*non-consensual violence

apologies for erasing the BDSM community

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc9bnjrZIw1qam5vs.gif

Rephrased question please. The answer, though, is that it is situational

Define self defense

Define "violence"

Violence not used to steal other people's resources is wrong.

Define wrong

violence is the use or threat of use of physical coercion

violence used in self-defense is:
(a) the use of violence to prevent another person's imminent employment of violence for non-defensive means (for example, tackling someone who's pointing a gun at a child and threatening to shoot), or
(b) the use of violence to stop another person's employment of violence for non-defensive means (for example, tackling someone who's shooting into a crowd)

Define "define"

Here.

My serious answer is no.

Government, for example, is invested with the power to use violence to subdue a person who has commited a crime. Perhaps this person has committed a nonviolent white collar crime and is running from the police. There is no immediate threat of violence, but I believe violence can and should be used if necessary to bring him to justice.

Can you shoot a man in Reno
just to watch him die?

I disagree with your definition of self-defense. It includes other-defense (which also is not wrong, obviously).

Anyway, as YJ and krellin point out, there are other situations where violence is called for.

Can you mute blankflag, just because he annoys the shit out of everyone, or does he need to break the rules first?

muting is not coercion

My serious answer is

What in the world do you want to achieve with this thread?

Would fines and other similar penalties be considered "physical coercion"?

I think it's implied, Putin, since failure to pay the penalties results in (presumably coerced) detetention.

But yeah get to the point PE.

Yes putin, because those fines and backed by threat of force

Like semck83 said, your definitions don't sound like "self-defense" to me at all. They're defining something else entirely.

Violence can be appropriate in many situations besides self-defense. Just as a for-instance, say a man comes into contact with his father's murderer after ten years of looking for him. Is it wrong for him to beat the guy senseless before turning him in to the police? Most people would say no, and the man's actions certainly wouldn't fall under any definition of self-defense. And that's only one scenario. There are obviously many more we could think of.

Define "PE"

"Just as a for-instance, say a man comes into contact with his father's murderer after ten years of looking for him. Is it wrong for him to beat the guy senseless before turning him in to the police?"
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/589/patrickstar.jpg

Invictus, violence is only ever appropriate for self defense

PE I want you to hit me as hard as you can

PE just created a beautiful philosophical limbo here. Like a playing ground for experimental thinkers. We should all go to our respective dealers and smoke some weed - see how we all feel about Eden's question afterward. Repeat until successful.

Then no. Although I don't think coercion beyond such measures as (brief) detention is ever justified.

Ease off on the six paper joints red

Nevah!

Who do you think would win in a fight - PE or YJ

Battle of the initials WHO YA GOT?!