The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 7, 2007, 03:01 PM   #101
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
You know it's funny watching liberals, when confronted with a dangerous situation, and no alternatives.

I'm teaching in an area where bad people are moving into a nice area. The other teachers have fear in their eyes, with no solution. Kind of reminds me of what lambs must be like, but, I think the lambs have more guts.

The terror controls their lives, and, they have no control over the situation, or even hope of defense. Very sad, but, the product of their beliefs...

They have about a 1 in 17 chance of being a victim of a violent crime,,....and no chance of self-defense.

S
Socrates is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 04:11 PM   #102
kiov
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 14, 2004
Posts: 283
"that also, was Christ's message." Ah, let me say that this was just an assumption, as I'm not very knowledgeable on the bible or religion. I should know better...and i guess now i'll have to turn the other cheek. Also, I'm not a pacifist but do see the honor in someone having values that are steadfast, even if i don't hold those values myself.

I think JohnKSa's point is pretty accurate, that Paranoia is mostly about the person's attitude.

Ditto with Socrates point about not being willing to live scared in a bad neighborhood. I may be a liberal in some ways, but you can bet I'll fight back if anyone pushes too hard. I would point out that some "liberals" actually support CCW and write letters that encourage other dems to oppose gun control bills. Pro-gun dems won a couple of govenorships and house seats last election, so the situation isn't black and white. I also have a hard time understanding those who live in fear, but don't take steps to protect themselves and their families...even if they are pacifists.

I have to admit I like having my gun on me whether or not i'm in a high risk environment. I just like my gun. I still can respect someone who moves to a safe place and choses not to carry.

There's a lot of history and custom behind the notion of a person's arms being constant companions. Many modern cultures have lost this, but maybe its just bred in the bone for some of us. Not paraniod, but comfortable and ready.
kiov is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 05:33 PM   #103
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
Thought I'd revisit this thread. I carry and I carry often. As I sit here with my Glock 22 on my left hip, I'm glad to see that many others feel the same way I do. Its not paranoia, its being prepared.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 10:19 PM   #104
Mike P. Wagner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheygriz
But if I am confronted a rabid animal, even though I must consider that a miraculous cure is possible, logic, at least the way I understand it, dictates that I deal appropriately with the immediate situation
We are in a agreement here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cheygriz
As for the argument that I am allowing the scumbag to make my dceisions for me, that is illogical and totally incorrect.
We agree here, too. If I decide to shoot a criminal as the most appropriate immediate response, then I bear the responsibility for that action. Note that I am not saying that sin or a crime - I may have taken the most appropriate action. My only point was that I can't move that responsibility to to the criminal. Right or wrong, if I take an action, I am responsible for that action.

Mike
__________________
PCV Yemen 84-86
Ahalan wa sahlan.
Past results are no guarantee of future performance.
Mike P. Wagner is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 10:19 PM   #105
piste
Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2007
Posts: 39
Where did this pacifist stuff come in??? first a definition....from Wikipedia:

"Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances.

Pacifism may be based on principle or pragmatism. Principled (or Deontological) pacifism is based on beliefs that either war, deliberate lethal force, violence or any force or coercion is morally wrong. Pragmatic (or Consequential) pacifism does not hold to such an absolute principle but considers there to be better ways of resolving a dispute than war or considers the benefits of a war to be outweighed by the costs."

I consider myself a pacifist ...a PRAGMATIC pacifist......truly, I am..and have no problem keeping Roscoe by my side at all times. Why? We aren't talking about a "dispute" here. I'm not gonna go blast my neighbor cuz he put up a fence that's one foot on my property line. However...some folks keep a weapon on them at all times and that does not necessarily conflict with all forms of pacifism....Pacifism is primarily about settling disputes....and when a meth head comes blasting through your door at "o-dark-thirty"...that's not a "dispute" folks...that's violent unprovoked aggression with possible intent to kill me....and my vote is he loses and I'll do whatever I can to ensure that. Game over.
piste is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 10:26 PM   #106
piste
Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2007
Posts: 39
Quote:
feel sorry for the folk who feel it necessary to carry 24/7/365.
I feel sorry for the guy who carries 24/7/364 and meets his demise on day 365 where his weapon could have saved his life..

As for me...I don't feel I HAVE to....I WANT to. Would you get a life insurance policy that didn't cover April every year?
piste is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 10:42 PM   #107
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
Quote:
If I decide to shoot a criminal as the most appropriate immediate response, then I bear the responsibility for that action.
I suppose that at some level that's true, but according to the law you bear no criminal responsibility and in some states you can't even be held civilly liable for those actions if they're justified in the law.

Furthermore, if the attacker has an accomplice, the accomplice generally bears the responsibility for the death of his fellow criminal--to the point that he can be prosecuted for it even if someone else pulls the trigger. Clearly the law holds the CRIMINAL responsible not only for his own actions, but also for others' actions that are the legal response to his actions. His blood is truly "on his own head" (and perhaps also on the head of his accomplice.)

A defender has a responsibility to stay within the law, if he does that then the law absolves him of criminal responsibility and sometimes even civil liability.

Am I arguing against taking personal responsibility for one's own actions? Absolutely not! I'm only pointing out that one needn't agonize over the possible results of prudent actions taken in legal self-defense.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 10:50 PM   #108
Mike P. Wagner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Nearly any system of "axiomatic values" includes the concept of the abrogation of certain privileges for acting in a manner that is strongly contradictory to said values. It's pretty easily to show logically that violent attack is contrary to the premise of the "sanctity of all life" and self-defense has its basis in the principle of preserving the sanctity of all life.
Actually, while it's easy to show a violent attack in contrary to the "sanctity of life", it's not necessarily easy to reason your way to self defense (to the point of taking a life). It think that you need other postulates (justice, or some notion of weighing lives) to justify killing another human being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
In effect, by placing himself outside the value system, a violent criminal gives up his right to demand the same benefits enjoyed by those who embrace the system. That reduction in "benefit" lasts for as long as he is demonstrating by his actions his determination to stay outside the value system and may also have lasting and permanent repercussions.
But that assumes the criminal has the ability to somehow affect the value of his life - for folks who think as my pacifist friend thought, a person's actions cannot determine the value of his life. In a sense, he cannot step outside the system. No reduction in the sanctity of his life is possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSKa
Saying that the "sanctity of all life" prevents one from exercising self-defense is as illogical as arguing that the principle of property possession prevents returning stolen property to the rightful owner once a thief is apprehended on the basis that the property is now in the thief's possession and therefore belongs to him
I don't think so. When the thief steals the property, he is changing something (possession of the property). The question in that case is whether or not that change of possession is transient or permanent (i.e., whether the change of possession affects ownership). A pacifist would not argue that the thief is changing the sanctity of the, he would argue that the thief could not change the value of his life. Your example is about making a transient change permanent, but for the pacifist, there is no transient change in the sanctity of life.

If one reasons that all life is sacred, it is not an illogical jump to say that no human has the right to end any life - only G-d has that right.

I am pretty much done with this topic.

Your local Quaker meeting could explain a religiously based coherent system of values that includes a rejection of violence. They have strongly rejected violence for something 300 years (they are not some "liberal" manifestation of the late 20th century). Actually, any of the traditional peace churches, the Church of the Brethen, the Mennonites, and the Society of Friends could lay this out for you. Incidentally, they all come to this position from the New Testament.

Mike
__________________
PCV Yemen 84-86
Ahalan wa sahlan.
Past results are no guarantee of future performance.

Last edited by Mike P. Wagner; April 7, 2007 at 10:52 PM. Reason: spelling
Mike P. Wagner is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 11:00 PM   #109
piste
Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2007
Posts: 39
Officer: "So what happened here?"

Neighbor: "Well as I understand it the meth head crashed through the door and Johnny Brainiac here started trying to explain to him the sanctity of life, and "axiomatic values", and transient something or other...."

Officer: "Nuff said. Guess Johnny proved his point, now will someone scrape what's left of him off the wall? And don't forget that grey spongy part over there."
piste is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 11:03 PM   #110
Mike P. Wagner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSKa
A defender has a responsibility to stay within the law, if he does that then the law absolves him of criminal responsibility ...
I am not sure that it's quite so easy to dispense with moral responsibility. They are many actions I take which have moral implications but no moral implications or obligations. It might be that there may legal responsibilities which implies no moral obligations (speed limits?).

Note that I am not arguing that responsibility implies moral wrong - the responsibility of killing someone may be a morally correct action. I am just arguing that you can't walk away from the responsibility.

Mike
__________________
PCV Yemen 84-86
Ahalan wa sahlan.
Past results are no guarantee of future performance.
Mike P. Wagner is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 11:11 PM   #111
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
Quote:
Neighbor: "Well as I understand it the meth head crashed through the door and Johnny Brainiac here started trying to explain to him the sanctity of life, and "axiomatic values", and transient something or other...."
Life equals violence. It always has and always will. Ask prey. Ask predator.

I will not be prey.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old April 7, 2007, 11:35 PM   #112
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
Quote:
...it's not necessarily easy to reason your way to self defense (to the point of taking a life).
Again, self-defense is about preserving life, about stopping those who would endanger life, about keeping violent criminals from taking life. It's about PREVENTING killing.

If one believes that the point of self-defense is killing then what you're saying would follow. But killing is not the point at all. The point of self-defense is preventing loss of life. That's why one can not keep using deadly force after the attacker breaks off. The law doesn't give you the right to kill, only the right to stop violent attacks. If that results in killing, the responsibility for that death falls on the head of the attacker. His blood is on his own head.
Quote:
In a sense, he cannot step outside the system.
But he IS stepping outside the system if he decides to take someone else's life. It's not possible to logically support his being within the system at the same time that he's clearly demonstrating by his actions that he's CHOSEN to be outside the system. One can't enjoy the full protection of any system while simultaneously flagrantly flaunting its values.
Quote:
A pacifist would not argue that the thief is changing the sanctity of the, he would argue that the thief could not change the value of his life.
The attacker is demonstrating by his actions (violent attack) that he does not respect the value of life. The law says that when a person does that, the value of his own life is also reduced to the point that if it is lost during legal self-defense, the defender will not be held accountable.
Quote:
If one reasons that all life is sacred, it is not an illogical jump to say that no human has the right to end any life...
One would have to simultaneously agree to two contradictory statements:

1. No human has the right to end any life.
2. It's ok to let a human end a life even when it is possible to prevent it.

It's far more logical to state that self-defense FOLLOWS from the idea that humans don't have the right to take life. In effect, it is because no human has the right to end a life that it's acceptable to use drastic measures to enforce that principle by defending life with whatever means are required. It's a clear progression until one begins muddying the water by pretending that killing is the POINT of self-defense. It is NOT. Death is only a possible (and undesirable) side effect of self-defense that can not be avoided in some cases.
Quote:
I am pretty much done with this topic.
At least for 13 minutes...

I'm well aware of the Quakers and similar groups, their general beliefs and why they hold them. I believe they have the right to believe and act as they do, but I do not agree that their existence and belief structure constitute any sort of evidence that what they believe is true. One could, no doubt, find groups of people with belief systems to support virtually anything.
Quote:
I am just arguing that you can't walk away from the responsibility.
Nor am I. That's why I said:
Quote:
Am I arguing against taking personal responsibility for one's own actions? Absolutely not! I'm only pointing out that one needn't agonize over the possible results of prudent actions taken in legal self-defense.
I seem to recall another thread where you were, in effect, arguing against carrying because one might encounter a no-carry zone and have to leave the gun in the car where a criminal might break in and might steal the unattended gun and might use it in a crime which you implied would then leave the gun's original owner with a moral responsibility for the final crime.

This thread seems an extension of the idea that criminals can do whatever they want but if a law-abiding citizen is somehow involved in those criminal actions (even if said citizen stays strictly within the law and is involved through no fault or wish of his own) then he suddenly bears a moral responsibility for the entire outcome.

My analysis of the original thread was that if you don't want to carry because of the hypothetical repercussions then you shouldn't carry. In the same vein, if you feel that you can't tolerate the possible repercussions of self-defense using deadly force then you shouldn't prepare to defend yourself with deadly force.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 01:41 AM   #113
Groundhog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 406
Excellent thread - so many points

It seems to me that a lot of what posters like Mike P. and JohnKSa are talking about revolves around morals and responsibility. Just about every bit of that had better be taken into consideration well before a situation presents itself where these kinds of questions are asked. If you purchase a weapon, gun, knife, club, ninja throwing stars, etc. for any form of self defense it may very well end up being useless to you if you have not worked out these kinds of issues in advance. My wife and I are in the process of getting our CHL permits and I have thought and continue to think hard about the morals, responsibility, and consequences of possibly having to use my firearm. I remind her every so often to think long and hard about it too. Being Joe Average citizen, I count myself very fortunate to know that the odds of ever having to use my gun for self defense is remote (fortunately, I can justify the expense by shooting the tar out of IDPA targets fairly regularly ).

The gist of my thought process runs like this:

1. I don't every want to kill anyone. I don't ever want to get into a physical altercation with anyone. I don't ever want to be in a situation where I may be forced to defend myself or another innocent person.

2. I know that by owning a weapon capable of lethal force I might kill someone if I use it against them.

3. If, God forbid, I am ever in a situation where I am forced to choose to defend myself (not much of a choice for me, I believe it'll be pretty natural), I have decided in advance that I will.

Lots of people on TFL talk about SHTF scenarios. In all of these definitions SHTF is usually some kind of catastrophe, natural or man made that causes a break down in society so we all have to hold up in our bunkers with our M16's until it gets better or some such.

I have a different version of SHTF.

If I am attacked, the S has HTF for me. By having my moral issues worked out in advance, the only thing I have to think about is the tactics to survive the situation. If I am attacked, I have decided in advance that I WILL shoot to stop (and yes, probably kill) the person doing the attacking. I hope it never happens. I hear taking a life changes a person. BUT, I am willing to do so if all other options have failed and I essentially have to CHOOSE to either allow myself to be attacked or to defend myself.

The pacifist has done the same thing. If they have done so with great soul searching and conviction, then they are right in there own eyes. I suppose that just as I would be willing to shoot someone attacking a pacifist who won't fight back, they must be willing to not come to my aid should the situation be reversed. I think both parties would have something terrible to live with at the end of a bad situation like that. To the pacifist's credit, if everyone believed as they did, there would probably be no violence, no war, etc. To their detriment, that'll never happen given human nature being what it is.

Now, in an effort to address the OP's point a bit I have a suggestion. If anyone thinks any of the stuff in this thread is paranoia, I urge you to go to a psychiatric hospital somewhere and really really get to know some people who are paranoid (yes, you can find them elsewhere but you should get a really good sense of it by finding some that are certifiably over the top). Paranoid people are not normal. They live in fear. Constantly. Their lives absolutely suck. I know, I live with one who's just about certifiable (close relative). It's terrible to watch. As an earlier poster pointed out the differences between POSSIBILITY and PROBABILITY, it's absolutely true. For the paranoid, "That BG is out there waiting for me and is lurking behind every bush so I MUST carry 24/7 to make sure I can defend myself against him." I'd have to say that just about anything else is merely prudent and allows you to have a certain level of preparedness.

I am 42 years old. My sister-n-law got shot in the head at her workspace a few years ago by a co-worker. Even after this 'close to home' event happened, I didn't own a hand gun or have a plan for self defense. Interestingly enough, I had, over the last 10 years or so, begun to decide that the world really was a dangerous place and I ought to be more prepared for a worst case scenario to happen to me. It just took a long time to sink in.
__________________
Greg Miller

"Remember, a valid point never overrules a family tradition." - Me
Groundhog is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 10:10 AM   #114
Avalanche
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: A damnyankee in North Georgia
Posts: 4
Just reading through on my way around. Interesting thread. Common discussion.


The problem I see with the ex-Jew, now-Quaker pacifist is this: will he allow HIS children to go into the camps? Or is he expecting someone else to protect them on his behalf (and how is that pacifism)? Pretending (or believing!) that 'because he is pacifist, therefore nothing bad will happen' is a child’s magical view. If it is, indeed, his preference that HE be killed rather than someone else (some BG) in order to prevent him from being “violent” – then he is too (mentally/emotionally) damaged to be trusted with the lives of his own family, or anyone in his vicinity.

My life-saying is:
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don’t
and that seems to cover it for me.

He and the Quakers can ONLY be "neutral" if their neighbors allow them to. If the neighbors decide that the Quaker's property and women are going to be theirs – then the Quakers can either buckle up and defend themselves, or die. {shrug} There is no option – either you defend yourself and your family, someone else defends them, or you lose them. Pacifism is only possible if the people with power ALLOW you to be pacifist!


Avalanche

Oh, and the whole discussion of “is the criminal 'forcing' me to act"? No, he is merely the CUE for my own choices for how I will act. If it rains and I put on a raincoat, is the rain forcing me to act?
Avalanche is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 11:22 AM   #115
Mike P. Wagner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSKa
One would have to simultaneously agree to two contradictory statements:

1. No human has the right to end any life.
2. It's ok to let a human end a life even when it is possible to prevent it.
So you were right about the 13 minutes.

There are folks who believe that no human has the right to take a life. They would not say that someone else's ending of a life is "OK", but that you may resist in a number of ways. But (for them), you are not allowed to end a life to save a life. For example, for the Quakers, you are obligated to "speak to that of G-d" in any evildoer, but you cannot use violence to change anyone's behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSKa
I'm well aware of the Quakers and similar groups, their general beliefs and why they hold them. I believe they have the right to believe and act as they do, but I do not agree that their existence and belief structure constitute any sort of evidence that what they believe is true.
I am not arguing that the Quaker (or Mennonite, or Brethren) position is "true". I talked a little about pacifism on this thread to point out that pacifism is not necessarily illogical, or some manifestations of late 20th century lack of values. An earlier poster had suggested that his neighbor was a pacifist because he wouldn't listen to "logic". I think that he may very well be wrong - it is possible to logically develop pacifism from a set of values. I don't think of logic, in general terms as a means of adopting values.

I only brought up the peace churches because I believe that they have a consistent, coherent, more or less logical understanding of pacifism based on their reading of the Gospels.I happen think that their consistent, coherent, logical, Gospel based pacifism is wrong - that's part of why I am no longer a Quaker.

Mike
__________________
PCV Yemen 84-86
Ahalan wa sahlan.
Past results are no guarantee of future performance.
Mike P. Wagner is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 11:54 AM   #116
Mike P. Wagner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
Pretending (or believing!) that 'because he is pacifist, therefore nothing bad will happen' ...
Are you really suggesting that a Holocaust survivor would believe "nothing bad will happen"? I find it hard to believe that any one would suggest that someone whose family is in the ash pool at Auschwitz has a magical "Mary Poppins" view of the world. Are you being ironic in some way that I am not following?

I don't want to speak for the man, but if you think he has not thought hard a long about questions of protecting family, I respectfully suggest that you're wrong. I have know a couple of survivors, and they have though very long and very hard about all of those questions. Can you really be arguing that he never thought about his own children suffering a fate like his own brothers and sisters and his parents?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
Or is he expecting someone else to protect them on his behalf (and how is that pacifism)?
He would argue strongly that asking someone else to use violence to "protect" him would be as wrong as his using violence. He would seek as earnestly to stop someone from using violence to protect him as he would using violence to hurt him,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
he is too (mentally/emotionally) damaged to be trusted with the lives of his own family
I don't think that you need me to write the pacifist response to "If you won't kill, you're too brain damaged..." With a little imagination, you should be able to write that one yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
He and the Quakers can ONLY be "neutral" if their neighbors allow them to.
I think you need to take a look at Quaker history if you think that folks were Quakers because they were "allowed" to be by their neighbors. Here's a question, "Who is the only woman in the United States to die for religious freedom?" As a hint, there is a statue of her in Boston.

Mike
__________________
PCV Yemen 84-86
Ahalan wa sahlan.
Past results are no guarantee of future performance.
Mike P. Wagner is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 12:09 PM   #117
Mike P. Wagner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog
By having my moral issues worked out in advance, the only thing I have to think about is the tactics to survive the situation.
I think that's one of the gifts of Mas Ayoob's In Gravest Extreme - getting you to think before the act. Though I think Mr. Ayoob was more concerned about legal than moral responsibility, he certainly sparked my thoughts about these matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog
To the pacifist's credit, if everyone believed as they did, there would probably be no violence, no war, etc.
The Quaker response is, "If you think that we should live in world without war, a world without violence, will you be the first to lay down your weapon? If you are only willing to be the last, then no one will ever lay down his weapon."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog
To their detriment, that'll never happen given human nature being what it is.
This is getting very far afield, but that was part of my general take on Quakerism (after ten years) - it appeared to me to be a beautiful morality for a world I didn't live in. But that doesn't make it "illogical" (or any less beautiful) for me.

Mike
__________________
PCV Yemen 84-86
Ahalan wa sahlan.
Past results are no guarantee of future performance.
Mike P. Wagner is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 01:01 PM   #118
Groundhog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 406
Mike, I concur on your logic statements. I think the discussion drifted from being able to see how one could come to those conclusions using logic, to the merits of the conclusion.

But you gotta admit, this is a pretty darned good thread!
__________________
Greg Miller

"Remember, a valid point never overrules a family tradition." - Me
Groundhog is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 01:47 PM   #119
Mike P. Wagner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog
But you gotta admit, this is a pretty darned good thread!
I couldn't agree more. I have noticed that (for some of us), carrying a lethal weapon generates a concern about ethics that is not airy and abstract, but has practical consequences. We aren't professors of ethics (well maybe some of us are, for all I know), but we are aware of ethical responsibility that we bear.

It's a heck of a lot more interesting to me than another 9 mm vs 45 ACP war!

Mike
__________________
PCV Yemen 84-86
Ahalan wa sahlan.
Past results are no guarantee of future performance.
Mike P. Wagner is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 02:54 PM   #120
Avalanche
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: A damnyankee in North Georgia
Posts: 4
Perhaps, Mike,

I came on too strong... I was 'speaking' earnestly, but ... well... yes, disparagingly.

Quote:
Are you really suggesting that a Holocaust survivor would believe "nothing bad will happen"? I find it hard to believe that any one would suggest that someone whose family is in the ash pool at Auschwitz has a magical "Mary Poppins" view of the world. Are you being ironic in some way that I am not following?
If someone who has had a bad thing happen and, on deliberation afterwards, decides that the way to prevent future bad things is to ... lay down his arms and hope or pray they won't happen? .... then I'd suggest he has drawn the wrong conclusion. (Don't we call that denying the evidence of our eyes?)

The Mary Poppins view (as I see it) is this: "before I knew better, my family suffered and died. Now that I know better -- I'll choose not to defend myself or them." I do not find it healthy to decide, on the basis of something bad happening because I did not prepare, or because my/our behavior elicited something bad (as that woman who left her window closed but unlocked), that after the bad thing, the correct choice is to do even LESS to protect myself and my family.

(Unless you think that choosing consciously not to prepare for such occurrences is making a sound choice -- in which case, would the logical choice then be to turn in your guns?)

Quote:
I don't want to speak for the man, but if you think he has not thought hard a long about questions of protecting family, I respectfully suggest that you're wrong. I have know a couple of survivors, and they have though very long and very hard about all of those questions. Can you really be arguing that he never thought about his own children suffering a fate like his own brothers and sisters and his parents?
{shrug} He may indeed have thought long and hard -- and made the wrong decision! Should I therefore think well of him and his deductive powers? I firmly hold that the HIGHEST responsibility of a man is to protect his family. A man who knowingly CHOOSES not to protect his, gets only my scorn. (Harsh? You betcha -- so is Nature! Or Fate. Or one's enemies.) He has made the choice that his "belief" is more important than the lives of his children. On what basis should I respect that -- or him?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
Or is he expecting someone else to protect them on his behalf (and how is that pacifism)?
He would argue strongly that asking someone else to use violence to "protect" him would be as wrong as his using violence. He would seek as earnestly to stop someone from using violence to protect him as he would using violence to hurt him,
And so he and his family would die. Does anyone doubt that? Is there much to respect in that? I don't find it so. That may not be politically correct, or "ladylike" -- but AS a 'lady,' I expect my man to give his life protecting me -- but to give his life at a VERY high cost to those who would harm him or me! My husband takes very seriously his duty to protect me to his utmost powers -- and that does not include laying down his arms and PRAYING that I don't get raped, tortured, and murdered! (Hence, he wears a .45 on his hip when we are out. And yes, we have a handgun in the couple of rooms we spent most of our time in.) I respect that in a man. I do not respect a man throwing away his responsibility to his family.

Sidenote: If he "would argue strongly that asking someone else to use violence to "protect" him would be as wrong," does he therefore argue the U.S. should have stayed out of that war? Somehow, I think not.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
he is too (mentally/emotionally) damaged to be trusted with the lives of his own family
I don't think that you need me to write the pacifist response to "If you won't kill, you're too brain damaged..." With a little imagination, you should be able to write that one yourself.
Prayer? A little nice talking to to those home invaders that will convince them to go away... maybe even fix the door they busted down? What would be a REALISTIC pacifist response? "Please Mr. bad man, don't hurt us?" To me, that is a brain-damaged response and unworthy of respect. Do you recommend such a technique to your own family?


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
He and the Quakers can ONLY be "neutral" if their neighbors allow them to.
I think you need to take a look at Quaker history if you think that folks were Quakers because they were "allowed" to be by their neighbors. Here's a question, "Who is the only woman in the United States to die for religious freedom?" As a hint, there is a statue of her in Boston.
I may not have been clear enough: any pacifist is only able to BE a pacifist if:
  • s/he lives near no other humans (we'll have to assume s/he is willing to kill marauding bears....), so no humans can threaten; or
  • if any possible human threats to that pacifist agree to leave that pacifist alone. (that is, the neighbors/other humans ALLOW that pacifist to not protect himself and they choose not to take what they wish from him and his. Cause he sure can't choose to deny it to them! In fact, he has chosen to be unable to deny it to them, on purpose.); or
  • the pacifist dies, and lets his or her family suffer and die -- as the bad guys will it!
__________________
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don’t
Avalanche is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 03:15 PM   #121
ckd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2007
Posts: 249
Paranoid depends on your perspective. I think your reasoning is sound but some anti-gun person will think the opposite.

Do you wear a seat belt? Same logic, to protect your life from circumstances often beyond your control. I'll bet the same people think an alarm system alone will protect them from true evil doers.

I've found that I don't share the details of my gun ownership and training with anyone who isn't of the same mind. I like people of different views but some things are better left private. The exception is a nicely grouped bullet ridden target next to our door:; our gargoyle.

For those here that have met evil personally, professionally or privately, know the value of be prepared; there isn't room to finish second.
ckd is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 05:39 PM   #122
Groundhog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 406
Avalanche,

Stop with all that sexy gun talk, I'm trying to read this forum in a calm, rational manner! LOL!

You said:
Quote:
My husband takes very seriously his duty to protect me to his utmost powers -- and that does not include laying down his arms and PRAYING that I don't get raped, tortured, and murdered! (Hence, he wears a .45 on his hip when we are out. And yes, we have a handgun in the couple of rooms we spent most of our time in.) I respect that in a man. I do not respect a man throwing away his responsibility to his family.
Now, humor aside, it seems like this is where we get to messing with and judging others beliefs. I don't mean this critically or as a flame, nor am I directing at Avalanche, (except for her sexy gun talk!) but here's the deal:

How can anyone say someone is wrong for how the believe about something that is basically an opinion? We can disagree with their belief, perhaps vehemently, but I don't think we can say with total assurance that they are wrong.

I had a friend who was in the military with me. He claimed he would never fight back if someone attacked him. He worked on weapons that would kill large numbers of people if ever used. I found that difficult to fathom. I also thought he must not respect himself very much if he was not willing to defend himself. He was a friend but it was hard to respect this point of view that he had. However, if someone has a solid conviction, and they have thought it out as best they can for themselves, I don't think in most cases they can be considered "wrong". Now don't go getting all goofy on me saying things like, "so if they believed in pedophilia, that'd be OK too?" I don't mean things which fall outside of acceptable norms that a society would allow. If a pacifist believes strongly, that to take a life, or even resist force is the way to go, I could at least respect their convictions. I would hope, that if they thought it through thoroughly, they also would pair up with someone of the same beliefs. Be a bummer to find out your significant other won't resist your attacker when the poo hits. Now, if you know in advance? You can lay down and die peacefully knowing you have lived your convictions. I would be afraid for kids of people like that since they don't have much choice in the matter.

But, I know, I know, I am probably just picking the fly crap out of the pepper here. I've just always had a hard time with absolutes outside of my own flawed mind!

Now where's that cold shower...
__________________
Greg Miller

"Remember, a valid point never overrules a family tradition." - Me
Groundhog is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 06:08 PM   #123
Mike P. Wagner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
I firmly hold that the HIGHEST responsibility of a man is to protect his family. A man who knowingly CHOOSES not to protect his, gets only my scorn.
I would suggest that a hard core Quaker would not make a good partner for you! You are telling me that you have a different set of values, and all I can do is agree that you have a different set of values.

The short answer to all of your other questions is that my friend (and most Quakers) would feel obligated to speak to that of G-d in their enemy, and to die in witness to those principles. That was part of why I gave the hint to read a little Quaker history - dying is what Quakers did (when necessary). The lady who's statue is in Boston was Mary Dyer. She was banished from Boston on pain of death for her beliefs. She returned to die as a witness for her beliefs:

Quote:
I came in obedience to the will of God to the last General Court desiring you to appeal your unrighteous laws of banishment on pain of death, and that same is my work now, and earnest request, although I told you that if you refused to repeal them, the Lord would send others of his servants to witness against them.
And then she was hanged. On her way to the gallows, the authorities posted drummers so that people could not hear what she had to say. Her message was that dangerous!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Dyer

Many Quakers were prepared to die rather than use violence to survive. Luckily not many Quakers in the US had to pay that price. But many did pay that price in England.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
Sidenote: If he "would argue strongly that asking someone else to use violence to "protect" him would be as wrong," does he therefore argue the U.S. should have stayed out of that war? Somehow, I think not.
My professor was extremely anti-war, including WWII. I asked him one time about using violence against Hitler. He was opposed to that - he felt speaking to that of G-d in the German people was the right course of action.

Fundamentally, he (and other Quakers) believe that al human beings, including Hitler have that of G-d in them (from Genesis 1:26). He felt that it was our obligation to non-violently resist evil, and to speak to that of G-d in evildoers. And die if necessary as a witness to good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
I may not have been clear enough: any pacifist is only able to BE a pacifist if:
I concur that if one is a serious pacifist, one might have to be prepared to die for that belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
On what basis should I respect that -- or him?
Your choice. To my mind, it was a deeply held spiritual conviction informed by a level of suffering and loss that I hope you or I will never face. I do respect his conviction.

I can respect a position with which I do not agree. I am a Navy brat - I grew up in the standard San Diego/Guam/Bethesda environs. I respect people who made a choice the exact opposite to that of my professor. Some of the people that I knew growing up were what I would call "honorable warriors".

I can respect both pacifists and warriors - I know that makes me a bit of an eccentric.

Mike
__________________
PCV Yemen 84-86
Ahalan wa sahlan.
Past results are no guarantee of future performance.

Last edited by Mike P. Wagner; April 8, 2007 at 06:09 PM. Reason: spelling
Mike P. Wagner is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 09:01 PM   #124
piste
Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2007
Posts: 39
So to summarize...

.22LR for the Pacifist.....38 special for the Quaker...and me, I'll take a .357 magnum. Oops...sorry...thought this was a forum about guns.

I do find the point about responsibility to one's family quite interesting. I mean it's fine if you want to die because you CHOOSE to not protect yourself....but what about your infant child who gets killed because of your (IMO naive, foolish, irrational, irresponsible, negligent, unrealistic) choices about your own beliefs. Those who bring children into this world have a responsibility to teach them, nurture them, educate them, etc until they can be adequately self sufficient so they can form their own set of beliefs....but until that time you also MUST PROTECT them irrespective of what you believe. To do less than that is being false and hypocritical to your own Quaker, pacifist or whatever beliefs in the sanctity of life. Fine to make your own choices and die spread over the wallpaper in your own home....but no adult has the right to impose those beliefs on infant children....if you do then you are responsible for the loss of their life...and thus the falsehood and hypocrisy of the beliefs. It would not be easy for me to take another life. And I'm sure it would affect me very deeply for the rest of my life. But I have done the thinking and pray if the time comes for the courage to do what it takes. There's another word for those who don't.
piste is offline  
Old April 8, 2007, 09:34 PM   #125
Mike P. Wagner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2001
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by piste
To do less than that is being false and hypocritical to your own Quaker, pacifist or whatever beliefs in the sanctity of life.
How so? If you believe that is wrong to kill someone under any circumstances, how can refusing to kill someone under any circumstances be considered hypocritical? I consider hypocrisy to be taking one action while advocating another (usually in public). If someone's action match their beliefs, they are not hypocritical - however much you may disagree with them.

I would think that a person who believed that it was wrong to kill someone under any circumstances and then killed someone hypocritical. (In point of fact, I think that I would guess that they found they weren't as pacifist as they thought. - I am pretty non-judmental, and I expect folks change their minds over time. Absolute pacifism seems a pretty high moral standard to me.)

So how is the Quaker rejection of violence hypocritical?

Mike
__________________
PCV Yemen 84-86
Ahalan wa sahlan.
Past results are no guarantee of future performance.
Mike P. Wagner is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.15918 seconds with 8 queries