Violence for thee, but not for me

[flinch_of_gt]

In my encounters with various individuals, I've always been unable to come to terms with an apparent paradox. The same individuals who can't bear the thought of using violence (gun or otherwise) on an attacker, seem perfectly fine with delegating that task to the police. Aside from the fact that it's classic passive-aggressive behavior, it seems to be moral cowardice of the highest degree.

To my way of thinking, a person who calls 911 has as much culpability in the consequences as an individual who reaches for his/her defensive weapon. If Person A calls the police, and the responding officers kill the attacker, Person A should feel some grief–after all, their call started the chain of events that led to a death. It's no different if Person B grabs their personal defense weapon and pulls the trigger.

Is this a valid observation, or am I counting angels on the head of a pin?

 

[jimpeel]

No, you are simply stating moral culpability; which will be denied by anyone encountering it; to their own self delusion.

What of those who have called the police on a neighbor, for any variety of reasons, to have that neighbor ultimately put to death by the very people they called to alleviate the non-lethal problem?

What of those who, while denying you the means to defend yourself with a firearm immediately, instead seek to require you to wait for several minutes for men -- who have no duty to protect you, prevent a crime from being perpetrated against you, or investigate a crime that has been perpetrated against you -- to respond with firearms to defend you?

Moral culpabilty is a tough nut to swallow for most people.

 

[David Scott]

How about folks who object to hunting but don't mind sitting down to a steak from a steer that was pole-axed by some guy in Kansas City?

 

[coati]

I hope that showing my gun OR calling the police would diffuse the situation with no shots fired or violence. Many of those who oppose us having/carrying guns think that the only reason we have them is to shoot without a plan or consideration.

If I thought that my presence with a gun would make a situation worse, then I would call the police. If I could do the right thing, I would, and call police later.

Would I put out a leaf fire in my yard before calling the fire department? Yes. Would I try to stop a crown fire in the woods? No way.

 

[Ralf]

I got a degree and a niche in the corporation. I know how to do my job, but you'll have to ask around to find the right department to answer your question. I don't know anything about that.

or

I've got to get this story ready by 11:00; Hey! Who should I call at the University for the right (official-pc-What, me think?) answer? What time is it?

or

That's icky, I don't want to even think about it. My heart thinks less of you for bringing it up.

 

[WyldOne]

i don't think i'm fully understanding the entire meaning of "moral culpability". so my posts may not make much sense.

anyway

How about folks who object to hunting but don't mind sitting down to a steak from a steer that was pole-axed by some guy in Kansas City?

that would be me. i object to hunting but i eat meat. thing is, i don't ever try to force my dislike of hunting onto other people; and i really can't understand people who try to force their enjoyment of hunting onto me.

yes, i fully admit this is a contradiction on my part. but so? life is full of contradictions. maybe i'm failing to see the problem?

as to the original post, cops take the responsibility of potentially inflicting violence upon others (if need be; that was not meant to bash cops at all) when they sign up for the job. they make that choice. if someone decides that it's not for them, that they don't feel comfortable, using force against people (even if it is in self defense), why is it a paradox to call upon people who have made that choice to use force? and further, why would a paradox in this instance necessarily be bad? (i hope that made sense).

moral cowardice, i honestly don't think it's an outsider's place to lay judgment. it takes a heckuvalotta strength to resist violent tendencies (?? for lack of better phrasing??), than to live those tendencies out.

i'm in a rush; if any of that didn't make sense, just ask and i'll try to clear it up

 

[Marko Kloos]

That's always been my argument with antis early on in the debate:



What do you do when faced with violence?

I call 911.

What do you do when you call 911?

Summon the police?

You summon a person with a gun to do lethal violence on your behalf, if necessary.

So why is it ok for someone else to risk his life (and kill if necessary) to save your life, yet it's not ok for you to do so? Because your life is of immeasurable worth, yet his is only worth the salary you pay him?

If the antis were truly consistent in their "violence is always wrong" stance, they'd not even call 911.

 

[coati]

If the antis were truly consistent in their "violence is always wrong" stance, they'd not even call 911.

Clear thought. Well put.

Ralf:
Huh?

 

[Ralf]

My wife says the same thing.

Is my sarcasm really so opaque? OK I'll spell it out... Modern society is all about specialization. Individual A is not in charge of preservation.

Hey! Who the hell is in charge of self-preservation around here?!

Sorry, I can't seem to lose the sarcasm.

 

[coati]

Ralf,

Do-oh! Got it now. Wasn't expecting script format.

Opaque? Not in the right light.
Sharp? Yes.

 

[flinch_of_gt]

WyldOne, in your first example (againt hunting, but eating meat), you pointed that you don't force your dislike of hunting onto others. Not a paradox, IMO.

The paradox begins with person A who says, "I believe it's wrong to use violence" but calls 911 and expects Officer Friendly to whomp Mr. Bad Guy with a dead carp. If Person A truly believes that all violence is wrong, Person A will not allow others to use violence on his behalf. That is the essence of true pacifism, and the individuals who practice it should receive the highest praise.

Back to your point about not forcing your beliefs on others:
Many individuals in the gun-control movement *demand* that others render themselves helpless in the face of criminal attack. The argument is always wrapped in some degree of moral superiority: "I'm better than you because I won't use violence to defend myself." In a word: BS. If some Mongoloid thug broke into the home of Dianne Feinstein and announced he was going to squash her collection of gerbils, you can damn well bet that she'll be screaming at 911 to send someone to center-punch that SOB to eternity.

The rather unpleasant truth is that most of us believe that there are times when violence is the proper response to evil. When we dial 911, we expect and demand that the officers use as much violence as necessary to stop a criminal act. To claim that "I don't believe in violence" while summoning the police is hypocrisy at it's worst.

 

[Thairlar]

Sorry, but I don't think that's what Feinstein would do. You see, she'd use her legally obtained pistol to defend herself. Don't you know that her life is more important than the lives of us commoners. She's an influential senator that takes kickbacks from big corporations to pass laws that are favorable for them after all.

 

[Ledbetter]

Think about this

Pacifists are freedom's parasites.

In the same way, those who refuse to engage violent predators acting against themselves or their own families are leaving the job to someone else, so as to let that person be threatened or injured in their stead. They are parasites living off the efforts of those who actively contribute to public safety.

I don't care if you don't want to kill your own steak, but if your self-defense plan is to let violent criminals have their way with you, they might get the impression they can get away with it again and again and society might go all to hell.

Regards.

 

[WyldOne]

Pacifists are freedom's parasites.

how so? i don't think i followed your train of thought here....

 

[Quartus]

the individuals who practice it should
receive the highest praise.

???? I respect consitency, especially when being consistent means paying a price. But "highest praise" is a bit much for me.


As to they are considered parasites by some, it is because they enjoy (in this country, and for the most part) a peacable and safe existance for which others have fought and died. I see the point in calling them parasites - I think most are. Their convictions strong as as long as their lives and liberty are in no real danger. These are leeches.

I DO respect the few who would think and act the same even at the cost of their own life. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.

 

[WyldOne]

As to they are considered parasites by some, it is because they enjoy (in this country, and for the most part) a peacable and safe existance for which others have fought and died.

wait but....isn't that one of the main reasons that soldiers fight and die in the first place? so that others will be free to practice their beliefs in america?

 

[Don Gwinn]

Wyldone, he means that pacifists want all the benefits provided by those who fight for them--peace and the freedom to preach and practice pacifism--but they aren't willing to shoulder the burden of protecting those things themselves. There's a good essay by Heinlein on this somewhere; he refers to pacifism as a "shifty doctrine."
Of course, there are pacifists who would be willing to fight if they thought it necessary, but simply don't believe that fighting is ever necessary. Thus they decide there is never a need to fight.

I know you considered yourself a pacifist and changed your mind. I'd be interested to hear your take on all this. So far you have asked many questions and given no opinions, which probably means you're smarter than the rest of us.

 

[WyldOne]

i think i gave some opinions in my first post in this thread....but mainly i just don't know. i don't state opinions b/c i don't know what they would be, and b/c i know that, as of right now, any opinion that i hold is ill-informed and quite ignorant. my mission for this part of my life has changed to one of seeking and finding truth, whatever that may be and at whatever cost. so, that requires bazillions of questions andmuch pondering.

i did used to consider myself a pacifist; but now i don't even know if i really was one. i majored in "nonviolent conflict and change" and resisted every form of violence in my personal life. i lived (still do) with kindness toward everyone. but i did learn karate as a preferred method of self defense. would a pacifist do this? more to the point, i have always believed in the theory of "just violence", that a war can be justified if it is the people's only recourse to warding off oppression. a couple months ago i made the leap to accepting just violence on the personal level as well as the global level. this is how i accept that i or someone i know may have to take the life of another human being if i or someone else am endangered for my life.

i guess what i'm not understanding about this thread is that, if we are to be honest about what we think and what we know, life is absolutely full of contradictions. and i fail to see why this is problematic, as long as we realize that those contadictions exist.

 

[Thairlar]

I wouldn't consider someone who will defend themselves with force a pacifist. What comes to mind when I think of a true pacifist is Ghandi or a devout Quaker. Most true pacifists wouldn't even call upon someone else to use force on their behalf.

As for non-violent conflict resolution, that's a very useful tool for anyone to have. The best way to survive a violent encounter is not to have one. If you can use diplomacy to defuse a situation before it erupts, all the better. Martial arts are important too. I studied martial arts as a child and I've probably retained enough to still be useful if I were to need it. Someone trying to punch me wouldn't warrant deadly force on my part, but I would need to defend myself with like force. My gun comes into play if someone threatens me, or someone I know, with deadly force while in my presence with a means to carry out that threat. At that point, they'd best retract that threat before I align my sights on their COM. Otherwise the next move I make will be to pull the trigger.

As for people who talk about use of force being wrong but calling upon others to use force on their behalf, I honestly don't understand that mindset so I can't speak for their motivations.

 

[Ledbetter]

Difference between loving peace and pacifism

The others did a good job of explaining the "freedom's parasites" designation, which I did not make up myself. Leaving the violence necessary to defend freedom to somebody else is parasitism, regardless of your professed reasons. As was said, this doesn't include those like combat medics whose commitment to freedom is unquestioned and unquestionable.

I love peace. I am no pacifist. To paraphrase another famous saying, "If you love peace, prepare for war."

Regards.