Look, this has been hashed out in similar threads before. The British in India were not overly more civilized than any other colonial power.
And there’s a difference between the self defence argument I thought this thread was about, and the use of pacifism as a political tool. I can discuss either, but arguing against the one isn’t really an argument against the other. Especially since I don’t particularly agree with either Gandhi or King’s methods.
You can’t know that. No-one tried non-violent resistance of the organised type Gandhi and King advocated. Never mind the constant campaign of infrastructure damage and financial attack I would advocate.
So of course that’s the only strategy that could have worked:rolleyes:
The way to defeat the Nazis would have been not to roll over for them in the first place.
Pacifism is an excellent political philosophy that falls short when dealing with small number day to day interactions like crime. Mr Dibble, could you clarify a point for me? I’m unsure of your course of action. It seems you are saying that violence of any sort is always an ethical wrong. While I don’t fully agree with you on that, I’m more interested in the logical conclusion of that position. Are you saying that given an immediate threat to your person, you would simply accept a beating or die rather than defend yourself physically, or that while you WOULD defend yourself you would always view such defense as an ethical shortcoming on your part?
Yes. Well, no, I’d try everything else first - running away, bribes, loud shouting. And I’m certainly not going to just *take *a beating - I am reasonably au fait with blocks and locks.
Correction: I *would *defend myself, but not to the extent of actually directing action at the attacker. I would consider that a failing.
This is not a hypothetical for me - I have been the victim of violent attack on more than one occasion. Have only let down my principles once, I was 20 and drunk. Friend of mine got jumped by three guys outside a bar for “looking weird”, I jumped on one guy’s back and put him in a chokehold, which is a bit more violent than I would have gotten had I been sober. But I do consider it a failing, even if I was young and pissed.
While there are quite a few situations in which we wouldn’t legally require somebody to run away or surrender to a threat, practically speaking, there aren’t that many where it’s impossible to do so. So it isn’t signing your own death warrant, or even accepting a beating, to say that you aren’t going to inflict physical violence on somebody who wants to inflict some kind of harm on you. It’s just a question of priorities - getting away vs. retaliating, keeping your stuff vs. avoiding violence, pride vs. pacifism.
I’m pretty sure that if I ever found myself in a literal fight or die situation, I’d end up doing both in any event. But the moral philosophy behind the alternative is attractive to me, and I think those situations are very rare anyway.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to **prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; **and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
The “during the nighttime” limitation puzzles me. I suppose it’s part of the last few sentences (3A) about the belief that the property cannot be recovered (more difficult to see where he went during the night?).
Section 9.41 (referenced in the first sentence) covers using force to prevent trespass.
I’d shoot the shit out of someone if I was able to, instead of getting robbed. Why am I to assume that they won’t harm me after I give them what they want?
You fuck with me and I’ll damn sure try to stop you even if it kills you.
Deadly force is acceptable any time your ass or your loved one’s ass is on the line. It is also acceptable if property is or is about to be taken from you if the loss of that property would cause one’s ass to be on the line.
I stand corrected. Bloody hell. Was never going there, anyway, but this seals it.
Of course it does. There are other ways to stand up to someone, other than violence.
False dichotomy. And lack of facts - I know, for a fact, some of the people standing up to Hitler *were *pacifists. They just didn’t kill anyone to do it.
And FYI, there’s another current thread for discussions of Hitler and pacifism.
The op specifically asks: “when is deadly force justified”. You elected to voice your opinion in a thread that is nothing BUT straw man what-if arguments.
Then the brutal fucker in question bears full responsibility if someone else kills him in self-defense or in defense of an innocent third party. Thus, the pacifist objection to killing in self-defense disappears. QED.
