How far would you go to protect one of your own?

[Agent P]

The only thing worse than Michigan is...

...Ohio.

You have obviously never been to Muncie Indiana. 

Or East St Louis Illinois...

 

[Agent P]

I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but when "churches" hold weapons training classes for their sheeple, it seems to me like they're deviating quite a bit from the Great Commission.

Actually, I think that Windsor Hills is promoting a very good thing. Churches are viewed as easy targets by criminals. Churches in Illinois and Wisconsin have been shot up!

I see this as akin to having a Child Protection Policy. How better to protect your children from sexual predators than to have a weapon?

Just for the record, FSSL, the church in Illinois that was "shot up" a few years back was done by a schizophrenic, not someone with criminal motives.  That said, a church down here in East St Louis was held up at gunpoint on Palm Sunday, so a lot of churches down this way are rethinking things like this.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Nah...they can look themselves. All they have to do is read the first three pages.

If you have an ounce of Christianity you'll either back up your lies or retract your lying claim.  I won't hold my breath.

Your only <weak> supporting claim that I "added" information here and there amounted to me telling that the girl in the OP died.  How did that change one iota from the OP? 

 

[rsc2a]

Nah...they can look themselves. All they have to do is read the first three pages.

If you have an ounce of Christianity you'll either back up your lies or retract your lying claim.  I won't hold my breath.

Your only <weak> supporting claim that I "added" information here and there amounted to me telling that the girl in the OP died.  How did that change one iota from the OP?

Did you or did you not reveal that information in the original post or was it a later addition?

 

[lnf]

I'm coming a bit late to this thread, but there have been quite a few accusations flying around.  I hope my post clarifies a few things:

In order to establish a timeline, let’s go back to Alayman's OP (which I’ve abbreviated and paraphrased here):  Your daughter, a Christian, befriends a social outcast, who, misreading her Christian charity, is intent on pursuing her for a romantic relationship.  She rejects his advances and he exits her life.  Years later, he begins stalking her.  Every non-violent avenue is pursued to dissuade the man from continuing his stalking harassment of your daughter, to no avail.  The question at the end of the OP is this:  As a Christian, what extent would you be willing to go to in order to protect your daughter?

On page 2, Alayman further revealed that the OP is a true story, wherein the woman was ultimately killed by her stalker...which was in response to an accusation of trolling.

rsc2a, you enter the discussion in a meaningful way on page 6:

In response to Timothy’s “Die for the gospel, yes.  Die because of some creepy stalker, no.”, You said, “Are these situations always different?”

In response to aleshanee’s “I sincerely hope...  for the sake of your own children....  that if one of them was attacked or threatened you would not waste too much time trying to figure it out .. before you took action to protect them....”, you said, “I see a significant difference in self-defense and the defense of others. I also see significant difference in intentionally lethal and non-lethal force. And, yet again, I see significant difference in addressing an active threat and pre-emptively engaging a potential threat.”

In a later post you said, “…The Gospel is that Jesus died and, by doing so, showed us what forgiveness, grace, and love looks like. By His death, He showed us how to the response to suffering at the hands of others isn't striking back at them, but absorbing that suffering and letting it die with you, thus ending the cycle. It is intentionally accepting the suffering instead of passing it on. (1 Peter 2:19-23)”, then ended the post with, “With this fuller, greater, understanding of what the Gospel is, one can understand how dying for the Gospel might very well be dying at the hands of some creepy stalker.”

In later posts, you refer back to your statement that I have bolded in red, saying it is the first place where you expressed your opinion, and that the first sentence of that statement has been ignored.

So, let’s break it down:

1. I see a significant difference in self-defense and the defense of others.
2. I also see significant difference in intentionally lethal and non-lethal force.
3. And, yet again, I see significant difference in addressing an active threat and preemptively engaging a potential threat.

In statement #1, there is no crystal clear insight given on what your opinion truly is, just that you see a difference in defending oneself and defending others.  In #2 and #3, it can be inferred that you prefer the use of non-lethal force to address an active threat. 

So, we are left with the totality of the evidence, which includes the other statements you have made on the subject.  Circumstantial though it may be, it truly does appear as though your opinion is to not try to protect the “daughter”, unless you actually mean that she should not try to protect herself.

Frankly, I’m surprised that a person like you, who prides himself on the careful use of words, failed to clarify your meaning.

And, just for the record, I can see no correlation between this young woman being killed by a stalker and dying for the Gospel.  He didn’t kill her for her religious beliefs.

**edited to add the red font, which I forgot to do**

 

[ALAYMAN]

Did you or did you not reveal that information in the original post or was it a later addition?

How does my revealing that information in the context of the conversation in any way serve to prove that I somehow intentionally withheld that info so I could play "gotcha"?  And did I play "gotcha" in any way when I revealed that info?

Your allegation is that I set this thread up to troll.  I made it clear in the OP that the escalating and prolonged threat of the stalker would not be swayed by police, courts, nor the family.  Do you think that stalkers stalk in order to play tiddly winks?  The fact that the ever-increasing danger finally culminated in what is obviously potentially a likely outcome in no way is changed by the fact that I revealed she was finally killed.  There is no trap set in revealing that information.  She could have been merely scarred for life from head to toe by having industrial grade dye and if I had revealed that info later it in no way would have changed the nature of the conversation about how you as a parent would/should handle such a situation.

And of course this is nothing more than subterfuge on your part, as your allegation was that I revealed info by "dribbling" it "here and there".

 

[rsc2a]

I'm coming a bit late to this thread, but there have been quite a few accusations flying around.  I hope my post clarifies a few things:

In order to establish a timeline, let’s go back to Alayman's OP (which I’ve abbreviated and paraphrased here):  Your daughter, a Christian, befriends a social outcast, who, misreading her Christian charity, is intent on pursuing her for a romantic relationship.  She rejects his advances and he exits her life.  Years later, he begins stalking her.  Every non-violent avenue is pursued to dissuade the man from continuing his stalking harassment of your daughter, to no avail.  The question at the end of the OP is this:  As a Christian, what extent would you be willing to go to in order to protect your daughter?

On page 2, Alayman further revealed that the OP is a true story, wherein the woman was ultimately killed by her stalker...which was in response to an accusation of trolling.

rsc2a, you enter the discussion in a meaningful way on page 6:

In response to Timothy’s “Die for the gospel, yes.  Die because of some creepy stalker, no.”, You said, “Are these situations always different?”

In response to aleshanee’s “I sincerely hope...  for the sake of your own children....  that if one of them was attacked or threatened you would not waste too much time trying to figure it out .. before you took action to protect them....”, you said, “I see a significant difference in self-defense and the defense of others. I also see significant difference in intentionally lethal and non-lethal force. And, yet again, I see significant difference in addressing an active threat and pre-emptively engaging a potential threat.”

In a later post you said, “…The Gospel is that Jesus died and, by doing so, showed us what forgiveness, grace, and love looks like. By His death, He showed us how to the response to suffering at the hands of others isn't striking back at them, but absorbing that suffering and letting it die with you, thus ending the cycle. It is intentionally accepting the suffering instead of passing it on. (1 Peter 2:19-23)”, then ended the post with, “With this fuller, greater, understanding of what the Gospel is, one can understand how dying for the Gospel might very well be dying at the hands of some creepy stalker.”

In later posts, you refer back to your statement that I have bolded in red, saying it is the first place where you expressed your opinion, and that the first sentence of that statement has been ignored.

So, let’s break it down:

1. I see a significant difference in self-defense and the defense of others.
2. I also see significant difference in intentionally lethal and non-lethal force.
3. And, yet again, I see significant difference in addressing an active threat and preemptively engaging a potential threat.

In statement #1, there is no crystal clear insight given on what your opinion truly is, just that you see a difference in defending oneself and defending others.  In #2 and #3, it can be inferred that you prefer the use of non-lethal force to address an active threat. 

So, we are left with the totality of the evidence, which includes the other statements you have made on the subject.  Circumstantial though it may be, it truly does appear as though your opinion is to not try to protect the “daughter”, unless you actually mean that she should not try to protect herself.

Frankly, I’m surprised that a person like you, who prides himself on the careful use of words, failed to clarify your meaning.

And, just for the record, I can see no correlation between this young woman being killed by a stalker and dying for the Gospel.  He didn’t kill her for her religious beliefs.

**edited to add the red font, which I forgot to do**

Thank you for the balanced and concise analysis.

Regarding the woman in question, I feel that it would be my duty to protect her if she was being subject to active harm. This does not mean that an appropriate response would be to become the aggressor by seeking the guy out to preemptively stop him. Whether the young lady in question would choose the route of self-defense or pacificity would be up to her, and I would not think less of her for either choice.

Regarding being killed for the Gospel, one can die for the Gospel without it being overt murder for one's beliefs. For example, Doctors Without Borders activists murdered for being in the wrong country or whatnot.

And again, thanks.

 

[ALAYMAN]

On page 2, Alayman further revealed that the OP is a true story, wherein the woman was ultimately killed by her stalker...which was in response to an accusation of trolling.

Very astute observation, and one that I thought about pointing out but elected to not waste my time.  Glad you did though.  It has everything to do with refuting his allegation that I dropped that info as some way of adding a great unknown variable that is a game-changer, when in reality, it was only stated because these roids accused me of making this story up out of thin air.

The reality is, even if it was a hypothetical situation, which it wasn't, the purpose to spur discussion amongst people on the forum regarding key issues of the use of protection from violence (and the counter perspective of pacifism) is a worthy goal for a forum where people hold to differing viewpoints on serious life issues.

 

[lnf]

Thank you, gentlemen, for the kind words.  Alayman, I do think this is an interesting thread.  I understood immediately why you revealed the additional information, and you are right, it did not in any way change the tenor of the OP. 

rsc2a, I appreciate your clarification.  It makes a world of difference.  As for the Doctors Without Borders being killed, they were actively working there because of their faith, as opposed to the young woman, who was just trying to live her life.  I still see it as apples and oranges, but we can certainly agree to amicably disagree.  8)

 

[Torrent v.3]

[quote author=Torrent v.3]He is not capable of discussing. He and Alayman are two peas in a pod. He just likes to make people look foolish. I tried discussing something with him on another forum and he insists on not directly answering, always trying to teach you something, not just discuss.  It makes him look condescending and arrogant. And even though sometimes I agree with his views, his methods ruin any discussion.  he needs to grow up.

?? ??

Grow up. Stop trying to one up Alashanee.

Scratch that...I just went through all your posts on the other forum and you've never asked me anything.
[/quote]

What other forum?  SFL.

 

[ALAYMAN]

i agree with inf...  i don;t see anything at all wrong with the way you presented the information in this thread and then asked pertinent questions about it.....  my problem is i take people like rsc2a for being serious far too long ... .it takes me longer than most to realize he;s just playing games here...  trolling the forum ...ignoring what others say then continuing to ask the same redundant questions that have already been answered many times over..... .. and posting his nonsense just to get a rise out of people.. . . the very same thing he accuses others of doing..... .. i should have written him off long before i did.. . . he certainly had no problem writing me off by playing the same card.. (almost word for word).. that some of his cohorts with similar views have played on me in the past...  claiming my posts are nothing but emotionalism and based on fear... i;m surprised he didn;t take it to the next step they always did and claim that i shouldn;t be here.. or that i should be banned for my own good.. .. ...... who knows.. maybe that was coming next.... .. 

Yes, it's funny how self-professed Christians can have such inconsistent principles and conduct.  He talks about ideals and lofty abstract morality, but quickly employs all sorts of unbecoming tools of communication in attempt to pigeon-hole his opponent, from strawmen to non-sequitirs, to outright dishonesty.  And when called on it he uses his most beloved tool, obfuscation.  I find it amusing that even in the unlikely times when he has had grounds for common agreement with me that rather than being honest about such common grounds he'd rather take sides with those arguing against me.  That says a lot about his character.  That's okay, people like you cut through the bull pretty quickly and make him squirm in his inconsistency and hypocrisy.  Keep up the good work.

 

[Torrent v.3]

Seriously though, in the scenario described above (a true story by the way) the person is so unhinged from reality that nothing short of death will dissuade them from their deluded pursuits.  For a Christian (father), such a dilemma is exceedingly difficult.

alayman said this in post three

and rsc2a first words in post five are below

rsca2 has been frivolous and continues to be so

Just don't go promising to sacrifice the first thing that you see when you get home.

^

And he can be a bonehead like this because he is anonymous.

 

[ALAYMAN]

And he can be a bonehead like this because he is anonymous.

Pot meet kettle.

Or, Torrent v.3 meet cowardly lion.

 

[Torrent v.3]

I am not anonymous, but who I am is of no concern to you.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I am not anonymous, but who I am is of no concern to you, blowhard.

When you step it up to the point that you let an internet discussion cause you to make physical threats it sure is my concern, you cowardly pansy.

 

[Torrent v.3]

I am not anonymous, but who I am is of no concern to you, blowhard.

When you step it up to the point that you let an internet discussion cause you to make physical threats it sure is my concern, you cowardly pansy.

This is not a physical threat. This is a request.

Meet me and say that in person.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am not anonymous, but who I am is of no concern to you, blowhard.

When you step it up to the point that you let an internet discussion cause you to make physical threats it sure is my concern, you cowardly pansy.

This is not a physical threat. This is a request.

Meet me and say that in person.

On the playground, behind the monkey bars, during recess.  :

 

[ALAYMAN]

This is not a physical threat. This is a request.

Meet me and say that in person.

Would gladly tell you the truth, here or in person, cowardly hypocritical punk.

 

[Torrent v.3]

He does like gossipp, but he also likes to start threads that he knows will generate a lot of replies, so he can spend his days and nights online and not get out and get involved in people's lives. Yes, I know he probably goes soul winning, but there is so much more to life than knocking on doors and cramming the gospel down people's throats then retreating to the quiet comfortable house.

Yeah, all his threads fall into just a few categories.  But my favorites go like this:

TROLL:  "Last night a Christian woman wearing attractive clothing was raped.  Thoughts?"

REPLY:  "It doesn't matter what she was wearing, the man is..."

TROLL:  "What if she was wearing stiletto high heels, fishnet stockings, miniskirt and tube top?"

REPLY:  "That's not really the issue because..."

TROLL:  "What if she had just gotten off work at the strip club where she gave the guy a lap dance and encouraged a sexual encounter later?"

REPLY:  "Well, now that's a little..."

TROLL:  "And she was really a witch, who wanted to lure him into a dark area to cut out his heart and eat it?"

REPLY:  "What the..."

TROLL:  "And what if she was a member of Al Qaeda, too?  You see?  I knew you freebirds would come to her defense.  I WIN!!!  I am He-Man, The Righteous with my sidekick He-Boy, The Useful, who I trot out whenever I need to do some damage control on my reputation as a self-righteous troll!"

"I am Invincible!  Not even Vince can defeat me!  And to prove it, here's some lengthy commentary"

(Insert lengthy boring irrelevant quote from a commentary.)

I have watched him post year after year.

Do you remember the thread at the FFF where for weeks on end he replied over and over to women in demeaning tones. It started with a hypothetical question about the daughter wanting to go to the beach with a boyfriend?  He knew it would bring out views opposite his that he would harangue on end with his narrow minded IFBx'er views.

I watched him implode into a self-serving, self-defending, arrogant jerk for page after page, and no matter how clearly or patiently or extensively person after person showed him his error, he never said he was wrong for what he said to that female poster and those who followed in her defense.

Loser is the first thing that come to my mind.  He asks why I do not answer the "content" on his posts?  Beacuse you do not answer a fool according to his folly.  A real question I can see, but his are just intended to get his post count up and give him lots of opposing ideas to argue with so he can feed his internet forum posting addiction.

Alayman, you bore me to tears.

I absolutely hate doing this, quoting myself, but I think this is the real post that got Alayman all whiney.  I called him on his relentless foolishness and unwillingness to admit when he is wrong.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Since we're sharing reputation PMs, here's the latest from the sweet loving pansy...




cowardly pansy? Really? Say that in person.



lol, said in Christian love with a sincere desire to have some sweet fellowship, of course.


: