Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartD
(Post 11990249)
Yes, I was raised by bumper stickers... unlike the pure brilliance it requires to come with a phrase like that.
|
Its not mine, Dogbert said it to Dilbert after Dilbert continually repeated "If you dont vote, you have no right to complain!" and Dilbert couldnt answer why he had that opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartD
(Post 11990249)
Let's use the warchild (appropriate name) as an example.
|
Sir, the irony of the immaturity of you taking a cheap shot at someone for being named "child" is intense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartD
(Post 11990249)
If I say something to him, and it makes him mad... is he able to handle it? Cope with it? Come up with something to say back? No... he has to resort to violence in order to force me to come up with an apology simply because he knows no other way to do it.
|
'Resorting' to violence because one is 'angry' does not classify a violent person, but an angry person. There are many ways to deal with anger and violence is one of them.
If what you say is true, it makes him an angry person. Not a violent person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartD
(Post 11990249)
Violence, even as a tool, is used when all other options are exhausted. A leader (not the make shift ones like Bush) should consider all options... from negotiation, politics, cohersion... what have you, and have violence as one of those options. But it's only the first option of those who are incapable to even consider any of the other options first.
|
I disagree, but i think its very nice of you to list both negotiation, politics (negotiation kinda falls under this one doesnt it?) and coercion (which is a method of negotiation). I would even go as far as to say that in this grand scheme of things, 'violence' would also fall under politics.
"But it's only the first option of those who are incapable to even consider any of the other options first."
Please, go ahead and explain why. Thats what i asked in my previous post :) (the one you replied to with this post that i am now replying to. We could have saved a neat amount of time if you had just explained already.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartD
(Post 11990249)
But even Bush had issued warnings and other such things to Iraq before invading. So thus, you could say, even then their first option wasn't violence.
|
I dont know where you are trying to go with the whole bush-iraq thing, I thought we were discussing wheter or not violence ever may be the 'correct' first choice in a given situation. Again, I say that it may be and you say that it may never be.
I have explained why I belive that violence is the optimal choice of action if the situation calls for it and you have repeated what you said before. Are you going to repeat it again? This is not a remake of the Monty Python Argument Sketch. (yes it is, no it isnt.)
Is this what you consider an 'intellectual' debate?
Please sir, just list your arguments instead of your opinions.
