> Eco terrorism requires neither personal threats nor lethal threats
I know, that's why we call it terrorism.
> There is no direct lethal threat to spiking a forest and posting plenty of warning signs, so it is not a violent action
No, because spiking is done because loggers can get killed sawing down a spiked tree. Sounds violent to me.
> The main goal is to get you to realize that you are too focused on requiring violence, when there are many other ways to harm or kill people.
What do you mean "too focused"? I think the problem is you fail to see any difference between someone shooting you in the head and someone poisoning a river. There is no logical train of thought where someone can claim those are equivalent.
> There is nothing in what I wrote whereby one can logically draw that conclusion.
Of course there is - you've been claiming violence like "polluting" justifies violence and reduced it down to "my life is threatened, so I can threaten yours".
Is tree spiking an act of violence directed to someone personally?
You clearly say "yes."
> spiking is done because loggers can get killed sawing down a spiked tree. Sounds violent to me.
Yet earlier you said ExxonMobil has not committed any form of violence in its contribution to CO2 emissions "because there is no proof that CO2 emissions are a direct lethal threat to you personally."
Have tree spikers made a direct lethal threat to you personally? I assume not, so either they are not violent or your mean "you personally" in the more wider sense of "someone personally."
Have all tree spikers personally threatened someone? I'm sure some have, but your view requires that all tree spikers personally threaten someone, and I know that's not true of all tree spikers.
You write "loggers", but that's not a direct personal threat but a career threat. People are not intrinsically loggers who must cut down trees. They could decide to stop being loggers and do something else, though emotional and financial reasons make that a difficult choice.
I'm a swimmer. If I get ill from swimming in polluted waters, who is at fault - me for swimming in waters I know are increasingly dangerous, or the polluter knowingly dumping dangerous materials into the water?
Does the polluter commit a violent act by continuing to pollute the waters knowing that swimmers and those who must drink the water, or live off of fish caught in those waters, are very likely to suffer as a result, even if the polluter isn't personally threatening anyone?
Your answer to that seems to be "no", yet I can't discern a difference between that and violence you see in tree spiking. Both lead to death and injury, but one is called "violence" and "terrorism" while deaths from the other are .. what .. the cost of doing business?
> you've been claiming violence like "polluting" justifies violence
I've never said disproportionate violence is justified like you claim I did. I started off by talking about just war theory, as an example of logical justifications for when it is okay to use violence to prevent future violence. I believe violence may be justified to prevent future harm, even when that future harm is not due to violence.
For some reason, you do not, and I truly do not understand why, given that you are not a pure pacifist.
That some examples may be justifiable (to a non-pacifist like me) does not mean I think all examples are justifiable as you wrongly assume I must.
I’m not sure why it’s so hard for you to grasp the nuance here. You seem to view everything as black and white. Shooting someone in the head is equal to contributing to CO2 which may or may not threaten someone’s life in the distant future.
I mean it’s pretty clear a spiked tree is a danger and potentially lethal.
And it’s pretty clear climate change isn’t. And it’s pretty clear pollution isn’t a lethal threat to a swimmer.
If you cant grasp the gray area here I’m not sure it really worth more discussion. It’s a very common logical mistake I see on HN.
I know, that's why we call it terrorism.
> There is no direct lethal threat to spiking a forest and posting plenty of warning signs, so it is not a violent action
No, because spiking is done because loggers can get killed sawing down a spiked tree. Sounds violent to me.
> The main goal is to get you to realize that you are too focused on requiring violence, when there are many other ways to harm or kill people.
What do you mean "too focused"? I think the problem is you fail to see any difference between someone shooting you in the head and someone poisoning a river. There is no logical train of thought where someone can claim those are equivalent.
> There is nothing in what I wrote whereby one can logically draw that conclusion.
Of course there is - you've been claiming violence like "polluting" justifies violence and reduced it down to "my life is threatened, so I can threaten yours".