I won't disagree that the root cause is parents. Or that it's a sad subject. Care to comment on why you disgree with the statement that "Violence never serves the cause of justice"?

Anyone who agrees with what?

Clarify what you don't agree with specifically.

You equate standing up for yourself with violence? violence of what?

As to your statement "It must have been so improper of us to take down Hitler"

Well if we had been more clever we could have done it without killing so many innocents don't you think? Is it unrealistic to have non-violence as a goal?

The point I am making is that responding with dangerous or even deadly force isn't violence unless you are violating a right the person has. For example we could say that people generally have the right not to be shot at. My thinking is that they lose that right if they begin shooting at others.

Can you understand my frustration with how difficult it is to make this simple point? Check the debate description...am I that unclear? I stand by my observation that most people view violence as meaning "use of dangerous force"....I think that that way of interpreting the word is suboptimal.

I haven't read all the arguments, and this is my first posting here. So excuse any misunderstandings.

Welcome. Nice to meet you. In my estimation our dialog has begun with a couple of pretty important understandings.

You are the first person (as far as I know) that I have recorded dialog with that understands how I view violence. I am glad you have tagged your argument "defining violence"

I would like to end this dialog to work together with you to create Free Press Bible's glossary entry for violence. If you are up to it let me know.

Thank you for your interest. Only with help can Free Press Bible be continually improved.

OR be the cause of the violence

You argue that it is in some cases just to initiate or cause violence? I disagree. If you won't directly address the points I bring up (or if I ignore what you say) what is the use of dialog?

I don't think I disagree with the underlying sentiment. I just don't think instances of defensive behavior (defending rights) you described should be thought of as violent. I ask you, what right is violated in the defensive action you describe?

Is this your proposed definition of violence?

No my definition is one of the first posts to this debate on the agree side. "Violence = The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries." What you pasted was an attempt I made to clarify. So much for that :)

What constitutes a violation?

A rightful boundary being intentionally breached.

Just making effort to answer all your questions.

You didn't answer my question

Thanks for pointing that out.

Who is in the right and who is in the wrong?

The one (to paraphrase my definition) who intentionally breaches a rightful boundary. In this case it would be the vagabond, who instead of being forthright about his "need" (perhaps deluded by a notion of false scarcity) decided to obtain his bread through violence. even you typed that Preemptive violence is never justified, as that would be a failure to communicate.

the shopkeeper in return in violating the bum by denying him the food he needs to survive.

I submit that wee do not have a right to eat at someone else's expense. So in accordance with my definition, the shop keeper is not violating any rightful boundaries by refusing to give away food.

This is a simple concept portraying why justice and order requires violence.

I am not following your logic here. I hope you will patiently break it down for me.

In a perfect system there would no reason not to give him the bread because it is in abundance and nobody would benefit from withholding it.

Somehow I imagine that in this perfect system you imagine, there would be no selling of bread and we would all just eat manna falling from the sky. The truth is that the foods we are accustomed to eating require work to produce, and no one has a right to force someone else to toil and work so that they may eat without working. There needs be an equitable negotiative relationship. I support a critical look at the relationship between real value and legal currency, but I am not sure that a monetary economy deserves the root blame for greed and delusions of false scarcity. The vagabond could have scooped up some bugs and ate them if he weren't too spoiled. :)

What is the cause of most crimes? I will contest that most if not all crimes and violations are the result (directly or indirectly) of monetary issues.

"tied to" I will concede but "result of" is a bit of a stretch if you ask me.

"everybody wants to live life of kings and queens, but nobody wants to stay and plow the fields" ~Michael Franti

This dillema long predates robust monetary systems. Do you think I have made a respectful if not valid argument here?

watch the full version on google video.

I would love to have a conversation with the creators of that video. Since I don't expect that to happen any time soon, perhaps I can provoke you.... I assume you think that Zeitgeist is a well made movie, worthy of respect. In the interest of a healthy balance, I challenge you to offer some critical comments about the movie.

I will defend myself and my home against violence with violence.

Seems like you have your mind made up already. What if there were a non-violent option?

If you have truly understood my point about how the initiator of an attack DOES NOT retain the right to not be attacked then you will be able to see that using forceful or even lethal methods in self defense does not necessarily make those actions violent.

I am arguing for the philosophy of non-violence, which IMO could use to be better articulated.

Just admit that the better a system works the closer it adheres to fundamental principles of non-violence and I won't be forced to relentlessly debate you. :)

violation could be used subjectively.

It could, and is. But does that effect the validity of the proposed definition?

Someone must violate someone else in order for order to be maintained.

Will you please explain how you come to this conclusion?

In a perfect system where there is no money, where there is no "incentive" to be productive or do the right thing, I don't think violence would be necessary or even fathomable.

I am not sure what you are trying to convey here. I don't think we need a pefect system in order to recognize that violence is unnecessary. If you will notice, in my proposed definition I included intention. It is possible, even within this, our current imperfect system to have pure intent. We cannot avoid accidentally causing harm.

But since we have a monetary economy and everyone is brainwashed to think that they need money more than anything, people will be violated.

A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful.

It is the nature of the false scarcity that a monetary system creates.

A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful too.

I maintain that in today's world, justice requires violence.

I disagree with you here. Perhaps you could give an example of justice requiring violence we could debate this.

I hope that isn't the case forever.

What kind of hope? wishful hope or genuine discontent?