Never Give Up on Jesus's message of love. Never.

[Proph]

Continue in your conceit, then, I suppose. (I tried!)

"An eye for an eye makes the world go blind."

I hate the pain and suffering you're going to cause others with your words and actions. (But, I won't become you by suggesting you be hanged for your threats!)

Remember the title of the thread.

[BSWPaulsen]

"An eye for an eye makes the world go blind."

The world would have long since been blinded (or dead) if that were actually true. The wisdom contained in the quote is useful for informing human action, but reality does not neatly coincide with it. As human history amply demonstrates, there are a great many times when it is flatly false.

I hate the pain and suffering you're going to cause others with your words and actions. (But, I won't become you by suggesting you be hanged for your threats!)

Talking about feeling a certain way regarding something but doing nothing about it is empty virtue signaling. Aside from that, while my actions could potentially achieve a negative outcome, others are responsible for their own outcomes.

[Proph]

The world would have long since been blinded (or dead) if that were actually true. The wisdom contained in the quote is useful for informing human action, but reality does not neatly coincide with it. As human history amply demonstrates, there are a great many times when it is flatly false.

That's why I believe in the general goodness of people, and that ultimately government -- coercion -- is not necessary. (We're not extinct, yet!)

Storming the Capitol worked wonders for freedom, didn't it? ("They should have done more! Grrr... *grumble grumble*")

Talking about feeling a certain way regarding something but doing nothing about it is empty virtue signaling. Aside from that, while my actions could potentially achieve a negative outcome, others are responsible for their own outcomes.

Who said that? Don't use violence. (Except in [immediate] defense?)

Technology has granted more means than ever to peacefully retaliate [against] -- if not outright avoid -- oppressors, yet there are still Luddites on forums like this legitimizing the very oppression they claim to want to stop with their calls for the gallows.

When you start stringing up politicians -- or even threaten such -- "somebody has to do something!" (But, if you're a shill, then you probably don't care -- and might even desire this outcome!)

[BSWPaulsen]

That's why I believe in the general goodness of people, and that ultimately government -- coercion -- is not necessary.

The general goodness of people has nothing to do with why the species did not end up blind or dead. Human history, including biblical history, is rife with accounts of one side being destroyed and the conflict ending without the winner "going blind".

When you start stringing up politicians -- or even threaten such -- "somebody has to do something!" (But, if you're a shill, then you probably don't care -- and might even desire this outcome!)

I was referencing your purported "hate" for what my actions would cause being little more than you virtue signaling. Aside from that, violence only in immediate defense is the same thing as allowing one's enemy to choose the time and place of battle. Basically, moralized stupidity and a blank check for any form of tyranny that does not amount to a "direct threat".

[Proph]

The general goodness of people has nothing to do with why the species did not end up blind or dead. Human history, including biblical history, is rife with accounts of one side being destroyed and the conflict ending without the winner "going blind".



I was referencing your purported "hate" for what my actions would cause being little more than you virtue signaling. Aside from that, violence only in immediate defense is the same thing as allowing one's enemy to choose the time and place of battle. Basically, moralized stupidity and a blank check for any form of tyranny that does not amount to a "direct threat".

Obsessing over enemies and attacks, still!

You'd rather nitpick than address the meat of any of these arguments.

The only "successful" defense that I can recall in recent memory was the BLM/Bundy standoff in 2014. (But even then, many of the participants were black-bagged later.) [Offensive retaliation won't fix any of that.]

[BSWPaulsen]

You'd rather nitpick than address the meat of any of these arguments.

Logical progression follows a sequence. The "meat" of an argument is only as good as that sequence, so if the sequence is fallacious, then there is no substance to the argument.

The only "successful" defense that I can recall in recent memory was the BLM/Bundy standoff in 2014. (But even then, many of the participants were black-bagged later.) [Offensive retaliation won't fix any of that.]

That standoff served a valuable lesson in why informational security matters and why any future participants in similar events should carefully guard their identity. Similarly, it reinforced the concept that when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

[Proph]

Logical progression follows a sequence. The "meat" of an argument is only as good as that sequence, so if the sequence is fallacious, then there is no substance to the argument.

Your premise is that pre-emptive violence is sometimes acceptable. (That's our main disagreement!)

Your "sequence" depends on a similar faulty chain, because you refuse to delve into your faulty premise.

The ease with which you encourage violence truly is astonishing. (I hope you don't end up creating your own Hell because of it! [The rest of us might have to live there.])

[BSWPaulsen]

Your premise is that pre-emptive violence is sometimes acceptable. (That's our main disagreement!)

My position is that the applicability of violence is best left to the discernment of the individuals potentially affected by the actions of others. Tolerating tyranny or subversion because it is not immediately violent is not wise. Also lacking in wisdom is allowing malicious actors to engineer your destruction at a time of their choosing because you are hamstrung by a set of rules they do not abide by.

Your "sequence" depends on a similar faulty chain, because you refuse to delve into your faulty premise.

I have clearly stated what my premise is above.

The ease with which you encourage violence truly is astonishing. (I hope you don't end up creating your own Hell because of it! [The rest of us might have to live there.])

I advocate for individuals to exercise discretion when it comes to violence and regard anyone that reduces its usefulness to a mere reactionary function to be fools that will be exploited by Machiavellians. Basically, those who dismiss the initiation of violence as immoral are doomed to suffer at the hands of those who do not. Conversely, the possibility of aggressive violence can and does serve as a deterrent to tyrants.

[Proph]

My position is that the applicability of violence is best left to the discernment of the individuals potentially affected by the actions of others. Tolerating tyranny or subversion because it is not immediately violent is not wise. Also lacking in wisdom is allowing malicious actors to engineer your destruction at a time of their choosing because you are hamstrung by a set of rules they do not abide by.



I have clearly stated what my premise is above.



I advocate for individuals to exercise discretion when it comes to violence and regard anyone that reduces its usefulness to a mere reactionary function to be fools that will be exploited by Machiavellians. Basically, those who dismiss the initiation of violence as immoral are doomed to suffer at the hands of those who do not. Conversely, the possibility of aggressive violence can and does serve as a deterrent to tyrants.

Using violence when they are not immediately violent is even more unwise! (Violence is the health of the State!)

[BSWPaulsen]

Using violence when they are not immediately violent is even more unwise! (Violence is the health of the State!)

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that it is better to tolerate ostensibly peaceful manifestations of tyranny or subversion than to be violent against either.

Violence is the health of any human hierarchy. The State is merely one form of a human hierarchy.

[Proph]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that it is better to tolerate ostensibly peaceful manifestations of tyranny or subversion than to be violent against either.

Violence is the health of any human hierarchy. The State is merely one form of a human hierarchy.

Things can always be better, but they can always be much, much worse.

Violence achieves dereliction. If you would initiate violence -- become an aggressor -- towards those that discomfort you, then we have nothing left to talk about.

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

[BSWPaulsen]

Things can always be better, but they can always be much, much worse.

Indeed.

Violence achieves dereliction. If you would initiate violence -- become an aggressor -- towards those that discomfort you, then we have nothing left to talk about.

Like I stated previously, I will stand by exercising discretion as to when violence is and is not both necessary and proper based on the circumstances before me. Neither of us will be changing our positions, so the discussion has reached its natural conclusion.

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

You are free to do as you please, and may you encounter good fortune in your endeavors.