An apple is alive. is taking it and eating it thereby violence in your definition?
http://www.troll.me/images/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-trolling-or-just-very-stupid.jpgLetting someone starve isn't violence.
It is if you have surplus food and you're not sharing. It's also cruel, discompassionate, and inhumane.
Same as when you have excess shelter and you're not sharing with those who have no shelter, and in fact relying on violence/force to keep them OUT of your unused shelter because you're waiting for someone with money to come along and provide you with a profit. Along 5th avenue in Manhattan there are many luxury apartments and condos that are empty all year. They are owned by wealthy europeans who use them as a way of hiding their wealth from local governments for tax purposes. They have some niece or nephew stay there a few days a year when passing through New York. Meanwhile the number of homeless grows each year...
Such is the waste of capitalism.
Using the starving person as an example. If I stand in front of an apple so that another who is starving may not eat, because I am saving it for my own starving child then am I being violent?
That's a strawman argument and not at all what happens in modern (or historical) capitalism.
This is the reality you are ignoring.
55% of food produced worldwide is wasted for the sake of maximizing profit.
Can't take getting called out on the fact that you're changing the definition of words and using them however you want? You're giving anarchism a bad name by behaving like an asshole to anyone who is just trying to have a conversation with you. People can't conceptualize anarchy because they're overcome by fearful thoughts that an asshole is going to shit all over everyone and everything. Thank you for proving them right.
My points were about the difficulty in grasping the fundmental psychology of an anarchist's concept of non-violence and I based it on your bullshit example that takes words out of context.
You.
Fucking.
Troll.
