vision wrote:Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'd like to leave you with a question, though, since you claim you exemplify non-violence: why is violence not an appropriate response to an evil person who is intent on inflicting violence on you? Can you answer that? EDIT: Understand that this is a deep question, and won't be satisfied with a shallow answer.
I would not harm another human being for any reason. Any. You cannot make the world a less violent place with more violence. The right course of action is always to avoid violence at all costs, to use diplomacy only, and as a last resort, non-violent restraint. I cannot justify taking the life of another human being to save the life of one close to me. I can not even justify killing animals in the same situation. I've taken a personal vow to reduce the suffering of all sentient beings and I will stick to it no matter what. If you think it is useless to devote my life to the reduction of suffering, then you should think deeply about what is truly useful.
Still waiting on a specific answer to my question.
So you've bought into some Buddhist ideology. That tells me that you don't
understand the subject in any depth--you don't need to, you've just accepted the idea of absolute non-violence. I always expected it was something along those lines.
That is such a farce. If you haven't already shut your ears, just hear me out on this: it is justice, not the absence of suffering that is the highest ideal in this world. The only time (and it may be more often than not) that violence is "not the answer" is when in a specific situation violence cannot or does not affect justice. You have people dealing with each-other, and one does another injustice, who reacts emotionally and an additional injustice is done back, and on and on. When a man has taken it upon himself to unjustly cause harm to you or your family, there is a consideration of not offending justice in your response. It would be unjust to kill the man and his family, for instance. However, self-defense, in its most basic form, is nothing but a response calculated to thwart the infliction of harm. Self-defense returns a situation that has been thrown
out of balance to a state of justice! There is the consideration of excessive force: legally speaking, excessive force could be excused, because it is difficult to determine if the excessive force hails from ill/unjust intent or merely lack of discipline or overreaction (self-defense is not something we are all expert at), but since the attacker initiated the imbalance, the victim is given the benefit of the doubt. Jesus did not throw all of this aside--the message of the Bible is not equivalent to Buddhist non-violence. The purpose of mercy over justice, under the new covenant in the New Testament is not the denial or disposal of justice, but rather the purposeful deferment of justice to God's final judgment, to be judged or covered/washed at the culmination of the gospel, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, and for the ultimate salvation of everyone, no matter how out of balance with justice. God had mercy on those who are now Christians, causing Christians to be indebted to follow this example, and to defer justice for the purpose of salvation, in mercy. Outside of this, however, it is still true that the only remedy for violent injustice is violence. Justice and judgment still exist, but as the Bible says, "mercy triumphs over judgment"--that is God's plan--to allow injustice to exist against his people for a time, so that it cannot prevent sinners from being saved. In the end, however, those who are not cover by the blood of Jesus Christ and forgiven because He paid the price for sin, are in for one hell of a reckoning. (pun not intended, but very accurate)
I could pick apart your statement up there, which is full of logical errors, but let this answer to Buddhism suffice.
My right to own the AR-15 that you're wondering about is covered in the 2nd amendment, in case you hadn't heard.
Also, no one leaves them "lying around the house".
