[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Are you serious? I have said all the way through this thread that I didn't think violence was acceptable unless in self defence..........what exactly are you asking me?

Yes. I am being very serious.

You do condone violence then. That is my point.

You have a certain barometer when you find violence is acceptable. It's a simple yes or no answer: which if I understand correctly: your answer is Yes, you do find it acceptable under certain circumstances.

Am I correct in saying that, if in your eyes, it is 'deemed' as self defence: then violence is acceptable. Yes?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Yes. I am being very serious.

You do condone violence then. That is my point.

You have a certain barometer when you find violence is acceptable. It's a simple yes or no answer: which if I understand correctly: your answer is Yes, you do find it acceptable under certain circumstances.

Am I correct in saying that, if in your eyes, it is 'deemed' as self defence: then violence is acceptbale. Yes?

Have I not already said MULTIPLE times throughout this thread that I think self defence is acceptable? Did you miss all those posts?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Have I not already said MULTIPLE times throughout this thread that I think self defence is acceptable? Did you miss all those posts?

I am asking you to clarify what I have asked.

You find violence is acceptable when it meets your own criteria?

I'm only looking for a simple yes or no.

What is so difficult about my asking for nothing more than a one word answer?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I am asking you to clarify what I have asked.

You find violence is acceptable when it meets your own criteria?

I'm only looking for a simple yes or no.

What is so difficult about my asking for nothing more than a one word answer?

Self preservation is a completely different scenario than hitting someone smaller than you to teach them a lesson. Hitting someone in self defence is an instinct to protect yourself from harm. So no you're not getting a yes or no answer, you can take this paragraph instead

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Self preservation is a completely different scenario than hitting someone smaller than you to teach them a lesson. Hitting someone in self defence is an instinct to protect yourself from harm. So no you're not getting a yes or no answer, you can take this paragraph instead

One child hitting another child is self preservation?

In fairness to you, you have indeed have stated time and time again that violence is never the answer - and as you stated so adamantly in your prevous post - 'how many times you you regard violence being responded to by violence, albeit, if it is in self defence' , therefore you are prepared to build in your own barometers on when you deem violence on someone to be acceptable.

It's exactly the same premise as those who build in their own parameters in respect of gentle smacks on children.

Smacking - or violence as you refer to it as, is violence. Regardless of migitgating circumstances..... you have throughout this thread, stated you will condone it where it meets your moral compass: but you have criticised others on this thread: when it meets 'their' moral compass.

It is a grey area - I agree with thesheriff on that point - and in fairness to you - I do think this proves there is no 'right' and 'no wrong'. It is how we each view it personally - and even your goodself admits that there are circumstances that you feel hitting is the correct course of action.

It's been a really interesting discussion when all is said and done Niam and one that I've enjoyed.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

One child hitting another child is self preservation?

In fairness to you, you have indeed have stated time and time again that violence is never the answer - and as you stated so adamantly in your prevous post - 'how many times you you regard violence being responded to by violence, albeit, if it is in self defence' , therefore you are prepared to build in your own barometers on when you deem violence on someone to be acceptable.

It's exactly the same premise as those who build in their own parameters in respect of gentle smacks on children.

Smacking - or violence as you refer to it as, is violence. Regardless of migitgating circumstances..... you have throughout this thread, stated you will condone it where it meets your morale compass: but you have criticised others on this thread: when it meets 'their' morale compass.

It is a grey area - I agree with thesheriff on that point - and in fairness to you - I do think this proves there is no 'right' and 'no wrong'. It is how we each view it personally - and even your goodself admits that there are circumstances that you feel hitting is the correct course of action.

It's been a really interesting discussion when all is said and done Niam and one that I've enjoyed.

No it doesn't.........there is a world of difference between someone hitting someone else to protect themselves from harm and hitting someone smaller than you to teach them a lesson. You are still wrong on that front and you have proved nothing............nice try though

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No it doesn't.........there is a world of difference between someone hitting someone else to protect themselves from harm and hitting someone smaller than you to teach them a lesson. You are still wrong on that front and you have proved nothing............nice try though

I know what I have proven and I know I am right (as you feel you are).

It's been a good discussion either way Niamh and I thank you for making the thread, it's been a stimulating & invigorating one.