defense or attack, which is better?

reply to post by itsblownbackbaby


not necessarily. i believe, like others, that you need both attack and defense in order to not only survive in this world but to come out fighting as well.

I like this thread. I am in a quandry of whether to attack or not. I don't think I have the option to defend anymore, I was unaware that I needed to be defending. Now, if I attack I could get a protective order on me (talking about physical attack) and I am on probation. I feel so taken advantage of, I must have revenge. The emotional component causes the need for physical payment. Spiritual part of this situation, I have none that I am acknowledgeing. I was a victim of thievery by a pretend-like friend. Some stolen items I can never replace.

Thanks.

We always used defensive strategy in karate, but have I not been attacked?





[edit on 7-11-2009 by catamaran]

Originally posted by chiron613
Actually, the question is essentially meaningless. It's like asking which half of your body is "better", the left half, or the right. You can't have one without the other.

All attack has elements of defense, and vice versa. If it does not, then you lose the fight. You need to adapt yourself to the circumstances, which are constantly changing. Trying to hold to any attitude leads to defeat.

Will you explain to me the elements of defense that attack has in it? and vice versa. I am not sure that I totally understand what you mean without example, if you can give them, then I may or may not agree with you.

It can't be a meaningless question

Originally posted by bobbyboy
mentally, i mean. and spiritually. and emotionally. some say that one is better than the other, but typically won't give supporting details. so i would like them now. if anybody has an opinion on this, please post it.

Why not...Transperency? There are no true allies or enemies.

It's both situational and philosophical. I tend to be a defense first person, followed by offense when the time is correct. For example in martial arts I fought defensively until a weakness was apparent. Then offense used both that knowledge and the other person's underestimation. But offense without defense is useless just as defense only is.

If you threaten my children, offense will be my first and only response. As Kipling said "the female of the species is far deadlier than the male."

The best defense is a blazing offense.

Keep em on their heals that way they wont be able to mount an assault.


[edit on 13-11-2009 by SLAYER69]

If you're looking for moral/ethical high ground you stand your ground until they fire the first shot and become the aggressor. Once they've fired first attack all day long and never forget who stepped on who.

What I want to know is how many "first shots" the fed is going to get. As far as I'm concerned they justified all out revolt when George rode in on a bunch of Pennsylvania farmers and opened fire. It doesnt get more "first shot" than that. Worse than what occurred at Lexington Green and we just accepted it. The man's grave should be dug up and his bones urinated on. This fascist state began with him in those fields. But I digress.

I dislike confrontation, so for me, defense is the best option. I would only attack if there were no other option available.

reply to post by Psychonaughty


please explain in detail. i don't get how you can think that there are no true allies or enemies.

"To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action."

William Shakespeare---Hamlet Act III Scene 1

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by bobbyboy


Defense. That way those I am not responsible for those that are "hurt" as it's not my naked aggression causing the conflict.

Le doubel poste.
Please delete.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

In every action their will be an equal reaction.
So whatever action taken will be balanced out.
It could take many millenia, but cosmic universal law will freely apply.
Nobody gets away with anything, eventualy your actions catch up with you.

reply to post by headlightone


i agree with everything catching up with you in time, but i don't know anything about cosmic universal law. please define

Defence is always justified, offense never. Offense is deliberately trying to harm others, no matter what the reason!

I am sure you have heard of 'turn the other cheek', agnostic myself but still, I am positive Jesus would have rather died than harmed an individual trying to hurt him...

reply to post by Ridhya


interesting view on it, but ok. i can understand the defense part, but even Jesus spoke of offense as being needed. He knew that self-defense was necessary. He even said He was sent to bring a sword to the world, rather than peace. world peace is not the answer to the world's problems, as many may think.

Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

He also knew that His disciples needed to defend themselves. not only spiritually, but also physically. He even told them all to get a sword if they didn't already have one.

Luke 22:36

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

on top of that, what use would there be in Ephesians 6, which outlines the defensive and offensive side of a Christian? do you remember the verse?

Ephesians 6:17

"Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

don't get the wrong idea here. Jesus came, but not to make peace. quite the opposite. it even says in Scripture that He came to bring a sword (chaos) into the world.

Well there are a lot of conflicting statements, no doubt, my guess is some are mis-translated and misinterpreted...
Christianity is about love and tolerance in an overall sense anyway.

Dont get me wrong, jeg er en Nordmann, I have/had a lot of weapons myself and I fight back. I was just meaning 'in principle' as in OP question "which is better", and defence is ALWAYS better. Not always the best tactically, but the only righteous choice.

I was also in the army/politi...

Attack or Defense? Neither, instead: Absorption.




Like Jesus said in the sermon on the mount: If someone strikes you on your cheek offer him your other cheek as well. It is through strength of not fighting that war is won. An attack on someone else is an attack on yourself.