zobel said:
Don't put violence in quotes. It is not conceptual or a euphemism. You shouldn't be squeamish about it - this is the base layer of enforcement.
I also don't agree that the "least amount" of violence to maintain rule of law is preferred. Or at least, I think "least amount" can't be evaluated on a per-event basis. The least amount of violence to maintain rule of law on a long timescale may be very high on a short timescale. For example, a high amount of violence, correctly applied in the past may have prevented this entire incident altogether. In that way, weak governments with weak responses actually end up paying much higher bills in terms of violence required overall.
I'm also a little bit curious as to why shooting invaders isn't morally justified even if effective. This is basic function of government. Border guards carry rifles - what do you think those are for, exactly? Thousands overrun fences and overwhelm a town. If that isn't the time to use a weapon, when is?
All of this handwringing seems to me to be a thin facade overlaying a kind of moral cowardice. To whom does that border guard owe humane treatment? The civilians, women, and children behind him? Or the men running toward him? If he has to shoot one in front to prevent the death of one behind, is that "humane"? "Morally justified"? If even one Spanish citizen lost their life to this it seems to me the fact that the border guards did not open fire is not morally justified. If the guards themselves were not present, or unarmed, so much the worse.
Your "negative gut reaction" is just empathy for "people" in general, with no understanding for actual moral responsibility. You get to have that because you aren't responsible for anyone here. Nobody said "hey go shoot a bunch of people" and characterizing it as "casually suggest opening fire" without including "on the thousands of men overrunning your order" is a lie by omission.
The tragedy here is that this will increase the likelihood of much higher bloodshed in the future. Weak governments, led by weak men do that.
Its funny, I basically agreed with everything you said in your first post when I read it. And so, I really wasn't expecting such a *****y response. Sometimes I think I could post 'The sky is blue.' and some posters here would jump down my throat with criticism because they've already decided I'm wrong about everything.
I put violence in quotes because I was borrowing the word someone else had used previously. If you don't like my use of quotes. . . fine. Consider this an apology for incorrect or unnecessary use of quotes. But, next time ask me about it instead of assuming something about me.
If the 'least amount' of violence to diffuse a single event is counter productive on a macro scale, then maybe it isn't actually the least amount. Again, if you want to criticize a few internet online message board sentences from me as not fully encapsulating all nuances of a position, go for it. . . I'm arguing against gratuitous violence. High amounts of violence, excessive force, disproportionate reactions often have destabilizing affects.
I never said shooting invaders is not morally justified. I said it is not automatically justified. You've written this long response against a position that I'm not defending.
And, I'm not saying Spain would be unjustified in shooting. By my own admission, I don't have a full grasp on this particular situation. Perhaps you are a historical, cultural, and political expert on Spanish - Moroccan relations and you know what needs to be done. Or maybe you aren't. Either way, the super controversial position I took is that Spain shouldn't shoot people if its not necessary.
I explained my negative gut reaction. Contrary to your accusations, I went out of my way to explain that the perception of callousness was likely due to the medium we are using to communicate. I then asked him for clarification and left room for him to elaborate on his position. I don't know Vox. . . and so I asked him to explain his position rather than assuming anything. I guess that makes me the *******?
I don't understand your response. I'm struggling to understand it in any terms other than you simply don't like me and think I'm wrong about everything. Your response feels like a wild reaction to someone advocating against gratuitous violence. And it feels especially wild because I suspect our positions are far closer than this exchange suggests.
