(no subject)
Hmm, what to write?
Perhaps some philosophy. Or at least, pseudo-philosophy. I was having a fascinating debate with a fellow American some time ago about pacifism. It came up when I mentioned my studies in martial arts. His position was that violence was ultimately immoral. That even though self-defence is justified, it is still wrong. I will list his arguments point by point, and record my responses-
1) Self defence is immoral, because if you beat off your attacker, they will go take out their frustrations on someone else. Instead of fighting someone who fights you, you should try and get away. It takes two to have a fight.
My response came in three sections-
i) They won't go and take out their frustrations on someone else. If they've just been beaten up by someone they felt confident they could handle, their confidence *will* be shaken. They will be *less* likely to attack someone else, for fear of that someone being as capable as me.
ii) I am not responsible for their actions. I have the responsibility for my own personal safety. If they choose to go beat up someone else, it is on their head not mine.
iii) 'It takes two to fight', and 'you should try to get away' are two statements that clearly show a lack of understanding of the nature of combat. It is very, very difficult to get away from someone once they've decided to fight you, usually because they'll have grabbed/trapped you before you realise what's going on.
Further, there is no way to defend yourself from attack without attacking back. There's a word for that-it's called 'surrendering the initiative', and every general in history who has tried it has lost. To avoid injury, you have to win or escape. To win or escape, you must defeat your opponent enough to create space to get waway. To create enough space, you have to cause them sufficient injury to make them stop attacking you. If there was another way to do it, we would have found it.
Basically, only someone with no knowledge or experience of violence would make either of those statements. And someone with no knowledge or experience of violence should not be lecturing those who do.
Furthermore, I turned the argument back on him. That's right, I said pacifism is immoral. Why? Because at the end of the day, if you don't want to defend yourself, that's up to you. You have the right to let yourself be raped/robbed/killed.
But what if you saw someone else being raped/robbed/killed, and there were no police around? Would you fight to protect them? Or would you be a pacifist and let them suffer for the sake of your own conscience?.
He didn't answer that.
Perhaps some philosophy. Or at least, pseudo-philosophy. I was having a fascinating debate with a fellow American some time ago about pacifism. It came up when I mentioned my studies in martial arts. His position was that violence was ultimately immoral. That even though self-defence is justified, it is still wrong. I will list his arguments point by point, and record my responses-
1) Self defence is immoral, because if you beat off your attacker, they will go take out their frustrations on someone else. Instead of fighting someone who fights you, you should try and get away. It takes two to have a fight.
My response came in three sections-
i) They won't go and take out their frustrations on someone else. If they've just been beaten up by someone they felt confident they could handle, their confidence *will* be shaken. They will be *less* likely to attack someone else, for fear of that someone being as capable as me.
ii) I am not responsible for their actions. I have the responsibility for my own personal safety. If they choose to go beat up someone else, it is on their head not mine.
iii) 'It takes two to fight', and 'you should try to get away' are two statements that clearly show a lack of understanding of the nature of combat. It is very, very difficult to get away from someone once they've decided to fight you, usually because they'll have grabbed/trapped you before you realise what's going on.
Further, there is no way to defend yourself from attack without attacking back. There's a word for that-it's called 'surrendering the initiative', and every general in history who has tried it has lost. To avoid injury, you have to win or escape. To win or escape, you must defeat your opponent enough to create space to get waway. To create enough space, you have to cause them sufficient injury to make them stop attacking you. If there was another way to do it, we would have found it.
Basically, only someone with no knowledge or experience of violence would make either of those statements. And someone with no knowledge or experience of violence should not be lecturing those who do.
Furthermore, I turned the argument back on him. That's right, I said pacifism is immoral. Why? Because at the end of the day, if you don't want to defend yourself, that's up to you. You have the right to let yourself be raped/robbed/killed.
But what if you saw someone else being raped/robbed/killed, and there were no police around? Would you fight to protect them? Or would you be a pacifist and let them suffer for the sake of your own conscience?.
He didn't answer that.