If you start an “Ask the [blank]” and someone asks you that question, that’s a perfectly fine answer for you. But this thread has literally nothing to do with what you would do in such a situation, and I think there’s been a tendency in this thread toward a pile-on for no reason whatsoever.
It’s clear Czarcasm isn’t trying to get a rise out of people with his answers, and he has been remarkably consistent. Like on the first page, he wrote:
And then he’s asked the same question a dozen more times.
I think the quote from the first page is in plain language, and pretty damn close to how I summarized his position.
That’s not really the scenarios being given though. More like someone is beating your loved one with their fists and you are standing there holding a gun, refusing to act, or throwing the gun away as you run for help. Evil prevailing because good men do nothing and all that.
And you can’t think of any other solutions than to either shoot someone(endangering your loved one) or running away? What about pulling the assailant away from your loved one and allowing her/him to get away while you hold the perpetrator?
I can buy that Czarcasm wouldn’t bash the guy’s head in, but he’s already said he would fight him- even if he didn’t know it. If he pulls the guy away, the guy will fight back. Czar may not punch him, but he’s probably going to instinctively try and grab the guys arms/hands to prevent himself from being overpowered. That’s fighting. It’s not the best way to fight, in most circumstances, but it’s definitely fighting.
So, by his own statements, Czarcasm would fight the guy- he just wouldn’t fight to kill.
Arming me isn’t going to accomplish anything. If the perpetrator is armed, then hopefully my loved one gets away, and I don’t die from gunshot wounds. Like I said before: While there is nothing that I can kill for, there are causes that I would willingly die for.
Word games now? I’ve made it pretty clear what I mean by not fighting, but if you want to stretch the definition to “prove” me wrong, there’s not much I can do to stop you.
Your armed the perpetrator isn’t, and when you try and pull him away he’s going to take your gun from you and kill both you and your loved one, and who knows who else down the line.
Why would I be carrying a gun I wouldn’t be able to use? You keep trying elements into these scenarios that just don’t make any sense when it comes to my participation. I wouldn’t have a gun in my hand, so there would be no gun for him to take away. I told you how I would act in such an unlikely scenario-can we just move on now?
And is the aggressor dressed in a Nazi uniform? And is he smoking a cigarette near this defenseless child? And maybe he has no seatbelts in his car? And he ripped the tags off his mattress when he was told not to? And he was wearing white after Labor Day? And he killed Inigo Montoya’s father? And he heckles comedians in night clubs?
Come on, just add a few more conditions to a fabricated scenario, and I’m sure you’ll get the answer you want.
But could you play a sport like football or wrestling? Sure, superficially it is physical and violent but most people leave it on the field. After the game, the players can shake hands and be friends again. Everyone learns and grows from the experience. Would you think that worthy of participation?
I suspect not…but since I wasn’t allowed to participate in extracurricular activities(for reasons best left for another thread), that is the only answer I can give you.
The hypotheticals are just to show situations where force is necessary for the greater good. Those kinds of things do happen in real life. I gave a link to a pretty similar scenario earlier. Here it is again:
Getting back to the topic of this thread:
As I said before, I don’t participate in active protests as much because I’ve dedicated my off-work time to working at a local food pantry. In your opinion, does this somehow make me less of a pacifist?
