It definitely is, if done from within the country. If done from outside, it's bog-standard (swamp-standard?) military action, but a small group deciding unilaterally that they know how to lead the country better and therefore will seize control of it via violence and force is pretty clearly an extremist action. Who are they to say the government is tyrannical? I bet I can find 1000 redditors who will say Trump is tyrannical within a half hour. So, is overthrowing Trump not extreme? Routine at this point, sure, they've tried, but is it an extreme action to attempt to overthrow the lawful rule of the POTUS? THEY say he's tyrannical, after all, so clearly, not an extreme action?
No one attempts to overthrow a government because they think that government is doing a great job and full of loving, competent, wise and caring people. That just doesn't happen. Your definition means every act of anarchy, every assassination, every coup is mundane and moderate.
The real distinction is extreme actions are sometimes justified. Like self-defense (versus-murder) or truth (versus-libel), there are situations where a "wrong" action is justified in its performance, but it is a justification, a defense of the action within the context of that action's wrongness, not declaring the base action itself is pure.
You're good man, your statement above was entirely correct. For whatever reason, he didn't understand it. The overthrow of British rule was a huge risk to the colonists and their own welfare. They had no idea what would become of it. It was a last resort.
It definitely is, if done from within the country. If done from outside, it's bog-standard (swamp-standard?) military action, but a small group deciding unilaterally that they know how to lead the country better and therefore will seize control of it via violence and force is pretty clearly an extremist action. Who are they to say the government is tyrannical? I bet I can find 1000 redditors who will say Trump is tyrannical within a half hour. So, is overthrowing Trump not extreme? Routine at this point, sure, they've tried, but is it an extreme action to attempt to overthrow the lawful rule of the POTUS? THEY say he's tyrannical, after all, so clearly, not an extreme action?
No one attempts to overthrow a government because they think that government is doing a great job and full of loving, competent, wise and caring people. That just doesn't happen. Your definition means every act of anarchy, every assassination, every coup is mundane and moderate.
The real distinction is extreme actions are sometimes justified. Like self-defense (versus-murder) or truth (versus-libel), there are situations where a "wrong" action is justified in its performance, but it is a justification, a defense of the action within the context of that action's wrongness, not declaring the base action itself is pure.
How is "extreme actions are sometimes justified, but they are extreme" the same as "never ebar do extweme ackshuns!"?
You're good man, your statement above was entirely correct. For whatever reason, he didn't understand it. The overthrow of British rule was a huge risk to the colonists and their own welfare. They had no idea what would become of it. It was a last resort.