egafd.com

"What is it you said? "Violence and the moral high ground can go together sometimes". Your very words."

Were you asleep when the history teacher covered World War II?

Has the law by which you can defend your family and your house using a reasonable level of violence when burgled, passed you by?

[quote]The guy with friends was provoking an argument and it would have been either John or him that got hurt, kicking an old lady is totally different to whacking a mouthy racist thug who would have attacked us if we didn't get in first.[/quote]

But my point wasn't a direct comparison, was it? You said, 'violence has nothing to do with morality' and I just showed an hypothetical instance which proved you wrong.

[quote]Sometimes violence works depending on the scale of things and nothing you guys have said would change John's mind if in the same situation again.[/quote]

To be fair, I wasn't there. I agree that in some situations violence may be necessary, (or if not necessary, at least understandable and possibly excusable) but my point about how John was wrong to use violence against this racist was based purely on what you'd expressed in your first post: "One of our grand children is mixed race, John knocked out a guy with his pool cue one night for making a rude remark that she was a different colour to our other 4 grand children & was she buy one get one free,".

To me, this is an instance of someone being a racist prick, but despite the rudeness of the remark, doesn't warrant possible injury from being whacked over the head with a pool cue (especially if this all happened in front of children). Now the story is changing slightly, with you adding there was some real menace coming from the racist and a few of his friends and there was sort of stand-off where violence was going to be unavoidable. If this is indeed the case then a more detailed explanation for this violence may have been better expressed a lot earlier. The other alternative, of course, is that you're adding in new details to further excuse the violence. I have no way of knowing.

[quote]Depending on where you have been brought up plays a lot on our you handle situations, John was born in West Ham where he ran clubs and had to pay protection to the organised gangs, he as had 2 friends shot lots more injured by people who are not to even fit to breathe our air so yes it hardens you to what some are capable of. For most of you the only fighting you've seen is on a Rocky film because your privileged enough to have been born in a nice area .[/quote]

I agree entirely. I myself was brought up in a poor area and half my schoolmates have done time at some point. Some have been shot. Some died from overdoses etc.... These things may help people understand why violence was used so readily, but it still doesn't make it right.

We're not discussing World War II David (another silly comparison).

We're not even discussing waking up to find a burglar in your bedroom either (a completely different situation).

We're discussing (specifically) smacking people over the head with pool cues in boozers because you feel "offended" by something they've said.

So far only you & Kim appear to think that's okay.

Everyone else who's commented so far disagrees and says it's not okay. Even Sam Slater, who more often than not sings from the same hymn sheet as you.

- Eric

"It's alright for folk like David Johnson they have never had it tough like you and me, born with a silver spoon in his Lippy mouth, I bet he has gold plated taps, and I don't even have a forum, so you can see what your dealing with chuck, the man clearly has issues."

Oh dear, you know about my upbringing. Err. no you don't. If I had been born with a silver spoon in my mouth I would have flogged, but alas.....

"and I don't even have a forum"

Really Lizard? You need to speak to Rodders. He was convinced you had a forum. Closed it down have you? "The "place to hang out and chat for creative minds".

I make no comment on this description, Liz, no comment at all.

David Johnson wrote:

> Has the law by which you can defend your family and your house
> using a reasonable level of violence when burgled, passed you
> by?


No I'm aware of that law David.

But the law that says it's okay to beat up gobby fuckers in boozers if they "diss" you must have passed me by.

- Eric

[quote]Similarly if Lizard or Rodders types in a thread that Sam Slater deserves a "decking" or "shooting", I'm quite confident that there's no need for Sam to hire an ex-SAS bodyguard to look after him. He'd be quite safe (even if they knew Sam's real name and where and how to find him in the real world). Again - it's just a figure of speech.[/quote]

For the record, I didn't take either comment literally. It still needed to be pointed out, though, for I get the feeling that even if Kim had just said, "racists need to be fucking shot!", you'd have had something to say about it and wouldn't have taken it as a 'figure of speech', but as if she was trying to curb right-wing views and freedom of speech. I may be wrong and you could have been as blas? as you were with Lizard's and Rodders' outbursts but given years and years of arguments and discussions on here, Eric, I feel confident I'm right.

Which brings me to this 'figure of speech' excuse. Firstly, I buy it. People often say things like, "I'll bloody kill you if you stand on my toes again!", and, "If that barman short-changes me again I'll fuckin' floor the cunt!". However, I did find Rodders' talk of 'shooting' to be a little specific, and thus, strange. When people are angry and frustrated they may feel like lashing out and indeed convey that in the language they may use. Shooting somebody, however, is a very clinical way of killing somebody and not normal parlance when expressing one's anger. Maybe given Rodders' supposed military career, it was a common thing to say amongst his peers, which might explain it. His military background may also be a reason why I should have taken what he said much more seriously?

Fear not. I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. I reiterate that I didn't take things seriously. It does, I think, highlight the fact that me not taking these possible veiled threats seriously shows an element of trust, though, doesn't it? Almost as much trust you have that Kim's story is actually real and not made up. That some racist WAS actually clobbered over the noggin with a pool cue. It could all have been just a made-up story from somebody who was fed up with racists and racism and just wished they had the courage to smack one of them over the head. You have to put as much trust in Kim that this story is true as I have to put trust in Lizard and Rodders not being crazy enough to having me 'decked' or 'shot'.

So while I agree that there is a difference between an angry outburst that wishes violence to actual violence, in both instances both could be a load of bollocks (Liz and Rodders aren't total lunatics and no racist ever got whacked with a pool cue) or both are very real (racist did get whacked and Rodders is this very minute sat in my garden with a high powered rifle waiting for me to close the curtains for his shot).

"Where's all this leading to?", I confidently predict you're wondering. Well, that the two instances are actually more alike than you say. That I think you might have picked up on Kim's story much more readily than Liz or Rodders' outbursts because you just don't feel confident enough to pull Liz or Rodders up for stuff. Kim's an easier target. That's perfectly understandable if you consider Liz and Rodders to be 'friends' of yours. But it does make you a hypocrite.

And don't worry - being a hypocrite isn't the worst thing in the world. The best of us are hypocritical many times in our lives. I feel it's just important to recognise when we are, so consider this post as a favour from me to you - an early Christmas present that will enlighten and make you a better person for having read it !xmas!

[quote]Everyone else who's commented so far disagrees and says it's not okay. Even Sam Slater, who more often than not sings from the same hymn sheet as you.[/quote]

I'm just more bloody consistent and reasonable that either of you! !tongueincheek!

"But the law that says it's okay to beat up gobby fuckers in boozers if they "diss" you must have passed me by."

Nor is there a law which said that the anti-fascists in Cable Street could have a ruck with the police who were trying to allow Mosley and his lot free passage to intimidate the Jewish population.

Some actions may be against the criminal law, but there are times when a moral law justifies violence. I am not necessarily saying that this is the case here, but there are situations in which violence is justified in line with the moral law.

Right guys now all thats out of the way lol! whats this about "race Issues"

Very good point about trust, Sam.

Maybe I don't trust Eric because he fantasised about the size of my cock.

Call me old-fashioned but I find that a bit disconcerting.

!wink!