How To Deal With "Peace" Activists...

[SpyGuy]

Found this on a newsgroup and thought I'd share it here. Beneath the humor, there is a very real logic to this advice. If only we could put such common-sense rules into action without fear of arrest or lawsuits. Hmmm, maybe if we just said we were exercising our freedom of expression...

The 8 Rules Of Etiquette on dealing With "Peace" Activists...

With the advent of the recent terrorist attacks on the US and the ensuing military actions against terrorism, many of us will encounter "Peace" activists who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001. These activists may be alone or in gatherings. Unfortunately, most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political, to religious, to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is totally unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they are doing for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. As a Nation, we have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

 

[Kaylee]

Posted a couple times here.

I have to admit, I do agree with the underlying philosophy, if not the way of proving it. Does sound like gratifying stress relief sometimes though..

Still.. here's the counter-argument:
The counter-argument

I'm curious what y'all think of it?
(warning, you WILL want a bath after visiting that site)

-K

(PS -- my take on it.. their approach relies on your opponent both to have a conscience, and to listen to it before you expire.. not a bet I'd care to make.)

 

[maxinquaye]

Rubbish.

Interesting counter argument.

Worked pretty well for the Jews in WWII didn't it - Unless the Allied forces had shown up and hit the Axis hard, on the nose, repeatedly, they would all have been exterminated.

This counter argument is dependent on either:
a. The "Bad Guy" having both a conscious and an epiphany or
b. Another influence (i.e. world opinion (a la apartheid), or a protector bigger then the bully) who will step in.

Just like most pacifists, this one does not recognize the basic estrangement of people and populations. Does not recognize that sometimes (most of the time) violence will continue until there is nothing left to violate or force is used to put a stop to it.

The simple reality is that there are some people who have respect for others, and will pursue their own ends while maintaining that respect for their neighbors. There are others who will pursue their own ends as far as they can using whatever means they can. Force (or the threat thereof) is the only thing that keeps the latter in check. Without that counterpoint, there will always be someone to step in and step on everyone else.

Man is estranged by nature. Always has been, always will be.

 

[Mute]

The counter argument is flawed because by the 5 or sixth repeated beating it is more likely the conservative will walk away not in shame, but simply because the IIQ (idiot in question) would be out cold thus proving our point after all. We had the last word (or punch if you wil).

 

[The Plainsman]

The biggest flaw in the counter-argument regarding the civil rights movement, is that an outside influence injected itself into the argument - the federal government in the form of troops, marshalls, FBI, etc. THEY hit back (or were prepared to hit back).

One of the sources cited on the liberal web site is Ghandi. The only reason HE won is because world opinion and ultimately, British opinion at home caused the withdrawal of British force.

As long as PEOPLE are in charge of this world, there will always be a "strong" man/woman (with NO conscience) who is willing to use force to get their own way. The ONLY solution, ultimately, is to use sufficient counter-force or demonstrate an ability and a willingness to do so. What the hell do these folks think the "Cold War" was all about?

 

[5-Ocelot]

The polarized debate between the pro-war and anti-war camps is a rather interestering and shows some telling things about the American character,. The other day my wife and I were watching a hockey game on TV. Two hockey players got in a fight, each one grabbing the jersey of the other in the left hand and pummeling the face of the other with the right hand. It was absolutely hilarious. Obviously the one who hit the hardest and didn't mind getting hit was going to win the fight. One of them started the fight and it is only fair to punch back, after all. Let us call this option A.

Now imagine that one of them is a nonviolent hockey player. He gets hit until he goes down, or until the ref blows the whistle. For example, Hitler punched Jews all he wanted and no ref blew the whistle. Ghandi and MLK Jr. made sure the guy with the striped uniform was watching them get punched silly. Their refs were the British and American populous, respectively. Non-violence is a tactic for weaker parties to prevail over stonger ones when the ref is watching. As far as the fight itself, it doesn't matter if the weaker party fights back or not. He knows he's gonna be creamed. The idea is to make the other guy look bad for having creamed him. Let us call this option B.

But there is another alternative. The first hockey player punches the other, who says, "ow, man cut it out." The first guy gets off on punching people so he winds up for another hit. But instead of standing there taking it on the nose, the second guy sidesteps the next punch and flips the guy onto the ice. Maybe he lands him in a nice comfy pain compliance hold for style points. Then he asks him politely if he is ready to play nice. Say the hothead starts yelling death threats at this point. Now the wise hockey player has made it so that the guy cannot physically manage to touch him while he can do pretty much what he likes to him. Welcome to option C.

Most Americans like Option A fights -- lots of blood, no real technique. A few think they take the moral high ground by choosing Option B. (In fact, all they're doing is admitting their lack of gym time.) I propose that Option C is the preferable one. We use the enemy's strength against him. He defeats himself.

Easier said than done, of course. I've got some ideas what Option C might look like in this situation, but that's another post.

 

[ctdonath]

The counter-argument. I'm curious what y'all think of it?

The upside of the counter-argument is that sometimes the opposition can take a lot more punches than the puncher can dish out. Sometimes sheer will for non-violence works.

The downside of the counter-argument is that the author assumes the pacifist can take that many punches and has a strong enough will to endure it. Most can't.

Ask the author how the social dynamics change if the fist is replaced with a gun.

The only thing that truly works in the author's favor is, as mentioned earlier, is the presence and attention of a referee (be he cop, feds, or world opinion) with enough influence to stop the puncher.

 

[pax]

The only thing that truly works in the author's favor is, as mentioned earlier, is the presence and attention of a referee (be he cop, feds, or world opinion) with enough influence to stop the puncher.

Which, of course, just moves the whole argument back to square one and up one level.

pax

If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -- George Carlin

 

[OJ]

Orwell was right -- A PACIFIST IS A PARASITE!!!

 

[Benjamin]

On the subject of the counter argument....it's factually incorrect. Bull was able to beat the drek out of people - the only reason it stopped was because news media began publicizing it, and public opinion moved against him. If it had not been for that, he would have almost certainly continuted to beat the drek out of marchers.


As to the argument, it is also flawed. In my experience, it is foolish to punch someone in the head. Two people have sprained or broken their hands doing so against me - and it does not hurt too badly. Solar plex, however, is a different matter.

 

[MP Freeman]

Big problem with the counter argument, as stated already, is the pacifist relying upon a stronger third party to act in their behalf.

I know a man in my church you is from Pakistan. He moved his family to Kuwait about five years ago and his family's lives were threatened because he was christian. He fled back to Pakistan. In Pakistan his extended family started coming up dead. All under the blessing of the Government because it's legal to kill someone for Blasphemy. Being non-muslim is considered Blasphemy. So he had no-one to protect him. To make a long story short, he finally fled here after the he got tired of the mobs chasing his wife through Islamabod. Pacifism did not work to save his family, he says that he's been in several "to-the-death" encounters but will not elaborate further, other than to say it was purely self-defense. But pacifism or non-self-defense did not save anyone's life. He could not rely on anyone other than his own ability. Hearing this man's stories makes me burn with anger towards the pacifist.

Here's the terrorist's counter-counter-argument.

1. Kill the first person who disagrees with you.

2. Kill the next.

3. Repeat.

This is the methodology concerning our particular situation with terrorism. Terrorists will not punch. They will kill. There is no getting back up from murder. These pacifists are not fully aware of the enemy and his tactics. This is not just an ideological disagreement, this is a "holy WAR!" A to-the-death situation. People aren't chanting "punch America in the nose.", they are chanting "DEATH to America." in the middle-east. We should not bring brass knuckles to this gun-fight.

However, the original method concerning how to deal with pacifist is wrong. Dealing with a pacifist and a terrorist are two different situations. Terrorists must be dealt with via overwhelming violence and force. Pacifists should be dealt with via earplugs and patience.

Regards,
MP

 

[tyme]

Referees have jurisdiction over the offender. Not even the U.N. has jurisdiction over afghanistan, and afghanistan doesn't care what anyone else thinks of it.

Benjamin, have you been hit in the temple? I thought that was not only effective, but dangerous and perhaps lethal to the target.

 

[Benjamin]

No, not the temple. Forehead, in what must be a particularly thick spot. I also believe that neither had made their fist properly.