Violence is simply force. Making an individual act (or not) under the use of threat of injury or death.
You need to read, in this order, Kant, Derrida, Levinas, and Cuomo.
Your definition of violence is inadequate, and I think cuomo does the best job of showing why:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810390Fuck your pedantic philosophy.
umadbro? It isn't pedantic. If you don't have a justification for your underlying definitions and ideas, nobody will follow you.
I don't need it.
That's odd-- most people enjoy justification for actions
I don't feel like using or condoning violence to sustain myself and my idea.
Apparently you do, cause your definition of violence isn't adequate.
Again, I just won't god damn condone it as long as I feel entitled to my life and that every individual is as well.
You honestly don't know what I was saying, do you?
You warmongers can shove it.
That positive peace = warmongering is, quite frankly, the funniest thing I've seen all day. It beat out lolcats daily updates.