Absolute pacifism?

[dust1n]

Hmmm.. is non-lethal martial arts constitute as violence? Because with all of these appearing rapists and gangsters and ****, it would seem non-lethal martial arts would be a manner of non-violence in which such criminal activity can be restrained with causing the minimal amount of possible harm.

 

[Koldo]

Hmmm.. is non-lethal martial arts constitute as violence? Because with all of these appearing rapists and gangsters and ****, it would seem non-lethal martial arts would be a manner of non-violence in which such criminal activity can be restrained with causing the minimal amount of possible harm.

Non-lethal martial arts still constitutes violence.

 

[Cricket]

Sorry to revive a thread that seemed to quietly go about it's business.

I have been doing much research on the Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) and they are definitely pacifist, which is why this thread piqued my interest.

I heard something of a joke not that long ago:

******

A burglar breaks into a house, and finds himself surprised to be face to face with a Quaker who is holding a gun.

The burglar says to the Quaker: "You're a Quaker! You're not going to hurt me!"

The Quaker responds: "Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world. But, you are sadly standing where I am about to shoot."

******

The Quakers were driven out of Europe by their own pacifism, and countless lives were lost, Quaker and non-Quaker, due to a lack of resistance. I am absolutely for non-violence. However, I could not, in good conscience, allow innocents to be hurt or killed for my own inaction. I would feel complicit. I would try alternatives first, certainly, but most serious violence is not perpetrated by reasonable people in the first place. Attempting to reason with a hungry tweaker with a chip on his shoulder and a stolen weapon is not a wise plan, and puts others at risk.

I think that while pacifism should be the goal, human beings still have animal instincts of survival that kick in with adrenaline. "Fight or flight" does give us the option of rising above unnecessary violence, but I will never say never, because if it is between the life of my child and someone--anyone--else, myself included, my kid wins hands down, and I'll do what I have to do.

JMHO.

 

[sandandfoam]

Hi Cricket,

For me, pacifism is not the goal. Nonviolence is. Admittedly this is a view partly rooted in a religious outlook. But it is also on my assessment of the evidence based in practicality. Nonviolence is efficacious - it works. Violence clearly does not. Violence begets violence.

Sorry to revive a thread that seemed to quietly go about it's business.

I have been doing much research on the Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) and they are definitely pacifist, which is why this thread piqued my interest.

I heard something of a joke not that long ago:

******

A burglar breaks into a house, and finds himself surprised to be face to face with a Quaker who is holding a gun.

The burglar says to the Quaker: "You're a Quaker! You're not going to hurt me!"

The Quaker responds: "Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world. But, you are sadly standing where I am about to shoot."

******

The Quakers were driven out of Europe by their own pacifism, and countless lives were lost, Quaker and non-Quaker, due to a lack of resistance. I am absolutely for non-violence. However, I could not, in good conscience, allow innocents to be hurt or killed for my own inaction. I would feel complicit. I would try alternatives first, certainly, but most serious violence is not perpetrated by reasonable people in the first place. Attempting to reason with a hungry tweaker with a chip on his shoulder and a stolen weapon is not a wise plan, and puts others at risk.

I think that while pacifism should be the goal, human beings still have animal instincts of survival that kick in with adrenaline. "Fight or flight" does give us the option of rising above unnecessary violence, but I will never say never, because if it is between the life of my child and someone--anyone--else, myself included, my kid wins hands down, and I'll do what I have to do.

JMHO.

 

[Cricket]

Hi Cricket,

For me, pacifism is not the goal. Nonviolence is.

Fair enough.

Admittedly this is a view partly rooted in a religious outlook. But it is also on my assessment of the evidence based in practicality. Nonviolence is efficacious - it works. Violence clearly does not. Violence begets violence.

Non-violence is of course, as I said, the goal. However...

My brother is a recovering meth addict. I love him dearly. But, at his sickest, he was violent, unreasonable, and at times, downright scary. It was being arrested and entering into the criminal justice system that finally got him clean. As devastating as it was at the time, it saved his life.

Had he broken into my home, at his sickest, reason would have accomplished nothing. I would have, of course, first tried to get outta dodge, but if he surprised us, trapped us, etc., and threatened our lives? I wouldn't just lay down and watch him kill my kids or my husband. Non-violence wouldn't have stopped the violence. He would've gone after us, and moved on to the next people he chose to terrorize, or turned the violence on himself.

Again, I can't explain how sick he actually was, and how violent he was. He was eventually arrested for aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, etc. He threatened more than once to come after me after I stopped giving him money to support his habit, so none of this is out of the realm of possibility. I realized after the fact also that giving him money and enabling him was one more form of violence against him, since I had the dubious honour of seeing how sick meth was making him.

If I could have stopped him, any way I could have, to stop him from hurting himself or others, I would have. If martial arts, or some other non-lethal defence would have taken him down, and given me a chance to get my family out of there, and protect HIM from going after others, too, I would do it.

You can't reason, as I said, with someone who is in an altered state of mind. My brother thought planes and helicopters were circling overhead trying to shoot him. He had nothing to lose.

In his last act of violence, he pulled a gun on a cop who was clever enough to take him down, physically, and arrest him finally.

It stopped his violence. He is now recovering, working, healthy and thankful that that cop took him down that day, or he'd probably be dead, and the amount of violence against himself and others that might have ensued after that day would have been horrific.

No way would he have listened to reason.

Respectfully,

Cricket