I’ll definately look for a copy of Igniting a Revolution, but “turtle talk” seemed to be more semantic than substantive in its dilineation. Are you claiming that property destruction — breaking down walls for instance to free an animal — isn’t violence, but rather “justifiable force”? What about killing someone or hurting someone?

Would you have been willing to kill Hitler or Pol Pot?

Consider the case of “Choiceless choices,” the term coined to name the circumstances parents sometimes found themselves in during the Holocaust. Killing one’s own child would seem to be the extreme case of violence, yet it might be, at times, the horrible yet moral and ethically right thing to do.

And if killing your own child might ever be the moral and ethical choice, then how can anyone then say categorically that violence is always wrong?

I don’t think violence is always wrong, and I believe that circumstances can in fact demand that we resort to violence. In such circumstances, not using violence might be an immoral decision.