Debate at a party

[srothstein]

It seems to me that the person you were talking to is as close to a true pacifist as you are likely to find in the US. There are quite a few who do believe this way. I usually will just acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree and move on, but I did come up with one quote that usually stops the debate about the pistol being a defensive or offensive weapon:

The best defense is a good offense.

When someone attacks, one of the best things I can do is counterattack. If I can bring more force onto the situation more quickly than my attacker, I am most likely going to win.

I will then state that I disagree with their view of whether or not my property is worth killing over, but I recognize their right to their beliefs.

As others have pointed out, you are not going to win, so getting them to agree that there are other viewpoints that may be valid is about the best you can do. Most of them will never admit that there is a valid viewpoint that is different than theirs.

[seamusTX]

It seems to me that the person you were talking to is as close to a true pacifist as you are likely to find in the US.

Steve, every now and then we disagree.

A true pacifist will submit to abuse because he believes that all violence is wrong. Amish, Mennonites, Quaker, and Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists. There are millions of them.

This person is not a pacifist. If he is attacked, he wants armed police officers to come to his defense. Then, most likely, after he is safe, he will complain that the police used too much force.

I have seen this numerous times, where people called the police on an out-of-control family member (usually intoxicated), then complain because the police used a Taser.

What the person in question here is trying to do is build a value system on Sesame Street: If we all just understood each other and hugged a lot (in a good way), we would get along. This is insane, as everyone reading this message knows.

- Jim

[Liberty]

What the person in question here is trying to do is build a value system on Sesame Street: If we all just understood each other and hugged a lot (in a good way), we would get along. This is insane, as everyone reading this message knows.

Nothing to add here but, but so well stated I wanted to see it again

[seamusTX]

Thanks.

- Jim

[lawrnk]

Agree with you generally, but those pacifist groups you mentioned have no problem calling the police when in danger. I don't know a quaker, but I know members of the other three groups who very much support our officers and won't hesitate to ask for their help.

It seems to me that the person you were talking to is as close to a true pacifist as you are likely to find in the US.

Steve, every now and then we disagree.

A true pacifist will submit to abuse because he believes that all violence is wrong. Amish, Mennonites, Quaker, and Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists. There are millions of them.

This person is not a pacifist. If he is attacked, he wants armed police officers to come to his defense. Then, most likely, after he is safe, he will complain that the police used too much force.

I have seen this numerous times, where people called the police on an out-of-control family member (usually intoxicated), then complain because the police used a Taser.

What the person in question here is trying to do is build a value system on Sesame Street: If we all just understood each other and hugged a lot (in a good way), we would get along. This is insane, as everyone reading this message knows.

- Jim

[dihappy]

I found this, i love it :)

Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that

"to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil.

To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission.

Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

[seamusTX]

Agree with you generally, but those pacifist groups you mentioned have no problem calling the police when in danger.

In that case, they are not true pacifists. They are merely "outsourcing" the violence that they pretend to abhor.

I consider this hypocritical. It's like the Sanhedrin, who would not prescribe capital punishment, but were eager to have the Romans carry it out. It would be like me calling myself a vegetarian because I do not personally butcher the meat that I enjoy eating.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

One might refer this "philosopher" to Jeffery Snyder's article titled, "A Nation of Cowards". In it, Snyder demonstrates how hypocritical it is to expect police to use violent means to protect you if necessary, while believing it is unethical or immoral to employ those means yourself.

[casingpoint]

"When you use a gun, you are taking an aggressive stance."

Right, party dude. Folks in the know call it the FBI stance.

[DoubleActionCHL]

- A gun is NOT a self defense tool. It is a tool of aggression. When you use a gun, you are taking an aggressive stance.

It depends on the situation, but for our purposes, a gun is an active tool of self-defense.

- A self defense tool is something like body armor, armored cars, etc.

These are passive self-defense tools.

- God is the only one who should be the ultimate authority on death.

Technically, God is the ultimate authority, but we have the job of being the intermediary. There are plenty of Biblical passages condoning the slaying of an enemy.

.- It is not right to use a gun if somebody breaks into your house, because you have no idea if they have the intention of killing you.

By the time you've realized their intentions, you're probably already dead

- If somebody DOES break into your house, you should not confront them. You should call the police, try to get out of the house, run away, but don't use a gun on them.

Does this guy drive a Volkswagen Beetle with a flower in the dash?

- A person who would buy a gun for self defense has a mindset that they WILL use the gun to kill somebody, and that's not right.

A person who purchases a gun has a good grasp on reality.

- A sword is a self defense tool, as you can use a sword to stop another person with a sword. You can't use a gun to stop another gun, as a bullet isn't going to stop another bullet. (Not making this up)

And I guess you can use a vest to stop a vest and an armored car to stop and armored car. Self-defense is not about parity.

- Carrying a concealed handgun only gives criminals more guns, as you can get the gun stolen out of your car, etc.

Yep... by a criminal. So, is it a gun problem or a crime problem?

- The crime rates for Texas are incorrect, as the Houston Police Department was recently caught fudging their homicide numbers, and the homicide rate in Houston has actually been going up even before Katrina.

Where is the proof?

You'd be better off nailing Jell-O to a tree than arguing with this guy.

[Odin]

You really need to find a new group pf people to party with.

[MBGuy]

It seems to me that the person you were talking to is as close to a true pacifist as you are likely to find in the US.

Steve, every now and then we disagree.

A true pacifist will submit to abuse because he believes that all violence is wrong. Amish, Mennonites, Quaker, and Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists. There are millions of them.

This person is not a pacifist. If he is attacked, he wants armed police officers to come to his defense. Then, most likely, after he is safe, he will complain that the police used too much force.

I have seen this numerous times, where people called the police on an out-of-control family member (usually intoxicated), then complain because the police used a Taser.

What the person in question here is trying to do is build a value system on Sesame Street: If we all just understood each other and hugged a lot (in a good way), we would get along. This is insane, as everyone reading this message knows.

- Jim

Not wanting to get religous, but just to fix a misconception:

Jehova's Witnesses do not participate in war, and can not be employed in a job that requires them to carry a sidearm. This causes many to believe that they are pure pacifists. However, they do not have to sit and allow someone to come into their home, rape and kill or whatever, without defending themselves or their loved ones. They are allowed to defend themselves with whatever means available, even with firearms, to the death. Generally frowned upon, but gun ownership is allowed, without negative consequence, as a personal decision.

Some might say something like "Oh no, we can't have guns in the house!", but they're merely spewing their personal opinion and making it seem like something official, like many antis do.

The other 3 I know nothing about.

[seamusTX]

Thanks for clearing that up.

- Jim

[lawrnk]

Agree with you generally, but those pacifist groups you mentioned have no problem calling the police when in danger.

In that case, they are not true pacifists. They are merely "outsourcing" the violence that they pretend to abhor.

I consider this hypocritical. It's like the Sanhedrin, who would not prescribe capital punishment, but were eager to have the Romans carry it out. It would be like me calling myself a vegetarian because I do not personally butcher the meat that I enjoy eating.

- Jim

Well, the amish are generally known as the worlds pacifists. They do often have a shared phone in an exterior building for emergencies like fires and calling the police. We might recall the amish shooting recently. The amish called it in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish_scho ... e_notified

Incidentally, many Amish own firearms.

http://www.infohub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3878

I'm not close to being an expert on Amish, but my mother is pennsylvania dutch and was raised in Amish country. I heard alot growing up.