Defense and violence

[Raynt]

Hey I was wondering peoples thoughts on when, if ever violence is acceptable. Now I know that sounds pretty bad, but please hear me out. I do believe it should only be used as a last resort and in a desperate situation. The only two situations that seem to have the potential to qualify for this to me are self- defense and defense of others.

Now the first is more clear- cut, so I will start with that. Suppose someone breaks into your house and you are left with no means of escape and they charge at you with a knife. Is it not acceptable to defend yourself in whatever means is necessary, even if it may cause significant bodily harm or death to the attacker if you see no alternative?

The second has been brought up before by Steve in his article about resolving conflict in the Middle East http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...bal-conflicts/. In it he argues that any sort of military intervention isn't the answer since it will just cause the conflict to continue to repeat itself through the cycle of revenge and counter- attack. He advises that the answer is a team to go and raise the level of consciousness of the leaders in the region so that the leaders could see that violence wasn't the answer. Yet, even he admits that this solution isn't viable today.

Now I'm going to jump to another hypothetical situation with clear- cut victims (I was going to use Darfur, but I stumbled on some very good reasons why the international community has been treading lightly around the issue). Suppose there is a region where the government is attempting to kill off minority ethnic groups and this is resulting in mass killings. Suppose further that the leader of the country is either insane or a person who holds absolutely no scruples against murder. Raising his consciousness would be next to impossible for anyone less than a person with an inhuman level of consciousness and in today's world I don't think we have anyone who quite fits that bill. So that leaves some sort of pressure or incentives to have his government stop the killings. For whatever reason this fails, maybe we have nothing he cares about one way or another or maybe his hatred of the groups he is targeting surpasses any sort of pressure we can bring to bear through this manner. I see no real options that would remain other than military intervention or waiting and watching while the people are wiped out. True, neither is a good option, but which is the lesser of two evils?

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Raynt

Hey I was wondering peoples thoughts on when, if ever violence is acceptable. Now I know that sounds pretty bad, but please hear me out. I do believe it should only be used as a last resort and in a desperate situation. The only two situations that seem to have the potential to qualify for this to me are self- defense and defense of others.

What about the defense of property? People shouldn't be taking things from others; if they do, they get punished.

Now the first is more clear- cut, so I will start with that. Suppose someone breaks into your house and you are left with no means of escape and they charge at you with a knife. Is it not acceptable to defend yourself in whatever means is necessary, even if it may cause significant bodily harm or death to the attacker if you see no alternative?

Why does it matter if you can escape or not. It's your home, your property, your right to defend yourself because you are being violated by an intruder. You should have the right to kill them even if they aren't armed. They shouldn't be breaking into your house in the first place. If we wait around to see what they're intentions are we're putting ourselves in danger. The courts agree with me here by the way in most states.

The second has been brought up before by Steve in his article about resolving conflict in the Middle East http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...bal-conflicts/. In it he argues that any sort of military intervention isn't the answer since it will just cause the conflict to continue to repeat itself through the cycle of revenge and counter- attack. He advises that the answer is a team to go and raise the level of consciousness of the leaders in the region so that the leaders could see that violence wasn't the answer. Yet, even he admits that this solution isn't viable today.

The solution isn't viable because the leaders are not persuadable. You can't talk to people who have been raised to think that killing you for no reason is their goal in life. Your only option is to kill them. It's sad, but it's reality.

Now I'm going to jump to another hypothetical situation with clear- cut victims (I was going to use Darfur, but I stumbled on some very good reasons why the international community has been treading lightly around the issue). Suppose there is a region where the government is attempting to kill off minority ethnic groups and this is resulting in mass killings. Suppose further that the leader of the country is either insane or a person who holds absolutely no scruples against murder. Raising his consciousness would be next to impossible for anyone less than a person with an inhuman level of consciousness and in today's world I don't think we have anyone who quite fits that bill. So that leaves some sort of pressure or incentives to have his government stop the killings. For whatever reason this fails, maybe we have nothing he cares about one way or another or maybe his hatred of the groups he is targeting surpasses any sort of pressure we can bring to bear through this manner. I see no real options that would remain other than military intervention or waiting and watching while the people are wiped out. True, neither is a good option, but which is the lesser of two evils?

It isn't about the lesser of two evils, it's about doing what is right. The right thing to do is to protect the people he is murdering. If military action is the best possible way to do that, military action should be used, period. There is no reason these irresponsible leaders should be allowed complete control of a country and that country's military. I am in favor of the U.S. assassinating half these dictators--their people didn't vote for them (or were forced to vote for them or face death) and the people are dying by the millions under their rule. Nobody deserves that.

Good post.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Raynt

Suppose someone breaks into your house and you are left with no means of escape and they charge at you with a knife. Is it not acceptable to defend yourself in whatever means is necessary, even if it may cause significant bodily harm or death to the attacker if you see no alternative?

It really depends on your own values.

If preservation of life is your greatest ideal, you'd preferably choose to let the person get away if you don't see a way to protect your property without harming the intruder. Things can be bought back, life is lost forever. But I think the most common reason for choosing this option is cowardliness.

However, by not accepting the burglary and defending yourself regardless of the consequences you are helping to prevent future burglaries.
In this case you are not only acting in favour of yourself, but also your community. These people deserve to be honored.

Originally Posted by Raynt

In it he argues that any sort of military intervention isn't the answer since it will just cause the conflict to continue to repeat itself through the cycle of revenge and counter- attack. He advises that the answer is a team to go and raise the level of consciousness of the leaders in the region so that the leaders could see that violence wasn't the answer. Yet, even he admits that this solution isn't viable today.

The problem is not only the leader's consciousness, but also that of their followers. A serious (but not necessarily military) attack from the outside on BOTH countries could possibly bring out a solution. The attack should push them to cooperate in order to survive. Not very likely to happen, though.

My intuition says the conflict in the middle east is too complex to be solved by negotiating leaders. There are probably a lot of other issues and powerstruggles playing - or jumping into existence - in the background (on both sides), that have not even been recognised. In order to come up with an intelligent strategy we will need to find out what these issues are, and how they relate to eachother. The solution should be designed into a process from a psychological point of view. I don't think this conflict is just a matter of sharing property.

[Raynt]

Originally Posted by KevinG

If we wait around to see what they're intentions are we're putting ourselves in danger. The courts agree with me here by the way in most states.

I didn't realize that until now. I had read a article on when Florida had passed it and assumed no other states had done so since then. If anyone is interested in the details here is a good link about it Castle Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Originally Posted by KevinG

The solution isn't viable because the leaders are not persuadable. You can't talk to people who have been raised to think that killing you for no reason is their goal in life.

True unfortunately, maybe if you found someone who both sides respected, but that seems like it would be very unlikely to succeed.

Originally Posted by KevinG

Good post.

Thank you .

Originally Posted by Bruno

However, by not accepting the burglary and defending yourself regardless of the consequences you are helping to prevent future burglaries.
In this case you are not only acting in favour of yourself, but also your community. These people deserve to be honored.

True, but you could call the police instead and assuming the burglars were still there in two minutes you would gain the same result, but it would be handled by trained professionals who might be able to avoid or minimize the robbers injuries. Even if the robbers did escape you would still deal them a heavy blow since you could provide the police all sorts of useful information.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It really depends on your own values.
My intuition says the conflict in the middle east is too complex to be solved by negotiating leaders. There are probably a lot of other issues and powerstruggles playing - or jumping into existence - in the background (on both sides), that have not even been recognised. In order to come up with an intelligent strategy we will need to find out what these issues are, and how they relate to one eachother. The solution should be designed into a process from a psychological point of view. I don't think this conflict is just a matter of sharing property.

Wise words, very wise words.

[stephencp]

"True, but you could call the police instead and assuming the burglars were still there in two minutes you would gain the same result, but it would be handled by trained professionals who might be able to avoid or minimize the robbers injuries. Even if the robbers did escape you would still deal them a heavy blow since you could provide the police all sorts of useful information."

This has two very dangerous assumptions-
#1 the police will be there in two minutes. In many, many places it will be more like 20 minutes if they show at all.
#2 - you also assume that the burglers won't hurt or kill you. It's already a "hot robbery" assuming your home, so why assume that the same people who are ALREADY stealing from you, aren't going to hurt you as well, particularly since you intend to tell the police all you can about them...

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

[Raynt]

Originally Posted by stephencp

This has two very dangerous assumptions-
#1 the police will be there in two minutes. In many, many places it will be more like 20 minutes if they show at all.
#2 - you also assume that the burglers won't hurt or kill you. It's already a "hot robbery" assuming your home, so why assume that the same people who are ALREADY stealing from you, aren't going to hurt you as well, particularly since you intend to tell the police all you can about them...

1. Heh, my bad there, me and my urban ways.
2. I agree that there is nothing wrong with attacking them when it's for self- defense. I was referring to situations where there is no immediate danger, when you could escape, or they don't know you're there.

[Wanderer]

My views

Someone attacks me they deserve everything they get. If I leave them stunned on the floor fine, if I leave them with GBH fine, if they die fine, they attacked me therefore they are responsible.
Cause and Effect

As for defending others, again I can see this as acceptable, and would find it strange to not defend someones rights.

Maybe I'm been short sighted here but if someone chooses to attack you, you could question their motives, maybe they had a bad childhood, but chances are if you do you'll loose, therefore to win you need to act fast, you cant do this while debating whether or not you should act, so I think the best option is to act fast and apolagise as appropriate later.

Just my 2 cents

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Raynt

Now the first is more clear- cut, so I will start with that. Suppose someone breaks into your house and you are left with no means of escape and they charge at you with a knife. Is it not acceptable to defend yourself in whatever means is necessary, even if it may cause significant bodily harm or death to the attacker if you see no alternative?

I would recommend you learn Aikido. A central tenet of Aikido is that you cannot use it unless you're attacked first, and further, the ultimate purpose of the defensive technique is to neutralize, not injure, the aggressor. Certainly, the way it's done, you could definitely snap several bones in their body in half, but you aren't forced to. The goal is to "help" the attacker by making it so he can't attack you anymore; continuing the attack would be a bad thing, after all: he might get into the position where kililng him becomes your only option.

Originally Written by Steve Pavlina
Their goal would be to raise the consciousness of the leaders involved, and those leaders in turn could help to raise the consciousness of their own people. The leaders would need to stop preaching condemnation and violence and instead teach forgiveness and unconditional love.

I disagree with Steve's solution, because I think it puts too much dependence on leadership. The team of peacemakers ought to be working on the populace itself, and the population will naturally shift the thinking of the leaders. All leaders are ultimately democratically chosen: no single person can ever hold that much power without the support of others.

Similarly for the hypothetical genocide situation. The key isn't the leader himself, but his support. Most such despicable leaders have to rise to power, and they do it with a measure of popularity that grows and grows. Eventually, they stop garnering popular support (because they really are despicable) and conslidate their support in a military structure. And that is probably the toughest nut to crack, because the military is a mob. My answer to a mob is thus:

Originally Written by Michael Chui . See for context.
Crowds communicate as one, unified voice. Thus, when you look at a crowd, you see one "person", because they don't differentiate themselves. You are forced to look closer, to notice perturbances, in order to distinguish them. Mobs are introspective crowds: they are crowds that see themselves as one, unified voice. They are one. To break a mob, you must summon their individuality. It takes an effort. With a crowd, however, you must merely break your own blindness to their individualities. The easiest way to do this is by stereotype. Many of us do this automatically. The result is well-known in America: it's called racism, sexism, ageism, elitism, and a host of other -isms. The hardest way is by creating relationships.

It's even harder in a military because they're not actually mobs. (Yes, I know I just said they were.) Mobs are not trained to see themselves as one; militaries are. And to break that introspection, you actively have to create relationships with each individual. And considering the limits of Dunbar's Number, this means you need a pretty big team of decidedly capable peacemakers trained in this theory.

[KevinG]

Michael, have you ever taken Aikido?

[stephencp]

"I would recommend you learn Aikido. A central tenet of Aikido is that you cannot use it unless you're attacked first, and further, the ultimate purpose of the defensive technique is to neutralize, not injure, the aggressor. Certainly, the way it's done, you could definitely snap several bones in their body in half, but you aren't forced to."

Having a couple blackbelts in Shorin-Ryu (ie. Okinawan) Karate and TaeKwonDo, a brown belt in aikido, a blue belt in Gracie Jujutsu, 15 years of tai chi and pakua and a little judo, escrima and fencing the last thing I'd recommend to someone who wants to actually defend themselves against a robber would be aikido as you have described it (there are schools that take a more martial flavor). Sorry.
#1 choice - NONE of the above.... a short barreled shotgun (pistols and rifles take more aim and will go through walls.)

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by KevinG

Michael, have you ever taken Aikido?

Yes. My point was the philosophy, not the techniques. That wasn't as well-stated as it should have been.

Originally Posted by stephencp

the last thing I'd recommend to someone who wants to actually defend themselves against a robber would be aikido as you have described it

I agree. The proposed situation was being rushed with a knife. That's standard advanced unarmed self-defense.

[stephencp]

"I agree. The proposed situation was being rushed with a knife. That's standard advanced unarmed self-defense."

You agree with what?

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

[Michael Chui]

Hm... actually, that's a good point. I was under the assumption you didn't want several pieces of robber lying around your living room.

[Wanderer]

Also carrying weapons is illegal.
If you want to learn to defend yourslef I wouldn't go for a martial art. I would download or buy a simple self defence book and drill it till its second nature, e.g. Practice, practice, practice, until as soon as you are grabbed in that position you instantly know what to do.

Also from the moral side of it, (and maybe my romantic tendancies are getting the better if me here), but if someone rushes you with a knife, fine whip out a shotgun, but if they come empty handed it would be immoral to just gun them down (although when indiana jones does it its amazing!)

Again just my 2 cents

[ReallyGoodIdeas]

Sorry guys, but I'm glad I don't live in the US, hearing it as you put it. Here, very few people have guns and it's illegal to carry one unless you have a licence and a good reason. For that I'm very grateful! The fear first, shoot second and think later attitude is just not on here.

I know self defence from Tae Kwon Do training and if forced I'd do that. If it didnt work, maybe I was the one who was meant to be killed? And I'd have called the police at the first sign of trouble. Having said that, the original question was is it ever right to kill someone. I expect there are times when it can be right. I hope I never have to face one of them though. A friend of mine was responsible for killing his friend in a car accident recently, and his guilt is hard to bear even at this distance, I'd hate to be in his shoes.

The Darfur type example, well UN peacekeepers can do an awful lot if given the right mandate. Australian troops have been quite successful in East Timor and various Pacific nations, and a bit of fine tuning about the timing and the rules of engagement means that people could come in and ensure peace is kept. Like a parent coming in when the children are fighting. Not beating up the children, but making them sit down and talk through their differences. I believe that a problem cannot be solved with a solution at the same level, you need to go up a notch or two of consciousness. Violence cannot solve a violent problem. Only peace can solve it.

I will now spend a few minutes clearing my head with a gratitude list, and sending love and peaceful thoughts to all involved in violence. I recommend it to you.

Joy as well
Hazel

[stephencp]

"Here, very few people have guns and it's illegal to carry one unless you have a licence and a good reason."
Correct, after Australia's gun confiscation strategy only the criminals are well armed.

"The fear first, shoot second and think later attitude is just not on here."
On the contrary, to best defend yourself requires you think first to acquire the appropriate weapons and training, shoot second and fear little.

Anyone considering traditional martial arts as thier primary response against real, physical aggression should consider to something like Peyton Quinn's -- Rocky Mountain Combat Applications Training -- training to make sure you know what is really going to happen.


Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

[Andrew Brunelle]

I would like to answer this with a Zen story called Fearlessness:

During the civil wars in feudal Japan, an invading army would quickly sweep into a town and take control. In one particular village, everyone fled just before the army arrived - everyone except the Zen master. Curious about this old fellow, the general went to the temple to see for himself what kind of man this master was. When he wasn't treated with the deference and submissiveness to which he was accustomed, the general burst into anger. "You fool," he shouted as he reached for his sword, "don't you realize you are standing before a man who could run you through without blinking an eye!" But despite the threat, the master seemed unmoved. "And do you realize," the master replied calmly, "that you are standing before a man who can be run through without blinking an eye?" The general leaves, frustrated.

So maybe if someone breaks into your house, don't show any fear, just be. It's a great story, but it took me awhile to fully grasp the meaning. Just think about it.

[stephencp]

"So maybe if someone breaks into your house, don't show any fear, just be."

Do you live alone? Do you have any family or friends that depend on you?
Your's is the truly enlightened response if indeed you truly have no attachments on this planet. For those of us responsible for the well being of our family, I'll choose to show no fear AND ensure no harm comes to those in my care.

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

[Brutha]

For those of us responsible for the well being of our family, I'll choose to show no fear AND ensure no harm comes to those in my care.

Starting a Gun fight certainly ensures that no harm comes to those people?

Yes you might be lucky and kill him, on the other hand their is a good chance that your famaly gets hit by a few bullets during the fight.
If you do nothing against the invader he has no reason to kill you. The number of cops how will search for him is far greater for murder.

Your's is the truly enlightened response if indeed you truly have no attachments on this planet.

Are you so sure that it doesn't work?