Welcome to PO.com- home of survivalists.

by **TWilliam** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 12:26:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'L')ack of comprehension on your part does not equate to dumbness on mine.

Is the predator being violent when it dispatches it's prey? No. It is expressing it's nature. Is the dog being violent when it defends it's yard? No. It too is expressing it's nature.

Nor are the storm, the tornado, the blizzard violent; they simply are what they are.

Many people would consider a monk absorbed in meditation to represent the epitomy of "non-violence". Most forget the fact that these same monks are responsible for developing the most lethal forms of hand-to-hand combat known to man. Why? To defend themselves against marauders. They understood that violence exists in only one place: the human heart, and they also recognized that there is a distinction between an overt act and the motivation behind it. Hence they saw clearly that defending oneself against an attacker was not a violent act, regardless of the form said defense might take.

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 16:05:08

Here's something to help make your point TWilliam: the old TV show in the 70's Kung Fu with David Carradine. The Chinese monk roaming the Old American West. He was peace-loving, gentle, wise. In every episode some redneck evildoer would bring the fight to him and Carradine/monk would kick his ass and then go sit on a tree trunk and play his flute.

by **TrueKaiser** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 16:08:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'H')ere's something to help make your point TWilliam: the old TV show in the 70's Kung Fu with David Carradine. The Chinese monk roaming the Old American West. He was peace-loving, gentle, wise. In every episode some redneck evildoer would bring the fight to him and Carradine/monk would kick his ass and then go sit on a tree trunk and play his flute.

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 17:55:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', '
')ah yes lets bring in a fictional tv show to try to prove your point.. :roll:

by **TWilliam** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 18:20:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', '
')ah yes lets bring in a fictional tv show to try to prove your point.. :roll:

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 19:26:29

Lots of rolling eyes, huh. :roll:

by **trespam** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 19:52:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'N')o kidding. And it was thru that tradition that they came to recognize that "violence" is an attitude not an action. Personally I think their understanding is a hell of a lot more accurate than that of some government-funded "scholar" writing a dictionary.

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 20:07:39

Come on Trespam, why so peevish? Violent comes from Latin violentus meaning furious, vehement. The word violent has connotations of abuse, violation, etc. as you noted in your own post. If TWilliam wants to point to the proper use of force in a disciplined way, why is that stupid? Since the word violent has criminal tones to it, there needs to be a word for what he is talking about where the use of force is not criminal, that's all.

by **TWilliam** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 21:45:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'C')ome on Trespam, why so peevish? Violent comes from Latin violentus meaning furious, vehement. The word violent has connotations of abuse, violation, etc. as you noted in your own post. If TWilliam wants to point to the proper use of force in a disciplined way, why is that stupid? Since the word violent has criminal tones to it, there needs to be a word for what he is talking about where the use of force is not criminal, that's all.

by **jato** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 21:55:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ice to see that someone else comprehends that violence and force are not synonymous.

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 22:13:55

Let's relate this to your profession, Jato. If a police officer uses 'force' then it is deemed professionally appropriate, but if a police officer uses 'violence' then there is a problem. You don't see a distinction here? Perhaps it is quiblling about semantics, but sometimes semantics can become very important. Words are very important, they need to be understood and used properly.

by **trespam** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 22:45:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'L')et's relate this to your profession, Jato. If a police officer uses 'force' then it is deemed professionally appropriate, but if a police officer uses 'violence' then there is a problem. You don't see a distinction here? Perhaps it is quiblling about semantics, but sometimes semantics can become very important. Words are very important, they need to be understood and used properly.

by **jato** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 22:49:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')erhaps it is quibbling about semantics

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 22:51:36

I've been trying to think of the right word for the proper judicious use of force and can't think of it. Clearly 'violence' implies bad emotions such as rage, fury: 'violent criminal'. By metaphorical extension, 'violent storm' in the sense of dangerous. Where has the confusion crept in? 'Violent sports' like football, boxing, bullfighting come to mind. Anybody know the word I'm looking for?

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 23:01:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', '
')There is no point to this thread. We all live in our different "realities". My reality includes violence and force.

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Mon 14 Mar 2005, 00:04:49

We all have our peeves. NevadaGhosts doesn't like 'eggheads', TrueKaiser doesn't like multiple postings, Specop doesn't like liberals, Montequest doesn't like off-topic postings, Ailrickson doesn't like homos, Lotrfan doesn't like methamphetamines, Smallpoxgirl doesn't like George Washington, Ayoob doesn't like George Bush, BlisteredWhippet doesn't like the commercial use of pretty girls' faces, Jack doesn't like do-gooders, Zechs doesn't like marijuana (or to be called Zecha), and I don't like "Everybody has their own 'reality.' Bullshit. THERE IS ONLY ONE REALITY. We all have a slim grasp of it, perhaps, to varying degrees. Reality is sum total of everything that is real as opposed to what is imagined or miscontrued about it.

by **TWilliam** » Mon 14 Mar 2005, 00:34:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I')'ve been trying to think of the right word for the proper judicious use of force and can't think of it. Clearly 'violence' implies bad emotions such as rage, fury: 'violent criminal'. By metaphorical extension, 'violent storm' in the sense of dangerous. Where has the confusion crept in? 'Violent sports' like football, boxing, bullfighting come to mind. Anybody know the word I'm looking for?

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Mon 14 Mar 2005, 00:42:10

Looks like its just you and I now, agreeing with each other. :lol:

We win the debate! (watch out, maybe they'll ambush us later.)

by **TWilliam** » Mon 14 Mar 2005, 00:50:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'L')ooks like its just you and I now, agreeing with each other. :lol:

We win the debate! (watch out, maybe they'll ambush us later.)

by **jato** » Mon 14 Mar 2005, 01:08:07

PMS, you are so stubborn.

Perhaps there is only one reality (prove it :razz:

). However, a person living on dirt and eating bugs has a different "reality" than a rich man living in a Rancho Santa Fe mansion. They each experience the world from a very different point of view.

Maybe I should have said...each of us has a different perception of reality.

Welcome to PO.com- home of survivalists.

Who is online