2 ms·
Adding to your point, here is another example: Would you assert that the people on United Airlines Flight 93 should have practiced non-violent resistance when
by Crito 13y ago
Adding to your point, here is another example: Would you assert that the people on United Airlines Flight 93 should have practiced non-violent resistance when the intent of their hijackers became clear?
Their use of violence against the hijackers was not pacifist, and because they were not pacifists many lives, arguably countless lives, were spared.
- meowface 13y agoThey did it out of self-defense (and also general defense). Violence from self-defense is completely different from retaliatory and/or "message-sending" violence.
- Crito 13y agoSure. I agree. Violence for self-defense isn't pacifism though. Pacifism is not "only use violence when it is justified". That you recognize that violence can be justified (for instance, in self-defense) means that you're not a pacifist. That is okay, most people are not. The author asserts that violence used to prevent additional violence is illogical. You and I both recognize that as false, as both you and I recognize the value that violence can have when it is used for self-defense.
- IgorPartola 13y agoBoth you and your parent comment are incorrect. Self-defense vs first strike becomes a gradient very quickly. And the biggest issue is that the person interpreting what happened is usually the one that used the violence. But back to the main point, there is a world of difference between "self-defense" and "violence used to prevent additional violence". Self-defense is immediate: someone is punching you, so you punch back. The other thing... it doesn't have to be. In my mind, self-defense is justified. But self-defense is defined as "have no other reasonable option", and thus is fairly narrow. If you can negotiate, if you can protect your interests by deterring the enemy, if you can eliminate the enemy without violence, by say sanctions, etc. then you have options and it's not self-defense. Also, self-defense is not the condition where violence is the best option. It's only self-defense when violence is the only option. Perhaps violence is justified when it's not self-defense, but I don't think you can call any first-strike "self-defense" in order to gain the high moral ground.
- Crito 13y agoGandhi implored the british to not defend their country, their homes, their families, or themselves. It's a stance against self-defense, something that is almost universally considered an acceptable time for violence.
- maaku 13y agoTo pick a nit, that is a strange meaning of the word "universal".
- precisioncoder 13y agoTibetan monks have attempted the same and due to differing circumstances they have lost. It's interesting how similar techniques offer varying success rates based on all the other factors at play.