Definition of Violence

786 Words4 Pages
Definition of Violence The inevitable verbal attacks the animal rights movement encounters includes the label "violent," and labels do matter because they may also give instructions. If for example, John Doe, on trial for murder is labeled guilty, his tag could lead to the end of John Doe. The 'violence' label flung at the animal rights movement may be, ironically, the unfortunate result of well meaning, but imprudent error on behalf of animals. Such errors have included, a bomb threat, arson, threats to the families of exploiters, and the alleged cutting of brake lines, a tactic with lethal implications. We needn't dwell on the seriousness of such accusation, the question is, how should we react to such information? More than one answer prescribes the unequivocal disapproval of any conduct whether by individuals or groups, that can be characterized as destructive, immoral, violent, and self defeating. Can violence be so indiscriminately defined? The answer can be best answered after a careful analysis, and sifting of facts to separate truth from emotion, and fiction. Destructive measures to vivisection, and testing laboratories, puppy mills, fur farms or any place of animal abuse along with any measures that endanger human life are indiscriminately defined as violence by segments of the public. 'The public,' broadly defined, could include animal advocates, the possibility of which inspired this essay. As noted above; if reformation is not to become deformation, the animal rights movement must not be seduced by any tempting form of error, and indiscriminate definitions can conduce to error. The meaning of a word is not a natural attribute which man discovers; meaning is given to a word by people who ... ... middle of paper ... ...rmed brutal and resolute would have quickly liquidated Ghandi and his followers. Would a well armed resolute Ghandi and his followers not committed to absolute pacifism also be quickly liquidated by an enemy that was well armed brutal and resolute? The brutal exploiters of animals are determined to maintain the status quo, are protected by laws, and are well armed by the blessings of publics unaware of the grim realities they sustain by their apathy, and money. I believe that the exploiters should be attacked by every means possible that does not entail a threat or danger to life, human or non human, because any other strategy is subject to severe limitations. This copy constitutes an attack, and as noted above, 'the brutal exploiters', is a label, and labels can give instructions. *Exceptions abound such as Police, and military duty, self defense etc.
Open Document