Of course there are occasions when violence is justified.

If a man is attemping to rape a woman, for example, she is QUITE justified in kicking him in the bollocks.

Hard.

Absolutely.
Try to hurt my dog, or any of my small humans.
I will make you cry.

In self defense or in defense of another. Yes, absolutely.

Only in self-defense or to protect someone else who's being attacked.

Yes, I do think there are times it is justified. But rare. As in when you are fighting for your life .

No never, except if you hurt my kiddies. I want to say I would be forgiving but even the thought of that is painful.

Yes. You start it, I finish it. If I'm being sexually assaulted or if my sons are harmed. You hurt mine's, I'm coming after your entire family!

Sometimes. For example, violence was required on a massive scale to halt the Nazis in the 1940s and, since it was imperative that they were halted, justified.

Violence on a far less massive, more targeted scale in the early 1930s might have prevented that being necessary. It's the only language fascists understand.

Eye for an eye... in defending one's self is just common sense, doesn't have to be justified. And when someone does irreversible damage to an innocent adult or child.

Only in self defense.

If we (as Americans) and other nations with us didn't do a bit of violence here and there, there is a good chance we would be speaking German atm.

Self defense
Protect your friends and family
Bitch slap right wing Republicans

Revenge doesn't justify violence as some here say, but, I fully understand an emotional response and realize I would most likely do so myself.

Protection can justify violence if no other possibility works or is timely.

No.

There's a Dean Koontz quote from The Darkest Evening Of the Year that I like: " "In self-defense and in defense of the innocent, killing is not murder, hesitation is not moral, and cowardice is the only sin.

Woody Guthrie wrote, "This Machine Kills Facists,"on his guitar; but it was bullets, bayonets, and blood that ended Hitler's genocidal war.

We are far too quick to jump to the last refuge of the incompetent. There is far more violence than necessary in this world, and it's glorified beyond reason, but there are scenarios which not only justify violence, but require it.

violence
noun
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

I've included the definition because I'm unsure whether defense necessarily fits. If I'm defending myself or another, is my aim to hurt, damage, or kill, or is my goal to neutralize the threat? Sometimes physical harm is inevitable in defense, but is that the intention or an unfortunate effect? For me, it's not about hurting or destroying, so I don't know that it could be said that I'd act out violently, and whatever action I took would be the least harmful, yet effective method. So, verbal de-escalation would be my first option, then obstacles or traps, then non-harmful attacks, then minimally harmful, then seriously harmful, and last resort would be potentially deadly force. (No, I wouldn't necessarily try these in order; if someone were coming at me with a knife I wouldn't say 'hey, let's talk about this' but I might try tripping them and running running away rather than bashing them over the head if I thought the former would be effective in getting to safety.)

There are those, however, who do want to cause physical harm to an assailant. That's not my goal, but within the context of personal danger, I'm unsure that's not a valid desire and choice. Police, for instance, shoot to kill when there's a threat (although they're sometimes too quick to declare a threat, which sometimes makes this a dicey protocol, but that gets into a different issue). The philosophy there seems to be that once a threat has been assessed and the safety of someone is in jeopardy, it's necessary to use maximum force to neutralize the serious threat — so in that case harm is, at least indirectly, the intention. I can't say it's an incorrect approach, at least for police in enforcing safety, only that it's not what I'd be comfortable with for myself.

Some people go a step further and say it's good to respond to certain ideologies with physical violence. You've no doubt heard people say, or seen memes promoting, "punch a Nazi." Unless a self-proclaimed Nazi is lynching someone or otherwise engaged in violence, I vehemently disagree with that sentiment. No matter what that ideology espouses, my role is to argue against what I consider to be its destructive philosophy and convince as many people as I can that there are better ways. Using violence and intimidation tactics isn't an effective response, and it isn't what a civilized society should accept or tolerate; freedom of speech should be preserved unless it poses a clear and immediate danger.

When it comes to military action, I tend toward pacifism and humanitarian efforts. While not always possible, I think governments have far more nonviolent options at their disposal than they're often willing to leverage, often for political purposes rather than a sincere desire to help the oppressed or neutralize a legitimate threat. Again, that's not always the case, and there are occasionally genuine cases of self defense, but too often the reasons for war or violent military action are sold to the people under false pretenses and half-truths.

Otherwise, I can't think of any valid argument in favor of violence. In general I'm opposed to violence, but sometimes a physical response may be necessary.

Self defense

Yes

No in more cases than not. I'm not a pacifist, its just that violence begets more violence.

Yes, I would resort to violence in self-defense and defense of my family.

Self defense.... that's about it. Maybe a little hair pulling from time to time but that's for a different group.

Depends.

Only self defense.

sometimes it is

It depends on the situtation. In most case there should no need for violence for stuff.

Self defense from a physical attack