Ah, interesting. I was about to examine why I disagreed with you, but upon seeing your comment again, I realized I'm not disagreeing. I understand your comment and agree with it insofar as it is written, but there is much more to say about this than where your comment ends. It's not that I disagree with the content, but the implications that arise from it having been stated the way you stated it.

This chain is basically like this:

1. Common reasoning.
2. Reaction to common reasoning, seeing how it plays out over time.
3. Perception of intended disagreement, while agreeing completely.
4. Clarification that no disagreement or other ill will is present.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to proceed from here to actually steer the future towards optimal (maximum?) non-violence.