Jordan Peterson, I think, put it best. The world has need of dangerous men. Not men who do violence indiscriminately, but men capable of violence when it is called for.
Yes what you say is true. However, our citizens don't have the stomach for it. Feelings will get hurt and tears will flow. Leadership. It doesn't exist in our military or our law enforcement anymore. I served in both.
When you decide violence is “beneath your moral standard”, it won’t be too terribly long before someone uses violence to impose their moral standard upon you. But beware of this warning: “Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword.”
How do you envision teaching the right kind of violence in schools? By these standards, if I want something bad enough, even if it’s not mine, I should use sheer force to take it. Is this the right kind of violence? Although things were “settled” with violence, I find it hard to believe that settling means solved.
We already do teach violence in society and schools. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, what are you allowed to do? If a stranger walks up to the street and punches you for no reason, what are you allowed to do? If you point a gun at a cop, what is he allowed to do? I'm suggesting some tweaks to what we allow that would make things work better.
The problem with how we understand self-defense is that it is taught as situational when it really ought to be an absolute. In any "gun-free zone," Americans tend to surrender their right to self-defense, whether knowingly or unknowingly, and we're also okay with gun laws that effectively determine now only where, but how and when we may defend ourselves. This is what generational peace and prosperity gets you -- an entire generation of soft, indifferent, and ignorant people that just don't know any better.
Jordan Peterson, I think, put it best. The world has need of dangerous men. Not men who do violence indiscriminately, but men capable of violence when it is called for.
Yes what you say is true. However, our citizens don't have the stomach for it. Feelings will get hurt and tears will flow. Leadership. It doesn't exist in our military or our law enforcement anymore. I served in both.
When you decide violence is “beneath your moral standard”, it won’t be too terribly long before someone uses violence to impose their moral standard upon you. But beware of this warning: “Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword.”
I don't plan on being killed because I don't have a sword and lack the ability, mindset and skill to use a sword.
Thought provoking. Uncomfortable but thought provoking.
Historical truth. Thanks for writing it out loud.
How do you envision teaching the right kind of violence in schools? By these standards, if I want something bad enough, even if it’s not mine, I should use sheer force to take it. Is this the right kind of violence? Although things were “settled” with violence, I find it hard to believe that settling means solved.
We already do teach violence in society and schools. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, what are you allowed to do? If a stranger walks up to the street and punches you for no reason, what are you allowed to do? If you point a gun at a cop, what is he allowed to do? I'm suggesting some tweaks to what we allow that would make things work better.
The problem with how we understand self-defense is that it is taught as situational when it really ought to be an absolute. In any "gun-free zone," Americans tend to surrender their right to self-defense, whether knowingly or unknowingly, and we're also okay with gun laws that effectively determine now only where, but how and when we may defend ourselves. This is what generational peace and prosperity gets you -- an entire generation of soft, indifferent, and ignorant people that just don't know any better.
The GospelGunslingers approve this message