Peace-lovin' hippie crap

I highly recommend A FORCE MORE POWERFUL.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/

Read about how the Danes handled the German occupation.

I just bought another edition of the Tao Te Ching, this one by Marion Zimmer Bradley. I found a nice one last year with original Chinese on one page and a translation on the other. I bought it when my wife and I were taking Tai Chi classes.

Defending yourself (or your village or your nation) against violence means redirecting the energy of the attacker, diffusing and dispersing it, or, as needed, putting into or onto the attacker.

In Tai Chi as in other oriental martial arts, it is common to brush the attack aside, to deflect the attack, but not to meet it directly.

Western martial arts --- boxing, wrestling, fencing, US Army field maneuver -- is summed up in the words of the Prize Fighter in the opera Carmen Jones: "Stand toe to toe! Trade blow for blow!" Rocky Balboa is the paradigm for western martial arts. "It don't hurt... It don't hurt... It don't hurt..."

Deflect, disperse, avoid, turn aside, step aside, negate.

Post 21

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:00pm

Sarah, you said:

Furthermore, seeing as how values aren't universal, what would be wrong with my values so long as they do not demand anything of you?

Nothing. You can beleive in what you like. I'm keying off the word "wrong," and it seems you may mean differently than I do by this. You mentioned in a follow on post about changing "wrong" to "bad." I would say, sure, it's bad when someone attacks you and you have no option other than force. Bad that things like this happen. Not bad that you take that action. That's all.

As an Objectivist I understand that choosing to live and support my life is what makes achieving value possible. Failing to defend that life is choosing death. There can be no value in surrendering my life to the force of another, when I have the option to act to prevent it. Being able to act with force to protect my life is good, very very good.

Ethan

Post 22

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:00pm

Actually, all religions are eastern... [except, perhaps, Hubbard's]

Post 23

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:07pm

Ethan-

As an Objectivist I understand that choosing to live and support my life is what makes achieving value possible.

Thanks for demonstrating why I like SOLO. When things are well said, they are DAMN well said. Excellent.

Post 24

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:16pm

HEY RICH-

So are terrorists 'human beings' that we should wish no personal harm to nor celebrate a victory over?

There's no goodness or joy in killing. When it must be done, you do it, and hope that's the last time.
You damned UU pomo wanker!

e4 ;)

p.s. I never said there would be joy in having to kill someone.

Post 25

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 9:01pm

Nor, properly, is there joy in the killing itself - any more than in killing a hog, just something which had to be done...
(Edited by robert malcom on 10/14, 9:03pm)

Post 26

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 9:27pm

Ethan,

I'm not saying you should surrender your life, but there are consequences to any use of force which do make it bad (see Kevin's post). There are better ways (see MEM's post). That's what pacifism is about, and that's all I'm saying.

Sarah

Post 27

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 12:21am

Sarah, you said,

The Tao Te Ching more accurately reflects the meaning of pacificism, where the Evil Ethics section mistakes it for passivism. To see force as wrong is not to submit to all who would initiate it, but to use it only as a last resort.

What do you mean exactly by "last resort"? Is it when someone slaps your little brother, steals from you, makes you pay income tax, breaks into your house, swindles you, rapes you, or tries to kill you? Just how much initiation of force are you willing to take before you deem it appropriate to respond?

JJ

Post 28

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 7:45am

JJ

I don't how else I can say it: nonviolence != submission. You can respond to any of those situations without harming the initiator. What I'm saying is that just because the initiator initiated doesn't mean he "deserves" to be harmed any more than you do. Punishment is not justice.

Sarah

Post 29

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 8:04am

Then you hold that rights cannot be abrogated?
(Edited by robert malcom on 10/15, 8:05am)

Post 30

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 9:14am

Robert,

The right to life, yes.

Sarah

Post 31

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 10:23am

Sarah,

Those who intiate force against you have stated clearly that they do not value life. Yours, theirs, anyones. They have made a choice against life, and for you to value their life in that case, you are not valuing your own. A very bad choice in my mind.

Ethan

Post 32

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 11:26am

Sarah, you said,

I don't how else I can say it: nonviolence != submission. You can respond to any of those situations without harming the initiator. What I'm saying is that just because the initiator initiated doesn't mean he "deserves" to be harmed any more than you do. Punishment is not justice.

How would you deal with these cases besides submission unless you push back yourself or rely on someone else to do the job for you? The fact is, violence doesn't spring out of the blue among rational people. It's started because somebody decided to break the harmony of interest to get what they want by force. The transgression is purposeful. A victim who doesn't fight back is just giving an open invitation for the offense to be repeated. By thinking that the transgressor doesn't "deserve to be harmed", the only party that does end up getting harmed is the victim himself, over and over again, because there is inherent conflict of interest between the two created by the initiator of the violence. Lack of punishment will guarantee that there is no justice.

And nothing discourages a transgressor more than the knowledge that his intended victim has the means to retaliate, that the target is not an easy pick to bully, that there are unpleasant costs and consequences. Having weapons and the ability to defend oneself can prevent transgressions from occurring in the first place.

JJ

Post 33

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 12:04pm

JJ:

A victim who doesn't fight back is just giving an open invitation for the offense to be repeated.

Why do you think fighting back violently is the only way? Do you think Gandhi or MLK failed to fight back because they acted without violence? Like Sarah said, Pacifism isn't passivism. Pacifists fight back.

Jordan

Post 34

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 12:22pm

This is reflected at least in the laws in this state, Florida, where in one who fights back an attacker [potential rapist?] can only defend to the extent of stopping the attack - anything more is regarded as a counter attacking...

Post 35

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 2:44pm

Ethan,

I do not see that to be the case, and since I don't see how you've come to that conclusion I can't provide a counterargument.

JJ,

In addition to what Jordan said, punishment has nothing to do with justice, only deterrence. An unfortunately necessary practice, keeping the peace through fear of punishment. That's hardly something to be proud of. For a wrongdoer to recompense without understanding the reason is as meaningless as the selfless love Valentine's card.

To all who think the Tao Te Ching represents that wacky Eastern mysticism nonsense, consider what it has to say about governing the people:

Act for the people's benefit.
Trust them; leave them alone.

Sarah

Post 36

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 2:55pm

LOL. That's the kind of stuff my brother and sister used to pull, they'd hit me, I'd hit back, and they'd cry foul because I hit them back harder.

Didn't stop my sister from chasing me with a butter knife, though...ah, good times...

Post 37

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 3:53pm

Hi Sarah,

My comments are as an Objectivist, and I think you've mentioned being a non-objectivist, so that may be the root of the difference in our opinions. I'm not sure. I'll try and make my point clear though.

To me, the root of all value is my life. Man's means of survial is Reason (his mind.) As Rand aptly said "force and the mind are opposites. Initiatiting force is a rejection of life. You can't reason with someone who has rejected reason. Force in defense against force is a proper choice at this point.

Ethan

Post 38

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 4:37pm

Ethan,

If we're thinking of force as anything not thought related, does Rand make any distinction between peaceful force and violent force? As Michael mentioned in post 20, responsive force needn't be the equal and opposite "Stand toe to toe! Trade blow for blow!"

I'm getting the impression from your comments in post 31 that you still see valuing the life of a force-initiator as submitting to him. That's where the connection isn't being made for me. It just doesn't follow.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House on 10/15, 4:38pm)

Post 39

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 5:12pm