AW,

I am mostly in agreement with you, really. No one here is opposed to a significant reordering of society along the humane principles we all share. The issue here in this thread is how we have to deal with those who do not share our principles. There are those, under one neurosis or another, who are not compassionate and rational. Some of these folks will even hurt or destroy human life for sadistic and selfish means. How do we stop such people from doing so?

You are representing a false dichotomy. We aren't in a binary split between violent or non-violent means as a way of life. We can and do choose to live in peace as it is afforded us. In the event that we cannot live peacefully or can aid others to do so, violent means are not only reasonable but necessary/ethical in the area of self defense.

I would love nothing more than for an absolute platform of non-violence to solve our problems but it hasn't solved any and never will.
Compassion isn't just a warm smile; sometimes it is a slap in the face and a chance to wake up and fight for your very life.



Not at all. We need concrete plans to help people. Words only help if they lead to plan of compassionate/constructive acts not warm fuzzies.



I disagree. People are biological machines but ones we must all value and respect. Lack of compassion and rational consideration affords our society problems, not an overly simplistic consideration of humanity. If anything, people over-complicate the human condition with supernatural or general escapist elements and ignore what truly makes us people.



No; changing views and changing conditions go hand in hand. We are physical beings and as such, a mental awakening creates a physical revolution or nothing at all beyond our selves.



I understand the unity of matter, energy and causal cascade as well as the next guy. You are limiting action to intellectual means and the truth is that we live in a physical world as well; a violent physical world. When you resist violence with words you die, the end.



No, it makes perfect sense. If people are not swayed by your compassion and human dignity, you die and your plan fails.



No, I really don't. There is no pill to cure our society's illness. To heal will take a long period of struggle and solidarity.

Being dead doesn't help anyone. Stopping a sociopath from harming others saves the world some pain and I can't foresee a second worth of regret for being a trigger-man. I have no qualms using violence to protect others.



The social perception is generated by massive propaganda mills.
You are really only refuting guerrilla war tactics in hostile territory.



You are wrong. What happens is the military puts guard on you if you pose any threat (ideologically or whatever) and if you are seen as a significant threat, you die and anyone who supports you can be killed as well. Again, innocent and unarmed men, women and children are gunned down in cold blood, yet their stories don't make it into our papers and their blood is spilled in vain.



They can kill you or lock you up. What would you call that?



So you are defenseless and without a developed support network?



Right. Step 2) the CIA sends in the SS and you are all imprisoned or dead. Next you are blamed for bombing some community organization your group probably supports. You are tortured and executed, to be put down in the history books as hypocrites and anti-human scum.



That is quite a broad generalization. Someone that thwarts a serial killer isn't necessarily easy to brand "the enemy."



In any case, we are talking degrees of loss. You cannot just saunter out of a war zone and if I kill someone intent on killing me; so be it.

Uhhh...okay...but I'm talking about Trigger Happy Harry and his desire to see what my guts look like by killing me with an uzi, for no reason other than he happens to be bored. You really think it'd be wrong for me or anyone else to physically thwart his attempts to carry out his plan? I should just walk up to his crazy ass and start talking about how he should stop being violent and love everyone? Are you serious?

EM:


Incorrect. There most certainly is a binary split between violent and non-violent means in each and every decision you make. All it takes is a little awareness to recognize that you always have a choice between violence and non-violence (aside from being hypnotized or other situations where one no longer has the ability to will). One can always live peacefully.



The definition of compassion:
"a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering." (dictionary.com)
Synonyms of compassion:
"1. commiseration, mercy, tenderness, heart, clemency." (ibid)

One is not merciful through violence. The phrase "I hurt you because I love you" comes to mind. You often hear this in cases of domestic violence - it is utter nonsense. One is not compassionate through violence. One is compassionate through love.



No concrete plan, as in a booklet guide to action/the revolution, will help people. Helping people means firstly helping yourself. When you are violent you do not bring peace to others, only violence. When you are peaceful you will bring peace to others - and help them.
The concrete plan to help people is to change the way we, and others, think about humanity and the world around them. It is not to kill, maim, destroy, and burn people and things.



The current prevalent theories of quantum mechanics disagree. On one level humans are machines - that would be the level visible to the naked eye and subject to the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc... But on the quantum level human consciousness has the ability to shape the world around it, and therefore human will/consciousness can shape one's life. One is no longer a machine, bound to a set of actions/interactions/reactions, but free to shape one's life and world.

Machines aren't free. Human beings are.



Agreed.



No, I am telling you that the intellectual world and the physical world are incredibly intertwined. Violence in the mind breeds violence in the world.

When you resist violence with violence you do not find peace, only more violence.



This sort of belief ends in infinite regress. If there are 10 people in a society and everyone thinks like this, here's how it works out:
Person A attacks B.
C, seeing this, attacks A.
D attacks C.
E attacks D.
F attacks E. Etc...
Soon all are dead or injured and your philosophy of violence has brought nothing but the destruction of the very society you were trying to save.



You deprive these unarmed men, women, and children of their dignity when you usurp their lives for your purpose. It is insulting to claim that they died "in vain." Who are you to use their deaths to your own purpose? These people lived and breathed and perhaps had no knowledge of radical politics and yet you wish to exploit their lives for such an end?

I sympathize with your feelings over the distortion of information. But regardless, it is undignified to use the dead for political means - when you do so you are akin to the politicians in office who exploit the deaths of US soldiers for emotional votes. The actions are identical, it is only the purpose that is different, and only the action matters.

-- August

Monte:


Who is this "Trigger Happy Harry"? And who goes around killing people because they're bored? Can you please produce a case of this happening?

-- August

The example is fair. Everyone needs to know what we are up against as human beings. You cannot love a bomb out of killing you and perhaps some of these people didn't die in vain if we can learn and save others that would suffer or die as they did.

I am not using deaths to call for action. Nor am I using emotional leverage but rather I am pointing to the example as a chance to learn.

Obviously I'm posing an exaggerated theoretical situation, although one that's quite plausible, I think. But fine, I'll give a much more documented example. School/workplace shootings. Columbine and Virgina Tech and all that. Someone's going room to room firing with intent to kill at anything that moves. There is absolutely no knowledge, as of yet, as to why he (or she, I guess) is doing this. I find myself behind the shooter as they take aim at a friend/colleague/fellow student/whoever. I have a chance to take the shooter by surprise and in doing so possibly disarming them. According to you, should I or should I not take that action? Please tell me.

EM:


Actually that definition came from dictionary.com, directly quoted and I even cited it after the quote...



In such a situation where you posit (arbitrarily I might add) that there is suffering and death inside, then you are correct. But now you must allow for the following argument (as it is coherent with yours):
Suppose that there was suffering and death in the house, but there was also my daughter (you were not aware of this when you shot me). The reason why I was running into the house was not because I was hungry as you had assumed when you shot me, but because my daughter was sick and needed my help. Granted that I would suffer sickness and death as well upon entering the house, I had already decided it was worth it to be with my daughter. Your shortsighted resort to violence with the weak justification of mercy (mercy which you cannot be sure is true, as I have just proved) ended up in the exact opposite end - it was unmerciful to shoot me and deny me my wish to be with my daughter.

You can see how your arguments for violence are based on assumptions which cannot be verified prior to your violent action - you never know what someone is actually doing, what their motives are, etc... yet you choose to act violently and hurt them anyway.



A much more practical solution would be to verbally inform the person of the oncoming car thereby 'saving them' as well as avoiding their injury on your part.



I can now see that your entire argument rests on the assumption that this person is a stable individual through time. That is to say that when you hurt someone now, you are doing so to save them later. Our entire society is based on this ridiculous premise. The prison system, for example, is based on this. Wars are waged on this premise. It is absolutely insane.

The future is impossible to determine (at least for us humans). Therefore your entire argument is based on an assumption about the future, and no matter how much you justify each assumption it is still that - an assumption. It is not knowledge.
Furthermore, you are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophesy. When you say: "I will hurt this person to save their death from the incoming car," you naturally already have done so as you have eliminated that possibility from occurring. Yet what you fail to acknowledge is that you also eliminate all other possibilities, many of which were not known to you nor did you chose to consider in any light. You are therefore acting irrationally as you do not allow reason to take its course through negotiating possibilities.
And finally, with all the above understood, you are still hurting that person. That's it - the deed: you caused pain to someone. You can justify to yourself as much as you wish, but the above arguments still stand and the end result is pain - that's it.





I am somewhat astonished that you patronize me by falsely labeling the theory/philosophy which I am supporting with such sappy, childish labels. You misrepresent, perhaps through misunderstanding, my words and ideas.

I am not speaking of letting love find a way, or passively letting the magical power of love work, rather of consciously engaging with the world in a different mindset and creating it as you wish.
What this means is that it is an active, creative philosophy, where one shapes the world by oneself and therefore affirms the world with oneself.



Yes but these machines are not conscious and do not have the ability to shape the world out of their own will. They follow programs and data lines, we do so on one level, but on a lower level we bring these programs and data lines into existence with our very actions.



There is no way to freedom, or way of freedom. You are freedom. And when you understand that you will understand why you are responsible for your every action, even the most minute sense. And when you assume responsibility for all your actions and engage in freedom, then you can shape your life as you see fit. So the answer to all the questions to which you answered "no" is in fact, yes.



Violence can never be "positive" as it always hurts, destroys, maims, cripples, damages, etc... You will label none of these things as lovely and enjoyable and yet you wish to see these things brought about on others... this is neither logical nor rational.
And external violence is only a manifestation of inner violence. Therefore to stop external violence you must stop internal violence, external violence cannot defeat external violence as they are one and the same. This is simple enough.



You speak as though you own the people you interact with everyday. Who are you to declare what is "allowed" and what is not? Who are you to declare that peace "can wait?" When were you bestowed with the authority to inflict pain upon me and to deny me peace? Did I miss you being sworn in as the ruler of my life?
Obviously you do not interact with me personally on a daily basis. But my questions stand from each individual whom you are so ready to legislate your violence and suffering onto because you feel entitled to do so. You have no justification for said legislation and yet it is a part of your thinking, your attitude towards others. Why is this?

Now let me be clear, you have all the right to legislate against yourself anything you wish. What you do is yours, and yours alone. I have issues with your legislation against other free individuals.



Your (subtly) religious side can be seen here. Your preoccupation with the "interests" of an individual is a result of religion's preoccupation with the same thing - they call it the inherent "sin" of humanity. You have no logical reason to separate the interest of a violent action from the action itself as when one "wills something" (that is to say they "act") they are willing precisely that, "a something." They are both a part of the same whole - the action.
When one wills violence, even if there be a clause that states that they believe it will help that person, they are still willing violence. And violence has very predictable outcomes: pain, suffering, hurt, etc... So yes, everyone does attack with the interest to injure, at least, and kill, at most. There may be other interests as well, but these are always there as the action is not separate from the "willing."

Absolutely my example is absurd, yet I am merely following your logic and I demonstrated how such logic would end if followed. Your comment on the absurdity does not comment on my theory here, but rather on yours.



Again you speak as though you were endowed as the legislator of all humankind. You have no right to speak of desert. And furthermore, your logic is self-contradictory. You say that they "wanted to live and didn't deserve to be slaughtered." But the people who killed them want to live too, and by their logic they don't deserve to be slaughtered (which is probably why they slaughtered in the first place). And now you want vengeance, naturally because once you decide who deserves to live and die you want vengeance for all those who died wrongly. You can see how it is circular logic as your decision of who lives and dies is arbitrary and subjective, and your idea of who died wrongly is also arbitrary and subjective.
Your logic is bound to end in death and destruction; I know this because your logic is the same as those you denounce as guilty, bad, and evil.

-- August

Monte:


You will take or not take that action should that situation arise. There is no one who can tell you whether or not you should take that action - there is no "way" to speak of. There is only what is. In such a situation it is up to you to decide whether or not to hurt that person, and you will do so and justify your decision to yourself. My position is that you (or anyone) cannot know all ends to every situation and so it is not wise to resort to violence (we know the outcomes of violence and they are not enjoyable) without contemplation. Now we are all quick to judge and declare when violence is acceptable and when it is not, but given the nature of violence I think it is only rational to conclude that violence is never acceptable.

But what is acceptable and what is not is talk, not action, and therefore I personally cannot tell you what I would do in such a situation for I would decide then what my action would be; perhaps it would be violent, perhaps not. All life is choice, you choose what you bring about in the world around you. I see each individual as often having the choice between violence and non-violence and they chose the former. It is no wonder then why there is so much pain and suffering in the world: people choose there to be so.

-- August

Yes but you further defined the meaning; as I said outside of what the definition entails.



This speaks to the failure of communication in the confines of human limitations but we all make decisions on what we know and if we do not act as we see others needs, we are hardly any meaningful society but rather solitary individuals soon to perish. I might add that you are arbitrarily removing violence from the list of acceptable human interaction, where an act of compassion can also harm others (take the historical example of a village in Europe dying from plague because someone offered lodging to a blanket salesman).
Again, we have the limitations of our human knowledge but if we do not act with the intention to help, we likely wont.



Your non-interaction allows suffering you might have prevented. If you do not understand the issue you should perhaps not interact but to assume you cannot know enough to chose violence is absurd. We might as well revert to the position that one cannot know anything and life is unverifiable; so what is the point?



Yes, inform the person who is in the act of running in front of a car to stop. You do understand that matter has the property of not instantaneously losing all kinetic energy right? Try the experiment of running as fast as you can, then during the act try to stop within 2 or 3 feet.
If you do not violently intercede, this person will be injured, that is the example.



What you "see" has nothing to do with my argument and I make no such assumption. The examples have a relatively simple idea behind them: whether it is a person of society in general you act within the best of your ability to save people from suffering (using violent means or not).



Your usage of assumption is unfounded. I've made statements on knowledge based on observation. Yes, I predict the future and act to prevent what most logically fits as harmful results.
Your argument is the insane one actually. If all predictions are limited and we jump to that conclusion that acting will likely cause harm, all we can do is re-frame from taking any action.



What? So I should hope that all the cars swerve out of the way? I should not act on the basis that the situation might resolve itself?

No, I'd rather injure someone than allow a circumstance where I am fairly sure they will die or be very severely injured. I am confident enough in my judgment to act as I would want anyone else to do for me in any such dire circumstance (EX. I would want Monte to intercede and stop the gunman from shooting me).



Sounds good. I've acted to save another person's life, No apologies or regrets.



I am astonished that you fail to see just how unjustified your stated position has been to this point. I am representing your position to the best of my understanding and I do so as such because this is the best parallel I can draw. I've asked for elaborations and reason but all I've received are absolute positions.



Then we are speaking similarly, with the exception of your taking violent action off of the table.
At the point a situation is escalated to violence, you either accept violence or intercede with violent means. You chose non-action.



They shape the world every day and make the items around us all.
People bring other people into existence as well and they program them through methodical process. You seem to be making my point.

If you want to discuss this issue further, I suggest a new thread.



Yeah, it isn't that easy. This would make a good thread in Philosophy as well. You are again shaping the definition of freedom by your view and in the processes, defeating the meaning.



Wrong. I take actions every day that I would rather not but I do so for the result I estimate will be ultimately most beneficial to myself and others.



Wrong. If you violently imped violence, you have impeded violence. Violence is in this instance not for its own sake but for the sake of less suffering. Internal violence is a rational response when called for by external violence.



I've said nothing of ownership. I only claim responsibility to help others.
I am a reasoning person and yes, I as well as others decide what peace can be bestowed upon others. Again, I make no apologies for acting to help others, unintentional results or not. I will not wash my hands of the suffering of others just to say I did no harm. Not helping can result in harm and as far as I am concerned, can be a harmful/uncompassionate decision all the same.



I have explained this in length now. I have an entire system of reasoning to support my action or lack of action in any situation. What does "attitude" have to do with this at all?



I take no action against others without reason. If a person infringes on another, I claim the right to intercede as well as acting to stop perceived undue suffering.



How am I preoccupied? As I've said, I act to stop or prevent the suffering of others when possible. Intent is simply my reasoning. I would only act violently to help people and yes intent is definitive in my reasoning.

Your continued assertions that my reasoning is illogical are unfounded. I've given you my reasoning repeatedly and in length.



Have you never taken an action that caused you pain but ultimately resulted in a positive outcome for you?
Ever push yourself exercising and feel pain but ultimately improve your capability?



No, you are representing an ideal outcome that benefits your absolute position. You are in the process entirely distorting my example.



I am a person and as such make decisions that effect others. Yes, I make decisions that impact others and I am fine with attempting to help people. I've said nothing about retribution or deciding who lives.

This statement is utterly detached from anything I've said. By far this is the most ridiculous statement of yours I've ever read... wait, you go on.



I don't believe in evil or labeling people “bad.” You've pulled this out of your ass and have officially left the plain of this argument.

EM,

Calm down. There is no good reason to let this get heated.

AW,

Your use of the slippery slope fallacy in this thread has been tedious to read over and over again. You have failed to demonstrate how one act of self-defense can lead a society full of people to each others' throats.

And I do not believe you have really addressed the questions I asked of you. How do you defend the security of individuals if you will not actively prevent such crimes as one person abusing another for personal benefit, enjoyment, etc.? How are you not encouraging violence in society by allowing a criminal to get away with raping or killing another human being merely for his own enjoyment?

You keep generalizing the discussion to society at large, which is mainly composed of people who are compassionate and non-violent and generally mentally stable. This discussion has been about sociopaths... can you please stick to these exceptional cases?

Sorry. Being labeled insane, illogical, assumptive, mindlessly violent etc. eventually gets under my skin; especially when I've advocated nothing of the sort and have explained every last answer I've made to every question.

MiN and EM:


Sure there is, I'm openly challenging his philosophy of life. And I have no problem with EM getting heated, it is natural to get angry when someone challenges your beliefs, especially if that person has done so in a less-than-completely-respectful manner as I have done, and I apologize for that.



Well then, I shall attempt to do so now. I see things in the following way:
There are people, and people interact with each other. As an individual, a person like all others, I do not like to be hurt, pained, beaten, raped, tortured, etc... and so I assume most, if not all others, don't like the same things. Therefore I, in my actions and daily life, refuse to bring these things about as best as I can. If someone acts violently towards me, I do not reciprocate violence. You may ask why? Because this person is just like me. They may have issues and reasons why they want to hurt me, but they know not what they do. They do not fully understand the scope of their actions and so I will not hold them responsible for them - I will forgive them. And so I bring more peace into the world with my forgiveness, just in that little action I have brought peace.

Now, contrary to this position is that it is acceptable to be violent should one rationalize it to a certain extent. "This guy hit me and wants to hurt me, he will if I do not defend myself, so I will fight back." So now one acts violently and fights the other person - one has brought more violence into the world. No peace has been achieved. You think that guy will go home and say "wow, I really should stop fighting people because that guy beat me up real bad?" No, he gets better and goes and fights more because that's all he knows.

Now if everyone held the philosophy that it is acceptable to hurt people in defense of oneself/another then here's how it would play out (I repeat, this is simple logic):
Person A hurts person B (this is the first act of violence)
Person C, seeing that person B is being hurt, hurts person A
Person D, seeing person A, B, and C fighting, steps in to help those whom person D believes are innocent/did not start the fight
Person E, etc...
This is the simple, logical outcome of the philosophy stated above in bold. You now have everyone fighting because everyone else was being hurt and they felt it acceptable to hurt other people in defense of others. And if you value human life, well-being, etc... then it is insane to hold such a philosophy as it actively promotes violence against people thereby reducing their well-being.

Furthermore, I have noticed several remarks about it being acceptable to use violence to bring about well-being at a later time. I believe this is due to several reasons:
1. The use of the present moment of one's life as a means to another moment. I find this reason to be a manifestation of the objectification of oneself (one can only use an object), as well as the use of one's life as a means to an end and not as an end in itself.
2. Perverted logic. Violence is the antithesis of peace. Therefore it is impossible to achieve peace through violence.
3. The inability to recognize that the future - the state of affairs which we wish to see manifested (a classless, stateless, peaceful society) - is created right now. Therefore, again my logic, if you want peace then live it - bring peace into your world right now. You want and end to racism/sexism, then don't be a racist/sexist. I'm sure you all would agree to the latter statement and would respond that you are not racists or sexists. I have no reason to doubt this, and so I am left wondering why not do the same with peace?

My logic is extraordinarily simple and coherent. There is nothing complicated about my philosophy of non-violence. I have done my best to summarize it in the above paragraphs and I hope it is clear.

-- August

AW,



Well, I am glad you see how you deserved that from him. Still, I am disappointed in him for bringing the intellectual bar down a bit in this conversation, even if only temporarily.

Now, onto more important matters:



Congratulations, you are a well-adjusted human being. And I mean that with no sarcasm, just so you know. Your compassion, your empathy, and your rationality are all intact in your worldview. If the human population was made up of six billion people as privileged and stable as you, we might just have ourselves a utopia.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. You even seem to recognize this above, where you note that you assume "most" (not all) of the human race share your adjustment. The issue in this thread is how do we deal with people who, lacking compassion, empathy, and or reason, may be a threat to other human beings. In fact, the preceding sentence could be considered a working definition of a sociopath.

Your criteria of peaceful response can be effective to someone close to or as stable and well-adjusted as yourself. But what you seem to fail to take into account is that an unreasonable person cannot be reasoned with. A person with inhibited compassion or empathy usually cannot be swayed by an appeal to said compassion or empathy.



That last line is a hell of an assumption, one I believe which goes to the root of the irrationality of pacifism. Pacifists have often been crushed by a threat they refused to answer, simply because they assumed their attackers had the same regard for human life that they do. That can prove to be a fatal mistake, when one is caught in the crosshairs of a serial killer or a neo-Nazi.



Take that line with a serial killer or a neo-Nazi, and what will happen? They will kill you, and gleefully so since you let them get away with it without a scratch. They are now free to run off (yes, run, not limp) to their next victims. Your refusal to try to stop them not only enabled them to end your life, but has enabled them to attack again.



Not necessarily. There is a glimmer of possibility that in suffering that pain, the attacker could have his compassion/empathy restored. "Wow, this really hurts." Not that I would hold my breath for such a thing, but it is possible.

More likely, a person who only understands the power of violence may be deterred from attacking again by the promise of retaliation. A neo-Nazi may never recognize the rights of a black man, Jew, or "race traitor", but the threat of getting beaten by an anti-racist mob might still keep the neo-Nazi from menacing or attacking anyone. Never underestimate the power of the drive to self-preservation, even in the mind of a sociopath.



That is the second time you have written that out in this thread, and it was no more effective than the first time. That was your worst use of the slippery slope fallacy in this discussion. The principle of self-defense is embraced by virtually all (if not all) cultures in the world. And yet, there is not rampant violence in every world culture. Yes, there is a lot of violence, but it is accounted for by a multitude of other factors (poverty, desperation, imperialism obviously...). In places like Western Europe and Japan, where those other factors are minimal, violence is increasingly rare. Those are historical and cultural cases against your argument.



I am not sure that was directed at me, though I have made one compelling argument in that direction. Namely, stopping a sociopath NOW will prevent violence in the future. Specifically, his violence.



There is no question about that. Your logic is actually too simple. I am afraid that you enjoy the absolutism of philosophy too much. I prefer to live in the real world, which ethics are made of a million shades of gray. Philosophies which shape and affect the real world only become applicable when they "complicate" themselves appropriately.

People challenge my views everyday and I accept that. To be clear, what bothers me in a discussion is both disrespect for my person and/or the integrity of the arguments put forth. You have attributed false claims to my position and after I had explained that as not true many times. At that point I allowed my emotions to get the best of me.

I accept your apology and now we can bring the bar back up.



Peace is not a physical manifestation. Peace is a way of life, as in “living in peace.”
When you are acted upon violently, peace is ended and you are involved in violence (whether you like it or not). Restraining yourself from acting in no way affirms peace but instead allows violent acts to be committed with impunity.



Sanity means recognizing the existing conditions in the world and reacting in a rational way. It would then follow that a sane reaction to violence would be one that would stop or dissuade violence. Pacifism does not neither. In terms of sanity, pacifism fails; so perhaps your challenge of sane vs. insane positions is the wrong proving ground.

Secondly, self defense (SD) does not promote violence in any way (only utilizes it) because violence is a pre-existing clause to SD. Self defense is:

1) Personally - a deterrent, the threat of counteraction or a disabling act, when violence is applied

2) Socially - a means to end/intercede violent assaults or general violent circumstances



Any rational system of ethics is based on conditions, not absolute truths (a moral code). It is ethical to set fire to a field for controlled burning but not to destroy the food of a community, just as hunting can be ethical for sustenance but not just to kill.

Likewise, violence is ethical to protect oneself when peace is broken by others.



Your logic has a direct contradiction here. You said that:

"As an individual, a person like all others, I do not like to be hurt, pained, beaten, raped, tortured, etc... and so I assume most, if not all others, don't like the same things."

If you are correct on the second account, your evaluation of my logic is incorrect. If people do not wish to be hurt, they will not engage in violence without substantial motivation. Thus the deterrent factor of self defense. You seem to assume that everyone using violence wishes to assault others and obviously this is an absurd assumption.



One's life is a means to an end (this is probably a thread onto itself). If you intend to accomplish anything in life, you must continue to live. Therefore, others cannot be allowed to end your life process.



Here is where you are fundamentally wrong. Peace is a way of life, just as matter exists in space. Space is not the antithesis of matter but is without it. Matter can be dangerous speeding through space (like bullets) but the solution is shielding (metal probably), which is also a form of matter. Should these dangers not exist, shielding would be unnecessary but under the conditions, we need shielding to survive in space.



That is what you fail to see; We do. Violence is used in defense, for the preservation of self and thereby peace. Again, you cannot have peace if you are dead. Peace does not persist if those that advocate it commit pacifistic suicide. When violence is unfettered, it flourishes. As you've said, violence begets violence and yielding to violence does not end that process. Fighting back applies a barrier to violence and living peacefully establishes that you do not need violence when you are not threatened by others. Pacifism is thus self defeating/disparaging, because when someone is killed or injured in allowing violence, people see that violence has prevailed. The will to hurt has been unchallenged and allowed to dominate.

So EM asked me to return to this thread. I'll quote myself because it's quite a long time ago:


I sounded so... Christian..

Here's what I said more recently about punishment on RevLeft:


I think that's pretty apt.

As for the non-violence bit, I don't support a staunch non-violence stance on any issue. Peace is a goal towards which all sections/factions of all ideologies inevitably work towards - even Nazis seek peace, they merely have an extremely different idea of what 'peace' means. Yet peace is not a tool, as far as I can see. It is not a means, though some might claim it to be. It is an end towards which all 'progress' and 'advancement' moves inherently and some mistake the end for the means as I had done previously. The means to reach the end is undefined as all means are - the means changes with the context and content of any given situation and only one who can adapt to these changes, one who is comfortable with the fluidity of reality, will be able to achieve the end.

- August