another bloody blood question!

Originally posted by FMF
So now you're saying you can use violence?

I never used the term violence, you did and its now twice you have been caught saying that I did. Just stop misrepresenting what people say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I never used the term violence, you did and its now twice you have been caught saying that I did. Just stop misrepresenting what people say.

So why not clear it up now. Can you meet violence with violence if necessary? galveston75 seems to have suggested that it is OK. But you have talked about using "stances" and "katas" from martial arts and "raising ones hand to defend oneself without being violent". So you're saying you can use violence?

Originally posted by FMF
So why not clear it up now. Can you meet violence with violence if necessary? galveston75 seems to have suggested that it is OK. But you have talked about using "stances" and "katas" from martial arts and "raising ones hand to defend oneself without being violent". So you're saying you can use violence?

give him a moral dilemma question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Originally posted by FMF
So why not clear it up now. Can you meet violence with violence if necessary? galveston75 seems to have suggested that it is OK. But you have talked about using "stances" and "katas" from martial arts and "raising ones hand to defend oneself without being violent". So you're saying you can use violence?

I didn't suggest anything. I said to use common sense in figuring it out and maybe , just maybe if you were to really study the bible and then ask god for understanding, you just might get a better idea of his view. If it really even matters to you.

Originally posted by galveston75
I didn't suggest anything. I said to use common sense in figuring it out and maybe , just maybe if you were to really study the bible and then ask god for understanding, you just might get a better idea of his view. If it really even matters to you.

Huh? You think I should "really study the bible and then ask god for understanding" about what robbie means by his opaque and ambiguous remarks when all robbie has to do is answer point blank questions?

One wonders if you think that robbie's dodging and deflecting personal remarks have exhibited much in the way of "common sense" on this thread. Why can't robbie himself just give me "a better idea of his view" by being clear? Why would I have to consult "God" when robbie is right here participating in this discussion?

He talked about using "stances" and "katas" to defend himself and his family and others from violent attack. Is this your "common sense" understanding of how martial arts could be used?

Why are you talking about how violence is justified, biblically, but robbie refuses to say anything unequivocal about whether, how and what violence can be used? He's even berating me for using the word "violence" in this discussion about the use of violence.

Originally posted by FMF
Huh? You think I should "really study the bible and then ask god for understanding" about what robbie means by his opaque and ambiguous remarks when all robbie has to do is answer point blank questions?

One wonders if you think that robbie's dodging and deflecting personal remarks have exhibited much in the way of "common sense" on this thread. Why can't rob ...[text shortened]... e for using the word "violence" in this discussion about the use of violence.

He's answered you quite clearly. It's you that's not understanding.

Originally posted by galveston75
He's answered you quite clearly. It's you that's not understanding.

Did robbie say he would meet violence with violence if necessary or not? If you think he answered me quite clearly then you can just tell me now, surely.

Originally posted by FMF
Did robbie say he would meet violence with violence if necessary or not? If you think he answered me quite clearly then you can just tell me now, surely.

He clearly answered you. I have nothing else to say on this matter. If you are still confused as it seems you are, ask him again.

Originally posted by galveston75
He clearly answered you. I have nothing else to say on this matter. If you are still confused as it seems you are, ask him again.

If it was clear to you - and I'm telling you it certainly was not clear to me - why not just tell me what he said?

Originally posted by FMF
If it was clear to you - and I'm telling you it certainly was not clear to me - why not just tell me what he said?

he said, about three or four times, that he would use whatever was incumbent upon him to provide for his personal safety. It may simply take the from of avoiding certain situations, it may take the form of blocking fists to the face, it may take the form of disarming someone, it is not specifically defined as different situations may call for different action, so i will say it again for the last and final time in the hope that it penetrates your thick skull, he stated that he would use whatever was incumbent to provide for his safety, now stop being such an utterly tedious crashing bore of a troll. I personally will feed you no further and get a shave!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he said, about three or four times, that he would use whatever was incumbent upon him to provide for his personal safety. It may simply take the from of avoiding certain situations, it may take the form of blocking fists to the face, it may take the form of disarming someone, it is not specifically defined as different situations may call for diffe ...[text shortened]... being such an utterly tedious crashing bore of a troll. I personally will feed you no further.

So if the situation required it, you would meet violence with violence in order to protect yourself and those around you, and to prevent the danger from continuing ("disarming someone" as you put it)?

I am looking for confirmation from you that violence is sometimes called for, depending on the circumstances.

For you to say "i would use whatever was incumbent upon me to provide for his personal safety" and then refuse to state unequivocally whether "whatever" includes violence, is not an issue of my "thick skull", it is an issue of whether you are confident and clear enough about your principles to be able to state them unambiguously.

Originally posted by FMF
So if the situation required it, you would meet violence with violence in order to protect yourself and those around you, and to prevent the danger from continuing ("disarming someone" as you put it)?

I am looking for confirmation from you that violence is sometimes called for, depending on the circumstances.

For you to say "i would use whatever was incum ...[text shortened]... confident and clear enough about your principles to be able to state them unambiguously.

no i did not say violence, you did.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i did not say violence, you did.

So, can you now confirm, if the situation required it, you would meet violence with violence in order to protect yourself and those around you?

Originally posted by FMF
So, can you now confirm, if the situation required it, you would meet violence with violence in order to protect yourself and those around you?

no i cannot confirm anything that is purely hypothetical in nature, don't be so silly. look i have said all i need to say, its enough for any reasonable person.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i cannot confirm anything that is purely hypothetical in nature, don't be so silly. look i have said all i need to say, its enough for any reasonable person.

Sometimes violence is the necessary response to violence.

Is this a broad principle you and I can agree on?