In order to claim that a paradox exists, you must first state what the paradox is and then explain how it is a paradox: that is, how its parts are mutually exclusive. The confusion you're getting is that you didn't explicitly state the paradox: the closest you came was in the post above in which you said:
Quote:
...the Aikido Paradox of being non-violent, yet preforming violence via technique.
|
The paradox, according to you, is that aikido is "non-violent", yet violence is committed when aikido techniques are performed. I think that either of those statements can be refuted fairly easily. If any part of the statement of a paradox is not true or complete, the paradox fails. I think that may be what some posters are getting at.