Don't be ridiculous. When dealing with other human beings, the lowest form of communication should set the tone for all further forms of communication. Ignore this at your own peril.

When faced with aggression (initial violence), the only reasonable response is self-defense (which can, and in some cases must, include reactionary violence).

If someone breaks into your home (aggression) and is in the process of raping your wife (aggression), the only reasonable response is to extinguish the threat (self-defense). By ignoring your rights (social construct), the aggressor has no room for complaint when you ignore his. In fact, you are doing society a favor by removing someone who is incapable of respecting the rights of others. What would be unreasonable would be trying to employ higher forms of communication (bargaining for example) in an attempt to resolve this unfortunate situation. Not only would it be quite likely that your entire family ends up dead, but other families may suffer the same fate in the future. In some cases, violence is the only reasonable response to a prior act of violence (aggression).

None of the above has anything to do with this thread (or the religion discussion). I simply saw a ridiculous statement (which is not a surprise considering the source) and felt the need to opine on it. I'm not sure whether he is confusing violence with aggression or is such a pacifist that he is unwilling to use the tools (including violence as a last resort) necessary to protect himself and others.