Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force. If a use of force is justified then it isn't violence.
For example, suppose you're walking across a bridge and you see someone about to jump to their death. So you run over, pull them back from the brink, knock them down, and sit on them. Have you committed an act of violence? I would say not.
On the other hand, suppose the person is just standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change. If you run over, pull them back from the curb, knock them down, and sit on them, that would in fact be an act of violence.
Be honest, would you prefer an android slave that was programmed by a paragon of virtue, or one that was programmed by that unprincipled, evil-minded, lecherous kulak Harry Mudd?
Krusty was paid to do a personal appearance (Bart's party?) so he aired a re-run of his show on the assumption that no one would notice. The joke is that the episode he airs just happens to break the news about an historical event (Falklands war).
She commented: "Producing ads that graphically show the truth of an abortion as a baby is being ripped apart or dies lying on a cold metal trey gasping for air after being ripped out of its mother's womb is the truth America needs to see versus the democrat's never ending ads lying to women that baby murder is their right.
"Too offensive? No not for America and definitely not for democrats."
I'd like to ask her how she'd feel about gun control ads using actual school massacre photos.
I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree.
Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.
At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes.
The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
"Abortion is a matter of conscience and so it's not just something you change based on political gain. But this is something each individual candidate has to try to figure out for themselves and every part of the country is a little bit different," Cornyn said.
Translation: Abortion was never a matter of conscience for the GOP. It has always been about political gain.
The OP is a prompt as to the nature of violence.