Hacker News Reader

They're just speaking to a hypothetical person who thinks this will solve a problem. In no way does their post imply they'd be ok with it if it solved some problem.

A little wild to me that so many of the replies don't understand that.

No no i do get that of course, and i agree. Its just that the thing that struck me about the phrasing was that its a bit revealing. We are reviled by violance but we do allow its use in society everyday. But what violance and for what utility is acceptable seems to be a matter of debate. The line doesnt seem to be universally agreed on given the passion seen in this thread

Not gp, but if they were exceptionally large problems... Yeah.

Violence is never but sometimes the answer.

If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.

> If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.

FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor. I think this illustrates how a law can protect problems rather than solving them.