Sure context is everything but even so words have base meaning which can be used and context includes the time, the culture the tone and the weather etc.

So most arguments may be taken down to either the actual meaning of the word and how it is used but there is no doubt that the spoken and maybe moreso the written language must define the words it uses.

Force Is energy that moves through space and in effect creates time. Most things are influenced by the forces of light, although light is a very poor word that decscribes and infintely sdmall range of forces.

Light as use to describe those forces that effect the human eyes in such a way as to force cells to produce certain changes that we 'envision'. The light we see is actually a vision. Other frequencies do not produce 'light'

Together such forces are abbreviated EMF (Electro Magnetic Force). These forces include low radio transmissions of 20,000 cycles per second to some 'cosmic rays measured at 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 cycles per second. The limits are our ability to see these forces.

Violence
When a force acts upon something the object undergoes change and once more such changes may be undetectable. However once the changes are recognised they will be deemed insignificant, beneficial or detrimental to the observers environment.

Rain falling in the ocean doesn't fit any of the above if you are the ocean, but to an entity that uses water as a resource where and when the rain falls is one of the three.

Small repetitive acts of detrimental force is a bit like getting old. The day to day degradation of the body doesn't seem violent as the changes are unnoticed from minute to minute, but loosing a limb in an accident or loosing your child can be very painful and detrimental.

The question then must arise as to where does the notion of abuse arise.

Abuse is very subjective, although it must be noted that abuse isn't just to the me body corporeal but to anything that is consciously entertained that causes unwanted damage to another.

Although this would preclude the abuse of the sun and the ocean, it does not as each are common resources so each abuse is felt by all. However like getting old the forceful degradation goes buy minute by minute and when a storm dies erupt it 'soon' passes and those left minimally scared carry on as usual.

It is this common repetitive use as consumers that if seen in a broader context of time and space can be seen as violence that many would consider abuse, hence the new found environmental self appointed and elected pundits.

The escape from being the abuser is largely ignorance. a) ignorance of the damage of actions undertaken and b) the apparent ignorance of the subject to the damage.

The areas of concern are
a) the sun : no one is aware of any damage caused to the sun by conscious activity
b) the air : well here is the first in a global awareness. Although some plants and animals (including humans) may not express their discomfort to the 'abusers' they not doubt do suffer but under the getting old saga, it so slow to change.
c) water and the weather : Clear impacts upon regions and their inhabitants both in terms of toxicity and availability. Not a global awareness some hundreds of years before the 20th century.
d) food : Here things take a change of dimension as these are not base forces to use but generated from the three first mentioned.

As food uses plants, animals and people for production violence is now a clear conscious decision and the consequences cannot be unnoticed, but we have excuses and reasons and laws to channel our violence, and the main direction ti to channel it away from those you depend upon.

So once the plants and animals are near full exploitation, welcome to the 20th century large scale administration takes over and it seems it is not the individuals responsibility to concern them selves with abuse. Governments rely on money, so they prioritise tax payers. Parents their children as traditionally they would work in the fields and bring in the harvest as they matured, now they keep the government afloat that the increasingly decrepit can get their pension.

But increasingly abuse is seen more from the viewpoint that vulnerable people take the brunt. Well as long a s people use the vulnerable then this is not going to change and why should the subjects of abuse not include cows and trees ~ well they don't pay taxes so there is no legislation per cow per tree. They cannot rise up and say Cows Matter, Trees Matter, nor do I find it palatable for me to rise on their behalf, the plants, the animals of all shapes and sizes, the peoples of any colour or bend.

The law may define some acts of violence as abuse and draw a shifting line in the sand but whilst there are administrators drawing shuffling the deck the abuse can only increase and they shift the violence from their doors to other worlds. For it should be obvious that the administrators want to be at the top of the food chain.

Give me some of your energy whilst you are young, cultivate, dance and sing, and I will give you food, and as you age I will provide slaves from other shores.

Greater control of the forces of nature require focused violence and none can escape the abuse and pain.