This is an excellent example of the 'right' time to respond in a display of CONTROLLED violence, as in this example Matt has grabbed Storm. In this example you have got it totally right. Although having been grabbed, Storm is not pre-empting anything, the assault is in progress and she is defending herself. It makes a big difference, 'at least to me it does.

That was my example of when I would strike, and when it should be used. And I did say grabs/moves towards - the latter of which a strike would be "preemptive" as noone has exchanged blows/contact.


To answer your other question. The upholding of the law of the land is the responsibility of ALL good citizens. I personally loath paying tax but I do so because it is the law. If it was to be made voluntary I wouldn't do it.

Thats True, and actually quite honorable, but you have left out the other part of your opinion. That this law is above our right to survive. Personally id rather break the law, and live. Not a hard choice in my eyes, and for you? I would consider that a good view to teach upon others. ESPECIALLY not girls.

(EDIT!!!) ok first dont edit your posts and add a major paragrath in, make a new post. You said its better to run. Lets assume we're... outside a bar with your mates. Some drunk is raving to you and gets too close, you can either A) run, preserve yourself, but embarass yourself or B) Whack him and make him back off. Thats a more bloky situation. Sure if the time calls for it then run away, but lets say you cant. You are bringing up otehr option,s but are trying to drift away from THE topic, which is preemptive strikes, not things to do INSTEAD. And i dont see anything wrong with them

Edited by crablord (01/15/07 01:03 PM)
"They say the only way to kill a lion is with a rear naked choke, but I'd just kick it in the head"