Pacifists, I have a question.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

No, I don't believe in violence... but then again I don't consider taking a life as violence, I see it as making someone a favor.

No, I would not. I have been taught to fight and can hit quite hard, but when it comes to a real fight, I can't bring myself to put any force behind my punches. I just can't. Even if I hate them, I can't bring myself to do it. It just seems too aggressive and far too extreme. I would think it's justified if somone else wanted to defend themselves, but as far as I'm concerned my only options are to block, run or die.

DoPo:

miketehmage:
If a single person, of the same height and build as you, were to hit you, and continue to hit you repeatedly

I'd might be scared. I'm a fairly big guy so if another one like started punching me, it could be really scary. Then again, I have a higher pain tolerance for punching, so chances are that it would just be annoying.

miketehmage:
If someone is hitting you, why wouldn't you hit back? What gives them the right to hit you? And why shouldn't you defend yourselves?

Why do I have to hit them back though? What if I don't hit them back and still defend myself? You're imposing a false dilemma here - I can defend myself without punching people. Well I can defend myself from punches, at least. Block and if need be, try to restrain them. If the other party continues, maybe throw in some hits of my own. But defence =/= hitting stuff. Trust me.

Oh, and I wouldn't start hitting, because I'm a fairly big guy. Not that I'm a pacifist but I could really hurt somebody if provoked. That's how I grew up, so that's how I tend to do stuff now.

this.

get the fucker person into a lock
image
and hold him there until he calms down.
-----------------------------------

since you got in a 'fight' with no chance to talk your way out of it,
he either is drunk or in rage. both states where you can easily overwhelm him since they are likely to do errors.

being a parcifist does not mean you have to be someones bitch.
it mean more that violence is the last of your options and if used, it should incapacitate your opponent just enough to give you a head start.

TizzytheTormentor:
Because fighting solves jack shit and I avoid it at all costs. If I win a fight, I could get jumped by his friends and be savagely beaten. I stay on peoples good sides and avoid fights.
If I was attacked I'd fight back but If I can avoid such fight, I will.

Or you could beat the guy up and then go buy a gun/knife just in case he has mates. Problem solved.

asinann:
Here's something for you pacifists to remember the next time you want to say violence solves nothing: violence has solved more problems throughout history than any other method.

I don't try to claim that violence never solved anything. Just that there are better alternatives.

OT: I'd block/dodge his punches, while talking to him. If I can't get him to stop with my words, I'll fight back, but I really prefer not to.

My philosophy is not to refuse to be violent, but only to use it as a last resort.

For more on these ideas see trigun.

Violence does in fact not "solve" or "cause" any problems, it is a tool and like any other tool it is more a question of "Who is wielding it and why?"

Violence gets things done. To what end is a user end issue.

I could go off listing all the great and awful things from history that have resulted from use of force or violence. But I will use fiction in this case ANIME!

"Gundam 00" the group 'Celestial Being' uses LOTS of violence to achieve an awkward forced world peace that leads to real world peace.

"There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for."
― Mahatma Gandhi

rhizhim:

image

Wait...really? They teach that to people? What if they're in like Texas where some people wear t-shirts in the dead of winter sometimes?
That diagram is literally just pulling someone's arm by the sleeve and hoping they don't stop or overpower you before you get them into a lock on the ground.
WTF?

miketehmage:
Okay so I've been lurking around these forums for a while now and there seems to be a fair few pacifists on here so I'd like to ask you all something.

If a single person, of the same height and build as you, were to hit you, and continue to hit you repeatedly, would you hit them back?

If the answer is no due to fear, I'm not interested, if however the answer is no due to restraint and beliefs, could you explain that to me?

If someone is hitting you, why wouldn't you hit back? What gives them the right to hit you? And why shouldn't you defend yourselves?

Let's try to keep this civil people :)

I don't really even consider myself a pacifist I just think getting into a fight or a war is just a pretty stupid thing to do. If someone started hitting me, even if I wouldn't be ashamed to say I would punch them back, in reality I would either try to immobilize them or try to get some distance in between me and him. I guess it's just an instinct that tells me fighting when I could be avoiding it is undesirable. Most evolved animals will try and avoid direct physical combat until it's completely necessary (dogs, rats, lions, practically all birds, etc) so I really can't even comprehend why some humans will actually try to start a fight in the first place. Then again, I think there are several species of ape that will attack other animals for no logical reason so maybe it's something that actually did evolve in humans.

Ieyke:

rhizhim:

image

Wait...really? They teach that to people? What if they're in like Texas where some people wear t-shirts in the dead of winter sometimes?
That diagram is literally just pulling someone's arm by the sleeve and hoping they don't stop or overpower you before you get them into a lock on the ground.
WTF?

oh, sorry.
i forgot arms can only remain attached if they are supported by sleeves.

mea culpa

captcha:
image

Row Row Fight the Powah!

rhizhim:

oh, sorry.
i forgot arms can only remain attached if they are supported by sleeves.

mea culpa

No, I know what's going on in the picture, and it's not super effective. I've had it done to me with mixed success in training as an example of what not to do because "if you try you can probably just get out of it" (followed by me starting to try and thereby rendering it useless).

Try something along these lines instead:
http://youtu.be/ZqFDYX-hiAk

Just...trust me. Find a training partner and CAREFULLY learn this. You'll be a million times better off than tugging on someone's sleeve.
Take their biomechanics and use it to break them....or don't. You still have the option to just make them flail around like a retarded monkey or lock them against...whatever.

Ieyke:

rhizhim:

oh, sorry.
i forgot arms can only remain attached if they are supported by sleeves.

mea culpa

Try something along these lines instead:
http://youtu.be/ZqFDYX-hiAk

Just...trust me. Find a training partner and CAREFULLY learn this. You'll be a million times better off than tugging on someone's sleeve.
Take their biomechanics and use it to break them....or don't. You still have the option to just make them flail around like a retarded monkey or lock them against...whatever.

It has nothing to do with the sleave. You twist the hand and apply pressure to the elbow so that their arm is forced to remain extended. You then step around and force them to the ground. They either comply or get their shoulder broken. It is a perfectly legitimate lock.

I have a high tolerance to pain, have no regards for my own well-being and so on. On the other hand, I do not give much for the well-being of others either. So it would depend which face I am wearing at the moment, so to speak. Or, rather, which personality I wear. Also, at least to some extent, the context of the situation.

So yea, it could either end with me just letting it go by, maybe ending a bit beaten up, but otherwise fine, or I would just get out of there. Alternately, it could end a bit more violently, with me just downing whoever jumped me (some basic understanding of physics and momentum in practical application combined with some martial arts techniques would make that easy unless they've trained martial arts themselves) and then do whatever I was doing, or it could end up with a full-out fight, if I saw any point in it.

Note though that the only situation I would see any reason to do anything would be if someone attacked a close friend of mine or something like that. And then I would probably go on a full-out offence at once, with little regards for any consequences for me. . .
That would probably end badly for me. Either by getting me seriously injured, or getting someone else seriously injured and me having to face serious legal repercussions.

. . .

Lucky me I don't really have any close friends. I guess. <.<

manic_depressive13:

Ieyke:

rhizhim:

oh, sorry.
i forgot arms can only remain attached if they are supported by sleeves.

mea culpa

Try something along these lines instead:
http://youtu.be/ZqFDYX-hiAk

Just...trust me. Find a training partner and CAREFULLY learn this. You'll be a million times better off than tugging on someone's sleeve.
Take their biomechanics and use it to break them....or don't. You still have the option to just make them flail around like a retarded monkey or lock them against...whatever.

It has nothing to do with the sleave. You twist the hand and apply pressure to the elbow so that their arm is forced to remain extended. You then step around and force them to the ground. They either comply or get their shoulder broken. It is a perfectly legitimate lock.

That is the least convincing diagram for what you just described that I can imagine.
What you described makes perfect sense. The diagram shows...not that.

Of course I've never been one able to really translate martial arts motions from diagrams. I dunno, maybe it's just a "visual language" barrier.

(For the record, you CAN feasibly sleeve-lock someone....if they're not stronger than you or the material the sleeve is made of. Hell if I understand HOW to do it, but like I said, I've had it done to me in training circumstances.)

If a guy tried to hit me I'd back off tell him to stop, if he tried again I'd block and if he tries a third time then I'd either punch him as hard as I could in his stomach to lay him out winded coughing up his dinner. I'd then tell him to fuck off and grow the fuck up.

I find that pacificts seem to have problems understanding that some people only understand violence and that letting them hit you is pretty much giving them a free pass to carry on. If I hit back it shows that there are consequences to their actions and that if they don't like getting hit perhaps they shouldn't hit others first.

Ieyke:
That is the least convincing diagram for what you just described that I can imagine.
What you described makes perfect sense. The diagram shows...not that.

Of course I've never been one able to really translate martial arts motions from diagrams. I dunno, maybe it's just a "visual language" barrier.

Haha, that's okay. I was able to infer what the diagram was depicting because I am familiar with that lock. If all I was given was a partner and that diagram, I would have no idea what it wanted me to do either. I wouldn't say it's a terrible diagram. It's just hard to convey these things with only a series of three pictures.

Psykoma:
I wouldn't hit back. I may try to defend, but I would not take any offensive. I just don't want to be someone who punches others.

Captcha: nose bleed >.>

Honestly, captchas lately are absurdly appropriate (not always, but with what appears to be increasing frequency).

OT: Probably try to trip/pin/evade him. I'd much rather try less aggressive alternatives first before going in swinging. If there is a way to resolve the issue without being violent myself, then it is likely the most beneficial course of action for all parties, as I am neither strong/skilled enough to 'drop' someone in a single punch, nor am I comfortable with the risk of hitting them wrong and causing permanent injury.

ReservoirAngel:
-snip-

Honestly Angel, this has to stop. If you keep being hilariously, compassionately awesome, I'm going to develop an internet-crush on you, and that's just going to be awkward for everyone[1]! But seriously, kudos on being hilarious, yet also being so very human (a very difficult balance to have).

[1] And by everyone, I do of course mean no-one, seeing as it won't bother me, being an internet-crush, and it won't bother you, because internet, and it also won't bother anyone else ... because internet.

Of course. They probably do it because they think I'm too weak to fight back.
I do look quite weak, but I can pack a punch when I have to.
If you think you have the right to go around fighting people, you can sure as shit expect a few bruises and black eyes as a result.

To all the people saying you can just block them, you have clearly never had somebody attacking you. You could disable or restrain them, if you are very, very good, but if you aren't, you are just going to get beaten down, because you are holding yourself back, and they aren't.

Pacifism is primarily about being opposed to war and the ideal of violence rather than total restraint. The scenario you have outlined doesn't fall into that category, although I think the principle of non-violence that most readily answers your implied question; what is the value of pacifism in the face of direct aggression, can most readily be answered by the example of The Salt March.

In 1930 India was under British rule and Ghandi and others were organising a variety of non-violent protests, one of the most famous of which was The Salt March; a protest of the British salt monopoly. To cut to the chase; 10s of thousands of Indians marched towards the British only to be clubbed brutaly to the ground. They offered no resistance.

The savagery of the British response not only galvanised the Indian National Congress but also horrified the British public, causing them to question the legitimacy of British rule in India.

Catcha: the dude abides

A wise man once said, "if someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back"

If someone tries to hit you, you try to hit them right back. People should stand up for themselves, and for those too weak to stand up for themselves.

I do believe that all the people who are saying they would simply put the attacker in a hold like an arm bar or something are missing the point of pacifism. True pacifists wouldn't even do that. They would either walk away or take the hits. If I am correct in my understanding of the concept, that is. Maybe that's just the extremist (read terrible wrong people you should always ignore) version of pacifists.

So, here's the deal. I have avoided fights my entire life. If someone tried to fight me, I would walk away as a first reaction. I've even managed to prevent a drunk from trying to fight me by simply looking at him and shaking my head no. I seriously have no idea what his problem was he looked at me and kinda moved like he wanted to fight me. Maybe he thought I was looking at him funny, but I was just annoyed with a drunk friend being dumb and looking off in the distance.

But the moment a person actually started trying to hurt me, I would meet them with equal force. If that means punching them, that means punching them. If that means killing them, that means killing them. I was taught to fight until the other person is unwilling or unable to fight, and to meet deadly force with deadly force. End of story.

asinann:
Here's something for you pacifists to remember the next time you want to say violence solves nothing: violence has solved more problems throughout history than any other method.

Don't be silly. Violence causes most of the problems violence solves. Your faux-insight proves nothing.

Treefingers:

asinann:
Here's something for you pacifists to remember the next time you want to say violence solves nothing: violence has solved more problems throughout history than any other method.

Don't be silly. Violence causes most of the problems violence solves. Your faux-insight proves nothing.

To Violience, the cause of, and solution to, most of the worlds problems.

I consider myself to be a pacifist who respects the use of force when necessary. It is not something I could ever do because the idea of hurting someone makes me physically sick (even in self defense) but I honestly believe that there are people who are put on this planet for the express purpose of defending others whether they realise it or not.

The misconception in the original post (or possibly in the people who the post is aimed at) is that pacifism is an opposition to the use of force rather than an opposition to violence. I believe that there is no dispute or problem that cannot be resolved without force but as long as there are people out there who think otherwise then force will always need to be an option.

Or as Sean Connery put it in First Knight: "There is a peace that can only exist on the other side of war..."

miketehmage:
snip

Actually, at risk of revealing too much, this has happened to me several times. A close relative of mine has a serious mental illness, and I can safely say. No. There's seldom any point fighting back.

When someone attacks you, you make a simple judgement call. "Is there a chance I won't be able to walk away". If the answer is no, which will almost never happen if your attacker is unarmed, then you do whatever it takes to get away. You don't fuck around pretending to be Bruce Lee, you push that person away or kick them in the groin and you run, or get behind a door. It's as simple as that.

Otherwise, you don't put yourself in danger. You don't take stupid risks like trying to subdue someone you don't actually know you can overpower, because that's the kind of thing which turns a not-dangerous situation into a dangerous one. You leave, or if you can't leave you try and talk someone down, and if you genuinely can't talk someone down then maybe you consider trying to use force to create an opportunity to get away, and sometimes, if you know someone will work it out after a few punches you take those punches, because they won't kill you and the alternative might.

And then, when you have the opportunity, you get away from that person and never look back, or you take them to court if you think you can win, but generally if someone is just punching you in the street rather than abusing you in a sustained way then I wouldn't say there's any point, an assault conviction is pretty meaningless.

See, I'm not even a pacifist, I just have a rough awareness of how many people die or are seriously hurt because they take stupid risks in situations like this. The only sensible reaction to violence is to do whatever it takes to ensure you will walk away from it. Anything else is just taking your life into your own hands, and for what? Honour? Macho bullshit? Your life is worth more than that, and I hope if you ever find yourself subject to real violence you keep that in mind.

Of course, if you're just willingly seeking out fights to prove your worth in some imaginary breeding contest, then do whatever you like. I don't think the universe would miss you if you died during one.

Raven's Nest:
I'm not an aggressive person at all and for the principles I can respect pacifism. But from an evolutionary/survival point of view, being attacked and not doing something about it is retarded unwise.

This

I'm a global-pacifist, I want war to stop. But if someone comes forth and punches me, I WILL hit back. That's what I have been learning the past 8 years in taekwon-do, don't instigate, but punch back if need be.

Kahunaburger:
I'd restrain the guy without hurting him, call the cops, and press assault charges.

nikki191:
i wouldnt retaliate, id actually feel sorry for them

Pat8u:
I won't hit back as that still could be twisted as I did the assault in the first place.

Psykoma:
I wouldn't hit back. I may try to defend, but I would not take any offensive. I just don't want to be someone who punches others.

Captcha: nose bleed >.>

im not a pacifist (quite the oppersite, im actually was hoping to do a tour with the infantry with Afghanistan before we pull out, mad as it sounds to you) but considering that even budist monks feel the need to learn how to defend themselves and given basic human nature(fight or flight, anger, adrenaline, survival instinct e.c.t) my question is that although in an ideal situation you wouldn't hit back do you really think that you could stick to it? what if you were fearing for your life or were being beaten to the point of serious, long-lasting damage, or if it was the same person who beat you repeatability, at what point do you shoot the cunt hit back as a way of defending yourself (which lets face it is the best way of defending yourself, unless you happen to be good at Brazilian ju-jitsu or something)

Chairman Miaow:
To all the people saying you can just block them, you have clearly never had somebody attacking you. You could disable or restrain them, if you are very, very good, but if you aren't, you are just going to get beaten down, because you are holding yourself back, and they aren't.

I like how you clearly know everything about everybody. I was the first one who said blocking is an option. And I'd say, when I was attacked by ten people it worked quite well.

I know it's the internet and you can just go "Meh, it's BS" but let me add that those people were total morons.

Besides, if somebody doesn't know how to block properly, why do you think they'd be able to attack properly?

I'd run away, I'm shit at fighting and would just get the shit beaten out of me. I'm quite good at escaping though.

I would generally refer to myself as a pacifist in the sense that I will attempt non-violent means to avoid or resolve conflicts before anything else. If someone attacked me and I can run away or talk my way out of it I'll do that. But if someone attacks me and I believe that those aren't an option, or if I feel my life is in legitimate danger (which I probably would if someone my size attacks me) then all bets are off. If I consider my life to be in danger then I will not only fight back, I'm going to use any force necessary to disable someone as quickly as possible. I will throw elbows at throats, the face, knee the groin, throw kicks at the knees, break elbows, tear ligaments, and if necessary, try to kill someone to defend myself. And the reality is that if you are being attacked, there is always the possibility of the attacker seriously or permanently injuring you, or even causing death whether that was their intent or not. Any attack should be taken seriously as though it could kill you.

It's all well and good to say you'll simply try to restrain someone, or get them in a lock and hold them there until they calm down and someone calls the police, but the reality is that real fights rarely work that way, and unless you're highly trained in that form of fighting and have drilled it 10,000 times and 10,000 different ways it's foolish to try. Simple, fast, effective, and brutal will be your best bet for walking away. Especially against multiple attackers where restraining one will not end anything. No vital area is ever of limits and every advantage should be exploited to make sure that you come out on top.

nikki191:
i wouldnt retaliate, id actually feel sorry for them

After about the tenth punch, though, it doesn't matter how much you pity them... standing there and taking it isn't an option unless you're built like a side of beef, so you have to do something.

As has been noted, though, there are plenty of ways to respond to this nonviolently, or at least non-lethaly... I think the OP might be missing the point. Being a pacifist doesn't mean you don't react to such things, it means you don't respond to them with violence. Running away, blocking, restraining, etc, are all allowed by certain forms of pacifism and perfectly valid options... all should serve unless you come across someone who's really pretty far gone, and armed.

Now, I wouldn't call myself a pacifist. I'm willing to kill, if I absolutely have to, but I have a feeling I'd spend enough time looking for another way, any other way, that I'd have hesitated too long and died. So not a pacifist... just too merciful to survive, probably. But I can live with that.

Until I don't, anyway. Beats killing an innocent.

I would stand there getting punched in the face, making no attempt to block, talk, or flee. Because that's apparently what pacifists do :P

DoPo:

Chairman Miaow:
To all the people saying you can just block them, you have clearly never had somebody attacking you. You could disable or restrain them, if you are very, very good, but if you aren't, you are just going to get beaten down, because you are holding yourself back, and they aren't.

I like how you clearly know everything about everybody. I was the first one who said blocking is an option. And I'd say, when I was attacked by ten people it worked quite well.

I know it's the internet and you can just go "Meh, it's BS" but let me add that those people were total morons.

Besides, if somebody doesn't know how to block properly, why do you think they'd be able to attack properly?

If by block you meant, "ran like hell", then sure, I believe you. If not, of course I'm going to think it's BS. Can you blame me? And if somebody really wants to hurt you, it's not as simple as just blocking. They can grab you, they will throw in their knees and elbows, they'll try and throw you down, they could grab something and use it as a weapon. You can't block everything. Nobody could.

Chairman Miaow:

DoPo:

Chairman Miaow:
To all the people saying you can just block them, you have clearly never had somebody attacking you. You could disable or restrain them, if you are very, very good, but if you aren't, you are just going to get beaten down, because you are holding yourself back, and they aren't.

I like how you clearly know everything about everybody. I was the first one who said blocking is an option. And I'd say, when I was attacked by ten people it worked quite well.

I know it's the internet and you can just go "Meh, it's BS" but let me add that those people were total morons.

Besides, if somebody doesn't know how to block properly, why do you think they'd be able to attack properly?

If by block you meant, "ran like hell", then sure, I believe you. If not, of course I'm going to think it's BS. Can you blame me? And if somebody really wants to hurt you, it's not as simple as just blocking. They can grab you, they will throw in their knees and elbows, they'll try and throw you down, they could grab something and use it as a weapon. You can't block everything. Nobody could.

I walked off, actually. And they tried to follow and attack from behind. I only sort of shoved them aside as they flailed around. One tried to jump kick me. See, batting him aside was really effective, as he fell on his knee.

As I said, I'm a fairly big guy - I was 15 at the time and was 1.85m/90kg. Against a bunch of hyperactive idiots weighting 60kg each or so.

But that time I just didn't want to get in trouble as I was on school ground (and it wasn't even my school), so I tried to calmly walk off towards the exit. That's why I chose not to hit them. Even though they were known to be imbeciles, I didn't want to take my chances with the school. They didn't follow me outside, though.

But I don't think hitting ends a fight. Making people incapable of hitting ends it. Hence why restraining the opponent is a better option. Blocking can only give them a chance to stop now, it's like a warning shot. That's how I use it.

hell yeah! i could use a real fight in my life for once!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked