He’s your best friend. I assume you’d give him a pint of blood if he needed it. You’d lend him money. You’d be there for him in any other reasonable way that any good friend would be. Is it unreasonable to consciously decide to fight to help him? As a purely unselfish act.
I’m trying to understand this. I really am.
Then read the rest of the thread, where I explain my predicament over and over again.
I understand your predicament. I simply don’t understand the rational reason for it.
And I am saying that, if you actually understood my predicament, you would actually understand that there is no rational reason. It is hardwiring, it is a defect in my brain, it is something the rest of you seem to have that I seem not to have-whatever it is, it stops my from fighting back or even wanting to fight back.
Do you think it’s based in fear?
No, not really. I have gone into situations that I have a perfect right to be afraid of.
“Get rid of” = eliminate
(Too late to edit) As far as I can tell, I have always been this way. If something external caused me to be this way, it happened a long time ago.
Just give a gut reaction based on the limited information. Do you think she acted appropriately or not?
I don’t know if she acted appropriately.
Pretend you had to guess at an answer. Like if there were a gun held to your child’s head and all you had to do was decide.
Or do you think maybe you have a brain defect with regards to making imperfect decisions with regards to others in such situations?
Okay. I accept your explanation.
Follow up questions. Do you think it’s an asset or a liability? To you, to others in your life that depend on you or may have need of you to behave in a very protective/defensive/violent way? Do you think it’s worth pursuing the reason why you are this way? Do you think it’s something you might want to change about yourself?
I think the world would be a better place if people wouldn’t make snap judgments about others base on incomplete information, blind supposition and cheap tags, and I hope that you feel the same way. That is the only answer I will give that type of question, Kable.
I think that, in the long run, it might have been an asset. I have caused no fights, and I have talked a few others out of the need to fight.
Do you think the mother in the video made a snap decision and that the world would be a better place if she had hesitated?
yeah… I get it. While I am capable of acting violently (I was a bouncer in a pub while in college), I’ve done exactly as you describe because it was the far better alternative.
But sometimes, exceptionally rarely (one would hope), non-violence is not an option. So I ask again, do you feel that in the situation when violence is clearly the only available option (life and death as it were), do you still feel that your passivist/pacifist behaviour is an asset?
Depending on the situation, I would hope so but…sometimes what we think, what we know and what we hope are three entirely different things.
Drop it, Kable. The OP has made it clear what his answer is.
And if you want to debate the Second Amendment with him, please go do it in GD or the Pit.
Thanks,
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
True enough.
But as Kable’s question and mine appear to be converging on the same essential point… when violence is the only remaining option, is a non-violent response (regardless of justification/belief/pre-disposition)… justified?
Considering my current situation, I can only say I hope so. It is hard to think about hypothetical situations that involve elements that you just cannot identify with. Sorry.