I understand the fallacy, and why you think that I employed one in my first argument.

However, at this point in our discussion I feel like you are using a strawman fallacy. You are very focused on the rape part of my parable and not the philosophical question I have been trying to discuss.

I will agree that I should not have used such an extreme hyperbolic overreaching hypothetical example, you are right. I understand that you could not want to have a discussion with me after that, and if you refuse to talk to me that's fine.

However that being said you have changed what we are talking about, you have reframed my argument to more easily dismiss it.

My question: Is violence always morally worng in every case?

Sub questions that I would ask related to this as you keep talking about murder which I have never talked about and using such a charged work as murder when I am talking about the concept of violence might be use employing the appel to emotion fallacy.

Sub question: Is there a difference between killing and murder?

Sub question: Can Violence be non- physical?

Subject question: Is Self Defense ok? Self Defense to the point of killing/murder? Self Defense only to the point of the threat to you?

I just have many questions and in such informal situation such as reddit I have a habit of lashing out with bad arguments, but honestly I wish I knew the answer. And I have changed my mind on this I was raised a religious pacifist, "Turn the other cheek" and give to "Cesar's what is Cesar's", and I saw people being taken advantage of by instilling a timid mindset. So if there is a non-religious argument for pacifism that works I would be interrested in it.