Heroes live, cowards die : comments [benlehman]

... what are you guy's talking about?

Ron wrote: "asserting one's position through violence is absolutely required in real life.

Then, Ben, you wrote: "Sometimes it is to pull the trigger."

And then our own official Quaker wrote: "I do believe that at times violence is necessary."

Now, unless your suggesting Ron meant, "Start your day by punching someone in the face, and always use a violent act as your first option for any given situation" --- which he clearly did not write -- could you pleace point out to me on the map the exact piece of moral high ground are you guys standing on?

Christopher

[parent entry] [link] [reply]

Also, what's this "moral high ground" stuff? I don't think I've brought morality up, myself, but Matt Snyder accused me of "taking the moral high ground" and I'm assuming I'm included in this thing about moral high ground.

I think whether or not violence is required depends on how you define "violence" and "required," which may sound weaselly but there you go.

But at least according to definitions I commonly carry around in my head, I don't think "violence" is "required." I certianly don't think of "asserting one's position" as a reason it might be required if it were required.

I was annoyed by Ron's coda about "bullshit denial" because it sounded like a preemptive attack on anyone who would disagree with him, and an unfair one.

I was annoyed by Ron's comment about pacifists because I simply disagree with it. I don't think pacifism is dependent on shifting the use of coercion to another party. That's not pacifism, that's delegated violence.

But there may well be definitions of "violence" and "absolutely required" and perhaps "real life" under which I would agree with Ron.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think there is a difference between "absolutely required" and "at times necessary" on at least a philosophical level. I do differ from many Quakers in believing it is at times necessary. That is because I have seen too many examples of what can happen if really destructive people are not restrained, and sometimes violence is the only way to restrain such people. That said, I don't think that violence is "absolutely required" in the course of the vast majority of people's lives. Do I think cops need the option to use force? Absolutely. Do I believe that every person must use violence to assert their position at some point? No, it is definitely not necessary. And to clarify, I am defining violence as physical force.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I'm not a pacifist.

I just don't say that they're living in denial.

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14 1	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

benlehman

Forget about what Ron's talking about...

Re: Forget about what Ron's talking about...

Re: Forget about what Ron's talking about...

Re: Forget about what Ron's talking about...

May