Not for me, it isn’t. I havenever been able to fight, as far as I can remember.
For reference, please see post #10.
And #11, 12, 26, 31, 32, 41, 51, 58, 73, 84, 129, 157, 169, 179, and 184.
edited to add: I would certainly try to pull the person trying to harm my child away, or stand between my child and a knife or gun. I cannot kill for any cause, but I am more than willing to die for a cause.
Just because you haven’t doesn’t mean you can’t. Maybe if someone was murdering your kid in front of you, you might get off your ass and do something.
Why in the world do I need to review any of those posts? I am quite clear on your position and only pointed out the obvious. I am not going to play the wide eye innocent game of pretending that stating you won’t (can’t) knock the living shit out of someone attacking your kid isn’t an outrageous statement that is bound to pull a shocked respond from your audience.
People can complain all they want about the answers, but the questions in this thread generally suck. If the OP had posted that he was a vegan, he’d doubtlessly get these sort of lame queries:
"Do you eat hamburgers?’
“What about small hamburgers, like sliders?”
“Do vegans eat butter?”
“OMG, how do you eat corn without butter?”
“Life isn’t worth living without butter. How can you live with yourself?”
“Why do you think you’re so superior because you don’t eat bacon?”
“Wait, he doesn’t even eat BACON? It’s so yummy!”
An inability to realize that pacifists don’t support violence, and repeatedly testing the truth of that statement, is as inane as a failure to understand that vegans don’t eat animal products. Disagree if you will, but there’s no excuse for a failure to understand the basic definitions of words. Plus, there’s really no call for the insulting sentiments thrown at the OP. He’s here to answer questions, not be a punching bag for your opposition to his views.
I’m quite sure the audience is getting quite bored with different people asking versions of the same question over and over and over again, getting the same answer over and over again, then waiting for the next person to ask the same question instead of accepting the answer already given and moving on. There is no other answer to be gotten from me when it comes to the “But what if your (fill in loved one) was being harmed? Huh? Huh?” question.
He knew that saying he wouldn’t crack the skull of a maniac attacking his helpless and dependent kid would bring some amazed responses. Doesn’t make him a punching bag to receive a normal response to an outrageous statement. True pacifists expect an amazed response to some of their views and should be willing to respond if they start an ask the pacifist thread.
ETA: Czarcasm, Well, I didn’t ask the question. I pointed out the obvious answer for a poster who did ask. So pointing me to a bunch of posts to review was just nonsense.
Don’t and can’t are two different things. If a vegetarian said he physically couldn’t eat a piece of chicken nugget (and never could), even with a gun held to his child’s head, I think most people would think its bullshit.
The fact that you are surprised at an unchanging answer to a question asked multiple times is the only thing I find amazing here.
Comparing a psychological block to harming others to refusing to eat a chicken nugget? This is the best comparison you could come up with?
Do I myself sound surprised , Czar? I’m only amazed that you are pretending to have not expected the initial amazed responses. I find this kind of blinking feigned innocence amusing and annoying at the same damn time. “If I should happen upon a psycho bashing my kid’s head in, I will struggle to hold down the enraged maniac whilst calling for help, vs. bashing his head in to end the attack… What is everyone looking at? Did I say something odd?”
It was Ravenman’s analogy. Vegetarianism is a choice. Maybe squeamishness isn’t.
Then quit dwelling on that part, and move on. I’m not the one repeatedly asking that question, so why don’t y’all get together and either berate me because I’m not answering questions to your satisfaction, or berate me for giving you answers you don’t like to the same questions asked over and over. Or, like I said at the beginning, you can just move on and ask something else.
K. What if you happen upon your baby bashing in the head of a homicidal murderer? What do you do??!!
Wake up, and vow to never fall asleep while watching “The Flintstones” again.
I wasn’t comparing Czarcasm’s pacificism to being a vegan.
I was comparing lame and repetitive questions to vegans to lame and repetitive questions to pacifists.
Plus, I find the “what would you do if someone held a gun to your loved ones’ head” question to be nothing but trite. Some percentage of people who might answer, “I’d go medieval on his ass!” would not react the way they think they would in a crisis, either because they realize it might make the situation worse, they might freeze, or they might start sobbing. Likewise, some percentage of pacifists might snap and start doing Israeli commando shit. The most honest answer is probably, “I don’t know what I’d do under the most stressful situation any human can imagine,” which isn’t all that far from what Czarcasm said. That’s not a provocative answer, that’s a refreshingly honest one.
I agree that is the most honest answer for most people. However, that is not his answer nor close to it. His answer, is no matter the situation, he is incapable of committing violence. That is the part we have an issue with.
It is the best answer I can give based on a lifetime of previous experience.
Fair enough, but then Ravenman must accept that others answer based on their own experience. If you can answer that you think you wouldn’t sock the sicko, others can assume that they would. Many parents have faced situations where they had to sacrifice their safety for their kid. Running into burning buildings, skipping meals so a child can eat, taking off a coat in the cold so a child won’t freeze, or jumping on top of a child to protect them when a threat is perceived… These kinds of things happen and most people are correct in their prediction that they will act to protect their kids in the swiftest and most complete way possible. This post isn’t really directed at you. I’m just jumping off your post to respond to Ravenman, who seems to think it is far fetched to believe that if I saw someone harming my child, I can predict my response pretty accurately at least as far as saying I will attack the threat.
Personally I think I might tackle somebody attacking a third party*, rather than look around for something to bash him in the head with. There are a number of other grappling techniques I could use. Assuming I don’t freeze, which is quite possible.
According to Rory Miller’s Meditations on Violence, the initial response to violence is not something you get to choose ahead of time. Many freeze, even when they are taking damage. High adrenalin situations are not common in our society, so many are maladapted to it, including more than a few recently hired prison guards. Combat paralysis has nothing to do with willingness to take damage.
Most caucasian American residents didn’t fight in the war. The Continental Army was pretty small. Those who believe that fighting for the revolution was an obvious choice at the time reveal ignorance of history. Recall that the bill of rights came much later, and was proposed after the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
- after making use of my voice, which would be step 1.