Declaration of Dudependance

[Boston Rockbury]

Uncle Sam answered aggression with aggression in Afganistan and Iraq. Britain tried using the SAS against the IRA in Northern Ireland. In the end it's negotiation that sorts things out. Not walking around sayin 'I'll put a whuppin on yer boy, I'll pop yer eyeballs out and kick yer neck off."

We see revenge working so often in films we think it should work in real life. It doesn't.

*Sigh*. You still miss my import.  I'm not talking about revenge; I'm talking about necessary force, where it's either his life or yours (or your loved one). Whether personally of nationally, diplomacy and negotiation should be the first choice. When that fails and the knife just broke the skin on your wife's neck, if you DON'T move with certain force and prejudice, you're then a coward.

Sorry I missed your import dude. I thought the knife attack scenario was being used to illustrate why one can't have a dialogue with religious zealots. If we are literally just talking about somebody trying to kill my wife I'd go with the conventional view that it is reasonable to use proportionate force to prevent them. Just not sure that takes us anywhere useful. Once we get the knife attack nutter locked up we're still going to have to talk with the Taliban about a long-term solution for Afghanistan.

[BikerDude]

Uncle Sam answered aggression with aggression in Afganistan and Iraq. Britain tried using the SAS against the IRA in Northern Ireland. In the end it's negotiation that sorts things out. Not walking around sayin 'I'll put a whuppin on yer boy, I'll pop yer eyeballs out and kick yer neck off."

We see revenge working so often in films we think it should work in real life. It doesn't.

*Sigh*. You still miss my import.  I'm not talking about revenge; I'm talking about necessary force, where it's either his life or yours (or your loved one). Whether personally of nationally, diplomacy and negotiation should be the first choice. When that fails and the knife just broke the skin on your wife's neck, if you DON'T move with certain force and prejudice, you're then a coward.

Sorry I missed your import dude. I thought the knife attack scenario was being used to illustrate why one can't have a dialogue with religious zealots. If we are literally just talking about somebody trying to kill my wife I'd go with the conventional view that it is reasonable to use proportionate force to prevent them. Just not sure that takes us anywhere useful. Once we get the knife attack nutter locked up we're still going to have to talk with the Taliban about a long-term solution for Afghanistan.

But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Even if it is offensive to some?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.

And I'd point out that reading the several Fatwa's and the "Letter to America" Muslims don't hesitate to offend. But they require that others not offend them or they will take to the streets and kill someone that had nothing to do with it.

The right of offend is the ESSENCE of free speech.
the only reason why we need something like that written into the constitution is to protect speech that is going to piss somebody off.
If all anybody could say were things that didn't agitate and make others angry speech would not need to be protected in the first place.

[Boston Rockbury]

But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.

It always seems that way but the domestic equivalent is my wife saying "Boston why haven't you mown the lawn"
I reply "oh yeah babe, I'll do it now".
But she can't resist saying "You should have done it a week ago. Why can't you keep to anything regularly?"
Cue an argument and the lawn not getting mown.

She wants to talk about causes but all I feel is my nose being rubbed in the shit when I've offered a solution.

Really all we need is acceptance, forgiveness and a practical solution. But hey if we watch the scene in the first episode of 'Homeland' too often where the arab terrorist makes one marine beat another to death we'll be way too upset to get on that path.

[BikerDude]

But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.

It always seems that way but the domestic equivalent is my wife saying "Boston why haven't you mown the lawn"
I reply "oh yeah babe, I'll do it now".
But she can't resist saying "You should have done it a week ago. Why can't you keep to anything regularly?"
Cue an argument and the lawn not getting mown.

She wants to talk about causes but all I feel is my nose being rubbed in the shit when I've offered a solution.

Really all we need is acceptance, forgiveness and a practical solution. But hey if we watch the scene in the first episode of 'Homeland' too often where the arab terrorist makes one marine beat another to death we'll be way too upset to get on that path.

I'd lay the blame at your reaction.
Your wife has made a reasonable point IMHO.
If it ends in an argument I wouldn't call censoring her opinion a positive step at all.
It seems that the forgiveness and acceptance that you require is a one way street.
Why can't you accept and forgive her honest opinion?
Your example.

Nobody is watching homeland and over reacting.
It's another instance where you trivialize other's points.
You continually do that while playing this back of forth game of requiring respect for yours.
Your way of debate is without a doubt the most intellectually disingenuous that I have ever seen. At first I did think that you were a troll. I think you genuinely can't help it.

[Boston Rockbury]

But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.

It always seems that way but the domestic equivalent is my wife saying "Boston why haven't you mown the lawn"
I reply "oh yeah babe, I'll do it now".
But she can't resist saying "You should have done it a week ago. Why can't you keep to anything regularly?"
Cue an argument and the lawn not getting mown.

She wants to talk about causes but all I feel is my nose being rubbed in the shit when I've offered a solution.

Really all we need is acceptance, forgiveness and a practical solution. But hey if we watch the scene in the first episode of 'Homeland' too often where the arab terrorist makes one marine beat another to death we'll be way too upset to get on that path.

I'd lay the blame at your reaction.
Your wife has made a reasonable point IMHO.
If it ends in an argument I wouldn't call censoring her opinion a positive step at all.
It seems that the forgiveness and acceptance that you require is a one way street.
Why can't you accept and forgive her honest opinion?
Your example.

That's an excellent question. I can accept and forgive her honest opinion but the earlier that acceptance and forgiveness happen within an interaction the less likely one is to get a negative emotional reaction. It's certainly not a one-way street. If I complain that we haven't had sex for ages and she replies "okay I'll get my knickers off now" it's best if I accept, forgive and enjoy the proposed solution rather than provoking her with more critisism.

[BikerDude]

But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.

It always seems that way but the domestic equivalent is my wife saying "Boston why haven't you mown the lawn"
I reply "oh yeah babe, I'll do it now".
But she can't resist saying "You should have done it a week ago. Why can't you keep to anything regularly?"
Cue an argument and the lawn not getting mown.

She wants to talk about causes but all I feel is my nose being rubbed in the shit when I've offered a solution.

Really all we need is acceptance, forgiveness and a practical solution. But hey if we watch the scene in the first episode of 'Homeland' too often where the arab terrorist makes one marine beat another to death we'll be way too upset to get on that path.

I'd lay the blame at your reaction.
Your wife has made a reasonable point IMHO.
If it ends in an argument I wouldn't call censoring her opinion a positive step at all.
It seems that the forgiveness and acceptance that you require is a one way street.
Why can't you accept and forgive her honest opinion?
Your example.

That's an excellent question. I can accept and forgive her honest opinion but the earlier that acceptance and forgiveness happen within an interaction the less likely one is to get a negative emotional reaction. It's certainly not a one-way street. If I complain that we haven't had sex for ages and she replies "okay I'll get my knickers off now" it's best if I accept, forgive and enjoy the proposed solution rather than provoking her with more critisism.

I agree with your wife.
Mow the lawn you fucking bum.

[Boston Rockbury]

I agree with your wife.
Mow the lawn you fucking bum.

Hypothetical lawns are tough to mow - but the sex was good.