pacifism kills

[Lozen]

[Cameron]

That is a horrible tragedy Yael sorry this happened to your friend. Amazing this idiot threw his life away and took anothers over such a ridiculous thing. In general I would agree with you being a pcisifict is stupid. If someone is trying to hurt you or some other innocent person that is grounds to defend yourself IMO.

 

Morehei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido, had an altruistic vision about self defence that you could elarn to become so centered and your intention pure that you could effortlessly use your training to defend without doing alot of damage on your attacker but in reality when the shit hits the fan and some maniac is trying to hurt you have to do what you have to do.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Cameron

[sunshine]

Chris was the nicest person on the planet and the only person I've ever loved. But this just makes me want to train even harder.

 

I am all for people throwing rocks at Mexican gray wolves so they'll stop being friendly to humans and killed by ranchers, maybe we should take it up to the human level too, and start beating up pacifists so they'll learn that this isn't a fucking game.

 

No. It's no fucking game and I am sorry for your loss, and probably it is enough having said that. But:

it is not us pacifists that kill and it isn'T our attitude. It's the non-pacifist attitude that can be made responsible for it... the training I do I do in order not to show me being frightened (and therfore an easy target), giving me a sense of being secure... but I know I am still not, whatever training I do. The training I do further is there to make me handle my temper & anger in certain situations, in order to remain calm and NOT to escalate the situation. The "I fight"-attitude makes things only worse and raises the danger of fight... are we pacifists bloody silly? Don't think so... pacifism still holds the possibility for protecting oneself and others & activism...

the "I fight"-attitude, especially based on anger or sadness, leaves about no room for anything else...

 

Harry

[rex]

Truely terrible. There's a UK self-defence forum with accounts of how people have dealt with/would deal with various situations. There's a lot of savvy stuff here from experienced people:

Geoff Thompson - 'The Real World'

[Lozen]

You are absolutely right that it's the perpetrator who was responsible, not the victim. Still, I feel like if he was willing to defend himself, this might have ended differently. Obviously his pacifism did not protect him. I think it was also the fact this his mom didn't know how to deal with head injuries... It was also that this bar served an obviously intoxicated and evil looking guy seven pints in three hours, something that shouldn't have happened. I found two more articles...

 

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100new...-name_page.html

 

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100new...-name_page.html

 

I don't think the "I fight" attitude always makes things worse. One time a guy was fucking with me in a bar, he pushed me against the wall, called me names, etc. The whole time he was doing this and I stood perfectly still and took it, I had a knife in my hand that he didn't see that I was very prepared to use if there was a need for it. Me being willing to fight didn't preclude me from doing nothing. But doing nothing does stop you from fighting. You need to be able to be prepared for all possibilities, or be willing to die--because pacifism basically is relying on the purity of heart of your attacker, something that ian't always there.

 

No. It's no fucking game and I am sorry for your loss, and probably it is enough having said that. But:

it is not us pacifists that kill and it isn'T our attitude. It's the non-pacifist attitude that can be made responsible for it... the training I do I do in order not to show me being frightened (and therfore an easy target), giving me a sense of being secure... but I know I am still not, whatever training I do. The training I do further is there to make me handle my temper & anger in certain situations, in order to remain calm and NOT to escalate the situation. The "I fight"-attitude makes things only worse and raises the danger of fight... are we pacifists bloody silly? Don't think so... pacifism still holds the possibility for protecting oneself and others & activism...

the "I fight"-attitude, especially based on anger or sadness, leaves about no room for anything else...

 

Harry

[SheepishLord]

Lozen,

 

Here are my 3 favorite links on self-OFFENSE:

 

http://www.tftgroup.com/ (expensive route but these guys don't fuck around)

http://www.trsdirect.com/product.php?sku=FJ-77 (very cheap--like a budget TFT but totally awesome)

http://www.trsdirect.com/product.php?sku=BC-77 (best handgun training DVDs you can get--other pachages leave this out.)

 

This stuff is so good. It is really all you need to "train." Too bad I live in the city where handguns are too expensive and the laws too strict about gun ownership. I am a professional marksman and experienced with revolvers, pistols and shotguns, but I wish I could do more training with automatics because my jam-clearing and mag-changing skills are shit.

 

The Ben Cooley videos taught me so much, especially the stuff about reactionary gaps which I thought I understood, but when dealing with guns there is simply no margin at all.

 

The whole problem, which is pointed out very clearly by the guys at TFT is the problem of intent. You have to have the intent to harm (offense) in order to "defend" yourself because "self-defense" is flat-out impossible.

 

So the question is, "Where does one get intent?"

 

Other questions would be, "Did your friend really do the wrong thing?"

 

Sometimes there is an underlying wisdom. Some guy threw a bottle at my head some time ago and I did nothing about it because I knew it would go no further, and nobody saw it anyway.

 

However, Saturday night some guy disrespected me on the street and I hit him without even thinking about it.

 

Everything is a decision.

[freeform]

.

Edited October 23, 2019 by freeform

[thaddeus]

No. It's no fucking game and I am sorry for your loss, and probably it is enough having said that. But:

it is not us pacifists that kill and it isn'T our attitude. It's the non-pacifist attitude that can be made responsible for it... the training I do I do in order not to show me being frightened (and therfore an easy target), giving me a sense of being secure... but I know I am still not, whatever training I do. The training I do further is there to make me handle my temper & anger in certain situations, in order to remain calm and NOT to escalate the situation. The "I fight"-attitude makes things only worse and raises the danger of fight... are we pacifists bloody silly? Don't think so... pacifism still holds the possibility for protecting oneself and others & activism...

the "I fight"-attitude, especially based on anger or sadness, leaves about no room for anything else...

 

Harry

First, Lozen, my condolences on the loss of your friend..

This situation is rich with all kinds of ideas. For one thing, how ironic is it to be a pacifist and ultimately end that way? I just read in the paper today about a boy who performed the heimlich maneuver on a stranger in a restaurant, saving her life..it turned out it was the same woman who saved his life a few years earlier. The world seems just too contrived sometimes...

Anyway, I don't know much about pacifisim, but I have been working with the ideas of taoist non-doing and how it applies to fighting. Using a pure taoist art for fighting means you aren't really fighting, you are simply helping your opponent. There is no anger or fight, in fact one can argue there is only love. If you study one of these arts with taoist philosophy in mind, you can experience the 'spirit of love and protection for all things' whichs includes yourself and your 'opponent'..which to get really stupidly philosophical is part of you anyway.

T

[Lozen]

I think aiki is the same way--you are not really hurting your opponent, you are "helping them to the ground" because when they said, "Hey, I'm gonna kick yo ass motherfucka" they really meant, "I need you to help me to the ground." The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it's really passive agressive.

 

I think you can fight out of love, for sure--to defend the weak or defend yourself so you can get home safely. But if I had to choose between hurting some drunk thug or him taking the life of somone I love, I know where I stand...

[Lozen]

Thanks for these links. I have heard of Tim Larkin before. I train every week with the baddest martial artist I've ever met, for free, so I'm really really lucky. I'm always taking more courses though, in fact I have three lines up right now over the next year...

[thaddeus]

I think aiki is the same way--you are not really hurting your opponent, you are "helping them to the ground" because when they said, "Hey, I'm gonna kick yo ass motherfucka" they really meant, "I need you to help me to the ground." The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it's really passive agressive.

 

I think you can fight out of love, for sure--to defend the weak or defend yourself so you can get home safely. But if I had to choose between hurting some drunk thug or him taking the life of somone I love, I know where I stand...

I saw a video the other day on TV where some nut stole a tank and started driving around crushing cars and sideswiping buildings...finally he stopped against some kind of barrier and the cops chasing him jumped up on top of the tank and pulled their guns out. The guy apparantly wouldn't listen to him so they had to fire and kill him. To take any philosophy, like non-violence, too literally and beyond common sense is being rigid and ultimately non-taoist. I guess anything taken to it's extreme will become it's opposite.

I also think that when someone says 'Hey, I'm gonna kick yo ass motherfucka' they are really saying 'I hate myself, and I'm suffering, I've lost my way' They are lost in their maya, because essentially a mindful person will not do something like that. So, like we would with an insane person or a sleep walking person, we should try to protect them against themselves. I know I know..that's all fine and dandy in a completely theoretical sense. But at least it's great fodder for conversation..and that's all this is..i'm not pretending to be wise or spiritual..i'm not..

T

[freeform]

.

Edited October 23, 2019 by freeform

[Lozen]

Maybe he meant, "I'm a dumb drunk asshole."

[affenbrot]

Lozen, I send all my sympathy to you!

 

I believe that for such an occurrance basically there is no reason

(well besides destiny or what ever you call it).

 

Trying to understand his death that seems so senseless, trying to make sense in it is to create reasons for it

(.. he was too peacefully, the guy who killed him did so because such and such) - that are only crutches. The real reason

(if any) one cannot know.

 

wishes,

affenbrot

[thelerner]

Pacifism kills, militancy kills, paranoia erodes. Safety is an illusion, but an important one. I have great respect for your friend and no way of knowing if some other action would have meant a different outcome. There are two legged predators who are simply out for thrills and blood.

 

I did Aikido for a number of years (13). What I got from it is, to be peaceful, but not a pacifist. We are nice, we are the good guys, but we are not dumb.

 

I also have the TFT video series that Plato recommended and it has some good ideas in it. Keep it simple, pick a target, ie the eyes, and follow up with their most likely reactions.

 

You hope for peace, for in this world, but keep your options open.

[Smile]

I did Aikido for a number of years (13). What I got from it is, to be peaceful, but not a pacifist. We are nice, we are the good guys, but we are not dumb.

 

I also have the TFT video series that Plato recommended and it has some good ideas in it. Keep it simple, pick a target, ie the eyes, and follow up with their most likely reactions.

From all the MA I've practiced, Aikido i believe is the most practical for today's world. Why do I say that? Because if you get caught after using TFT, you go to jail because your opponent is either dead or crippled. He will sue the shit out of you and he will win, even though he was the real agressor.

 

Aikido neutralizes the attack in the most peaceful way with least harm, unless you want to go that way. The only problem I see is Aikido takes many years to master to be effective in a real fight.

[Lozen]

Worrying about court will get you killed on the streets.

[Smile]

Worrying about court will get you killed on the streets.

No one said one should worry about courts. One should worry about their anal virginity in prison though.

[Lozen]

First you get through the fight, then if you're still alive (which you won't be if you worry about court, prison, or any other distractions) you can deal with the fight in court.

 

Hesitation is death.

[Trunk]

Sorry to hear that your beau went through the big transition.

Light to you both.

[SheepishLord]

Hesitation is death.

 

Lozen,

 

What Max is trying to communicate to you is that a person needs to take responsibility for what happens in their life. You may believe you are taking responsibility for your own protection by toting knives, obsessing on redundant combat training protocols, etc., but in fact you are in the process of creating a potentially very ugly reality for yourself.

 

Looking back on the people who passed through my life, every single person who made it a habit of packing a gun or knife drew trouble to them like a magnet. This is why I never carry weapons. Plus, I don't need them to take someone out. Nobody does. The important thing to keep in mind is that since neither of us are in law enforcement nor part of a military operation, when a real situation demanding real violence comes our way, we will never have the time to get our guns and knives out.

 

Anyway, what are you doing in a bar where you have to pull a knife on a guy? Why are strange men getting confrontational with a woman in a bar is also an important question? Look, if you tell us here that you are standing in a bar with a knife against your leg while some unaware guy yells at you there is a serious problem with your comprehension of the reality that you are baiting to come your way.

 

Your behavior is that of someone suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. No human being behaves like you do unless something really fucked up happened at one time. The problem is that you are subconsciously attracting THE EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE in the vain hope that another crisis will allow you the opportunity to release the traumatic experiences stored in your tissues.

 

Such a path is most unskillfull. Go to www.centerIMT.com and spend some of that training money getting your traumas released. They are the best in the world IMO, and when you release your bullshit you'll finally have a choice not to set up your life to get raped by some guy on the outside of by a correctional officer on the inside.

 

As a matter of fact, getting your traumas released will make you an even deadlier adversary if you want a "lozen" reason to do it. All the dealiest fighters are totally slack and smiling.

[Lozen]

Sorry to hear that your beau went through the big transition.

Light to you both.

 

Thanks, Trunk.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Lozen

[sean]

Jumping in late here and haven't read every post in detail, but I think this article on the important distinction between pacifism and non-violence is interesting and relevant.

 

Also I think a familiarity with Kohlberg's stages of moral development, namely preconventional, conventional and postconventional, is useful in this discussion. Who or what are you fighting to protect and at what cost? At the preconventional level the focus is "what's in it for me here?". So if you fight, it's going to be merely for your own safety and survival. At the conventional level you are focused on your tribe and the "common good". If you're fighting, you are going to consider your family, community, and social contracts as the standard. At the postconventional level the focus is on being an expression of your highest universal principles. You will defer to your highest principles to determine how you behave. If your highest universal principle is something like behaving in a way that allows Love to best shine through every moment, then you may look at a dangerous situation and realize that your own death is the proper way to show your principles. Many wise teachers have done something like this. Jesus, Socrates, they say Buddha died, finally, by accepting tainted food from a family he was visiting instead of refusing the food and possibly offending them. What's important to recognize is that these teachers were not lacking the moral instinct to protect themselves and others from harm. They were not lazy men hiding behind idealogical pacifism as a way of avoiding the courage to fight. These are people that would also have also led armies were that the highest expression of Love they perceived. So, while I would agree that most cases of pacifism are probably preconventional/conventional, it's important to recognize the possiblity of the transcendent third stage IMO, otherwise many powerful figure's courageous, selfless deaths become meaningless.

 

Sean

[Lozen]

Kohlbery came up with stage-based scientific models of psychological development, like the question of being asked what you would do if you had a wife who had a terminal illness that she needed a pill for in order to survive, but you couldn't afford the pill. According to Kohlberg, stealing money to get the pill is on a "lower" level developmentally than a very rigid belief in rules and justice is. Ever read Carol Gilligan's book "In a Different Voice"? Gilligan was a student of Kohlberg's but noticed that women seemed to score a lot lower developmentally on his model, indicating that their way of thinking was inferior (according to him) because of their response to this question and others like it, which was the "preconventional moral stage", focusing on agreed upon rights and moral standards instead of just rewards and punishments. So she decided his model was male-centered and that women's way of thinking is different. According to Gilligan, women may hold the "lower" stages developmentally because they are more focused on personal relationships and obligations to others. How do you tie in a perspective based on an ethic of caring (more than an ethic of justice) is a huge question. I feel like the decisions I make are somewhat emotional, I think SPECIFICALLY of individual people that would be affected by them (as in, who is depending on me to get home safe and whole) as opposed to Kohlberg's more pure and lofty point of view (and I mean no disrespect when i say that).

 

Also, Sean, that first link is bouncing.

[sean]

Ah yes, Gilligan made a wonderful contribution in her stages model for women. She identified the growth stages of women, from selfish, to caring to ... *drum roll* ... nonviolence or "universal caring". So maybe a stage 1 woman is fighting/not fighting to protect merely herself, stage 2 is fighting/not fighting to protect those she cares about, stage 3 is fighting/not fighting as an embodied demonstration of universal compassion.

 

(Link is bouncing because Scott's site is down, should be up again soon).

 

Sean