when you start a conversation by referring to standards, you're already conceding the debate to the right. the reason is that liberals don't believe in holding things up to a moral standard, or occupying a moral high ground, in the first place - they believe in analyzing situations on a case-by-case basis and ultimately conceding to evidence. it's the difference between being an ideologue and following the scientific method.

so, when somebody tells me that i have a "double standard" on something, i immediately agree with them - because i'm not an ideologue in the first place. i have triple and quadruple and quintuple standards. i don't look at a situation and try and force it to adhere to my moral worldview, i react to the evidence in front of me in the most pragmatic way possible.

this was actually the conclusion i came to from studying case law for a few years: we shouldn't have law because we shouldn't be trying to interpret the world through written rules, but rather reacting to it based on what's in front of us in terms of broad principles and subjective perceptions. that creates as many standards as there are situations. sure: sometimes killing somebody may actually be the right choice, and we should be flexible in analyzing that. there should not be a rule that forbids all killing, no matter what - that is absurd, when truly contemplated. that doesn't mean rejecting the need to uphold evidence, mind you - it means prioritizing evidence ahead of morals, which are ultimately subjective in the first place.

so, when you talk about violence, i don't perceive it in terms of a moral question, i interpret it in terms of pure pragmatism: will violence help us achieve our goals? and, that also means recognizing that sometimes violence is necessary to help us achieve our goals.

i grasp that our society is so overwhelmingly right-wing that you perhaps can't even get your head around a truly liberal worldview. but, let's approach the question as it ought to be. i'm not interested in having a debate about whether i have a double standard on things or interested in denying or defending against the accusation in any way; rather, i will willingly concede the point, and instead accuse you of being an ideologue and moral absolutist for raising it.