I would fight for anyone that was being victimized. If that means debating or physical violence, then so be it.
I have fought to defend myself and my family on multiple occasions. I have never enjoyed physical violence. Almost every time action was required, I tried to talk things down, most of the time I did so successfully. I have run from fights where nothing was to be gained beyond keeping a macho appearance. Everytime that violence was required I have stepped up to it.
Once I had to run into a house and stop two teenage boys from killing their mother. I heard her screaming for help as I was walking past the house. The front door was open so I went in and ran upstairs where they were. The older son was punching her and telling the younger son to get a knife so he could "finish her off" I took down the older one, (17 or 18 years old I would guess) and then told the younger (14-15 years old) to sit down or I would have to hurt him too. No further violence was required.
If presented with the same situation again, I would do exactly the same thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
Why? I understand why people are willing to use violence in defense, but not the criticism of pacifism.
|
I can understand the draw of being a pacifist. It sounds good when your sitting comfortably in a "safe" world.
What I don't understand is deciding, that when confronted with the choice between letting an innocent person be killed or stopping the attacker why a person would choose to simply allow the "good" person to die. To me, it looks like a coward trying to cover his cowardice with a pretty picture.
However, I haven't had the chance to talk to a pacifist and ask them the kinds of questions to be able to understand their stance. If a pacifist would be willing to start a new thread on why they can justify standing aside, I would be interested in reading and getting to understand the reasons.