Is Violence a Just Response to Oppression?

Question

We're doing a debate and I'd like some ideas. It would be very helpful if you could support your statements with evidence, but if not, that's fine too.

Answer 1

The most dire situation .....

If you cant get nutrition  legally because you have no money resources, no relatives, no sympathy.

Civil liberty is not about saving goods from others, but a construction of public safety with mutual observance of biological needs:

1.Food

2. Shelter

3.Freedom

Answer 2

Down with the downpressors. Jah, Rastafari.. Violence is the only way. Haiti, (during slavery), Cuba, Mau Mau (Kenya), Intifada (Palestine), South Africa (apartheid) represent some areas in which violence was deemed to be, at least, part of the solution.

Answer 3

Unconciuosly.

It does.

When one could not overcome the problems.

Look in the real world.

How one get club in the street.

At home with domestic violence too.

Then woke up in shock.

With the casualty.

Luke 9.25,55-56,60

What do you think?

Answer 4

well i think history will probably show that it has always taken some kind of violence to eliminate the oppressor,being violent for the sake of being violent is never justified,but to achieve freedom it is definitly a just response

Answer 5

Sometimes.

The problem is how you define violence and how you define oppression. If the oppression is dire, then violence may be the only way to end it. If a particular group of people is being enslaved or is the subject of genocide, they have to fight for their lives and the lives of their people.

The problem with this is that people often use violence and claim it's justified because of perceptions of oppression. Take the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Rodney King, in his resisting arrest, was beaten; and people took this as evidence of "oppression" and rioted. This entire event was just an excuse to loot and destroy; smashing stores and stealing from neighbors does nothing to stop police abuse. Certainly, harsh police officers are a problem but that does not merit random chaos.

Every problem needs to be looked at in terms of scale. Does the "oppression" justify the violence? Or is the oppression just an excuse to be violent? It's such an issue that violence should be avoided unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Violence always has unattended side-effects. Attacking police because the police are perceived to be harsh means that criminals will find it easier to assault innocent people. These things need to be considered, and like I said, violence is only for the most dire situations.

Answer 6

Yes, and especially, where other options are or were not available. Example The Nat Turner Slave Rebellion, The Buban and American Revolutions