It 100% is: legally, you have the right to physically defend yourself from nonviolent crime- im allowed to hit the guy trying to break into my car if he doesnt stop when I yell at him to do so.
He’s damaging your property and putting your physical security at risk. Both are crimes of violence. It isn’t an emotional crime. If he says something mean, you don’t get to punch him.
If you genuinely think that breaking into a car is less violent than making and distributing child porn of someone then there is something very wrong with you.
The boy was committing a sexually violent act that was designed to intimidate, humiliate and harm.
It is absolutely less physically violent, I was never discussing violence in the broadest sense of the term, but physical violence.
Which is interesting and perhaps you should review why you are selectively focusing on this - it is the reason people are saying you are victim-blaming, after all.
You selectively pick the physical violence the victim employed as a reaction to the sexual violence she experienced. You consciously choose to ignore the sexual violence having been done to her, and in fact spell this out very clearly in your response here.
In other words, you choose to ignore the violence the perpetrator originally employed, and only want to ‘discuss’ (i.e. delegitimise) the responsive violence employed by the victim as her last method of harm reduction. That is the classical rhetorical device used to victim-blame, and if you still actually can’t see it I’d suggest reading up on that and investigating your own ethics.
It 100% is: legally, you have the right to physically defend yourself from nonviolent crime- im allowed to hit the guy trying to break into my car if he doesnt stop when I yell at him to do so.
He’s damaging your property and putting your physical security at risk. Both are crimes of violence. It isn’t an emotional crime. If he says something mean, you don’t get to punch him.
If you genuinely think that breaking into a car is less violent than making and distributing child porn of someone then there is something very wrong with you.
The boy was committing a sexually violent act that was designed to intimidate, humiliate and harm.
It is absolutely less physically violent, I was never discussing violence in the broadest sense of the term, but physical violence.
Which is interesting and perhaps you should review why you are selectively focusing on this - it is the reason people are saying you are victim-blaming, after all.
You selectively pick the physical violence the victim employed as a reaction to the sexual violence she experienced. You consciously choose to ignore the sexual violence having been done to her, and in fact spell this out very clearly in your response here.
In other words, you choose to ignore the violence the perpetrator originally employed, and only want to ‘discuss’ (i.e. delegitimise) the responsive violence employed by the victim as her last method of harm reduction. That is the classical rhetorical device used to victim-blame, and if you still actually can’t see it I’d suggest reading up on that and investigating your own ethics.