[OWK]

Of course it would be, OWK. Otherwise, there could be no force. "Force" is not a spontaneously occurring phenomenon in this context. Someone or something had to get it started -- which I thought was the meaning of the word, "to initiate."

I'll try one more time.. then give you up for willfully blind.

We speak of initiated force.

Not just force, but initiated force. The word "initiated" is used to differentiate the force being referred to, from other kinds of force which might in fact be altogether moral (defensive or punative force for example).

When a criminal chooses to violate rights by initiating force... (recognize here that he is the one who initiates/begins/starts/commences the force)... his choice to do so morally empowers the application of either defensive or punative force. Defensive and or punative force are RESPONSES... to force INITIATED by the criminal actor.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

[betty boop]

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Then we're both in big trouble, OWK. You are slicing and dicing language six ways to Sunday, and using words as a screen to conceal what is actually going on in reality. At least, that's what the picture looks like to me.

I simply cannot make out your meaning. It is unintelligible to me. And I can't make my problem any plainer than that.

But I'm just a fallible mortal of uncertain gifts. There's no need for you to pay me any mind.

Shalom.