When does a gentleman fight back?

[shortbow]

Matt, you nailed it on the head.

For me, defence of person or of others calls for violence in, as a noted writer has put it, only "In the gravest extreme." I am a peaceful man who abhors violence, but if the extreme occurs, I shall act.

 

[reetpleat]

Actually all opinions are equally valid to the person who states them.

The problem in many discussions is the unfortunate mix of opinion and learned facts... and never the twain shall meet.

Unfortunately, people often have differing opinions on which facts are indeed facts, and which are not facts at all. Thus, we return to square one.

 

[stephen1965]

So, what happened to Lear? Curious to hear who threatened him today. Perhaps he interacts with the world differently now, depriving us of further anecdotes?

lol Doesn't it just make your blood boil when people do that...

Unfortunately, people often have differing opinions on which facts are indeed facts, and which are not facts at all. Thus, we return to square one.

That's true, usually after a violent confrontation, the 'losers' get their facts straight according to the 'winners'. Who was it that said that history is a 'history of crime'?

 

[carebear]

I think you're right about context and about preparation carebear but can we also train and prepare ourselves for non violence/peace? If we don't do we make ourselves incapable of it? I'm sure you don't think the two are mutually exclusive and I don't mean to be flippant and I'm making a general/theoretical point which may sound naive. As Feraud says 'And never the twain shall meet'. My experience tells me that understanding grows when I divide my attention between two forces. The third force is then my own understanding. Ok just a thought...

Oh I agree we do have to train to be non-violent, if anything it takes more effort. That said, without examining the reality of violent persons and violent interaction I would suggest you can't prepare to be non-violent properly.

(yes there is hard, un-biased, experiential and scientifically derived data on the subject, it isn't just "believe what you want" opinion )

Communication is between two persons. If you are intending to use non-violent communication strategies against a violent person and you don't know how they think and react, what their language and rules of behavior are, then you will not be presenting your non-violent message in a form they can understand. You may actually unintentionally come across to them as aggressive instead of pacifistic.

You and I can interact non-violently without much difficulty because we speak the same language and operate with the same general set of cultural assumptions and unspoken rules of behavior. Remember though, most other people in the world, even inside our own country, outside of our narrow cultural strata, do not think like we do. Especially people from cultures which allow for the use of physical violence where our more civil culture does not.

Even if you interact with people from such cultures in your day-to-day life (as they work where you do, etc) remember that you are seeing them on your turf with them adapting to your rules and officially (ie law enforcement willing to use violence as necessary) enforced controls on their normal behavior, you aren't seeing them in their milieu on their terms.

As far as crime is concerned, when non-violence becomes necessary it will not be in our ordered narrow range of experience, it is going to be in their chosen venue and on their chosen terms. The de-escalation strategies that work on me, being a normal middle-classey, violent as a last resort person, are not going to work in those circumstances.

There are strategies that do work but you have to learn a bit about the cultures of violence to know what to use, when and how. That takes admitting that your worldview in fact may not be complete enough, stepping outside your comfort zone and acknowledging that maybe it would be wise to study violence and violent people.

Once you understand the details of what you will be facing then you can make a truly informed decision on whether non-violence is really for you. If it is, you will also now know the effective means to live that way among people who don't necessarily share your basic beliefs.

More important than knowing how to interact non-violently once that is forced upon you, is to learn what the signs of impending crime are and how they can be avoided or deterred non-violently. Realizing that also takes the wisdom to set aside one's preferred beliefs and learn from people who know what they are talking about.

Even persons who are willing to use force in defense are better served to avoid and deter when possible, which is why people who study self-defense are often much less likely to have to use that force than are people who walk around in a bubble of "I'm non-violent, harm won't come to me, I don't have to learn that stuff". They took the time to learn the full spectrum of response. Knowing how to do violence doesn't mean you will, often it means you won't have to. Your knowledge allows you to project to potential predators that you would make a poor victim. The predators would rather interact with people who are unaware of what is going on until too late.

Regardless of whether you intend to use that knowledge against others, ignorance of the realities of violence is dangerous.

Look, people can hold whatever beliefs they want, but for their own well-being I would prefer those beliefs be based on reason and actual knowledge, not mere assumptions on how they'd like the world to be.

 

[carebear]

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

He was referring to the Indian Arms Act of 1878 (which was amended several times over the ensuing decades). This Act was, in practice, a total gun ban enacted to protect the British realm from an insurgency. By banning firearm possession for all but those authorized by the Realm they were able to all but do away with both military and private arms as almost no one was ever authorized.

Mr. Gandhi, as you correctly state, was a lifelong pacifist. But, he understood that in the extreme a society needs to have the capability to defend itself from invasion and oppressive governance. This is not contradictory. It's merely an acknowledgement of the existence of extremes. I have in person heard the Dalai Lama (another life long pacifist) state the same thing. In short, pacifists are not entirely blind to the possibility of a need to defend oneself from extraordinary violence. However, they do believe that in most cases where one man would choose to take up arms passive resistance would be the superior choice. In India that proved to be true.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,3916,0,0,1,0

Living in exile in India, the Dalai Lama professes his admiration of Mohandas Gandhi. Yet, like Gandhi, the Dalai Lama is not as inflexibly pacifist as some Westerners imagine. Indeed, the Lama defended what he calls India’s “right to nuclear weapons.”

According to the Dalai Lama, “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001). Elsewhere, the Dalai Lama said:

If the situation was such that there was only one learned lama or genuine practitioner alive, a person whose death would cause the whole of Tibet to lose all hope of keeping its Buddhist way of life, then it is conceivable that in order to protect that one person it might be justified for one or 10 enemies to be eliminated—if there was no other way. I could justify violence only in this extreme case, to save the last living knowledge of Buddhism itself.

The Dalai Lama has never supported armed resistance in Tibet. The non-violence of the Lama’s approach has won him widespread sympathy in the West, although thus far, there has been no progress in convincing the Chinese to relax their iron grip.

Sometimes the Dalai Lama states that non-violence is the most important thing. Sometimes he offers broad justifications for violence — such as national defense against Communist imperialism, or individual self-defense against deadly attack. Sometimes he allows only an extremely narrow justification for violence — namely, saving his own life. To puzzle over the contradictions is to miss the non-binary spirit of Tibetan Buddhism.
.

http://www.nathanielturner.com/martinandmalcolmonnonviolence.htm

http://www.lesjones.com/posts/004857.shtml

Well before his decision (apparently in 1955) to embrace Ghandian non-violence as the best tactic in the national showdown over civil rights, King had been a committed civil rights activist, but also a man who believed in protecting himself and his family against constant threats of racist violence (which included the bombing of his home).
Accordingly, the pre-Ghandian King had been armed to protect himself and his family -- to the point where his home was described by one activist as "an arsenal":

King would later admit that at the start of the boycott be was not firmly committed to Gandhian principles. He had initially advocated nonviolence not as a way of life but as a practical necessity for a racial minority. When his home was bombed at the end of January, he had cited Jesus-- "He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword"-- rather than Gandhi in urging angry black neighbors to remain nonviolent. At the time of the bombing, King was seeking a gun permit, and he was protected by armed bodyguards. Only after the bombing did King alter his views on the use of weapons for protection. His reconsideration was encouraged by the arrival in Montgomery of two pacifists who were far more aware than he of Gandhian principles.

In contrast...

No issue angered Malcolm X more than what whites said about violence and nonviolence in the Civil Rights Movement. They urged blacks to follow Martin King—embrace nonviolence and reject violence in any form. Malcolm could hardly contain his rage as he pointed out the contradictions between what whites advised blacks to do to get their freedom and what they did to attain their own. Patrick Henry did not practice the virtues of nonviolence. George Washington was no pacifist. When whites feel that their rights have been violated, they do not advocate turning the other cheek or kneeling down to pray. Because whites did not apply to themselves the same moral logic they urged upon blacks, Malcolm regard them as the worst hypocrites on the planet.

Malcolm did not advocate violence; he advocated self-defense. He believed that the right of self-defense is an essential element in the definition of humanity. Whites have always recognized this principle for themselves but not for blacks. This kind of racist thinking infuriated Malcolm. If whites have the right to defend themselves against their enemies, why not blacks? Malcolm used provocative language to express his rage. “If you want to know what I’ll do, figure out what you’ll do. I’ll do the same thing—only more of it.” He contended that blacks should use “any means necessary” to get their freedom and whites should be prepared for “reciprocal bleeding.” He did not regard such language as violent. He called it intelligence. “A black man has the right to do whatever is necessary to get his freedom that other human beings have done to get their freedom.”

Malcolm regarded nonviolence as a ridiculous philosophy, one that whites would never embrace as their own. He never understood why Martin King adopted it. How could blacks be regarded as human beings if they do not defend themselves? Everything in creation has a right to defend itself except the American Negro. It pained Malcolm to see black women, men, and children being beaten, kicked, and attacked by dogs. If the government does not protect black people, they are within their right to protect themselves, he contended.

There is a LOT of grey in the concept of non-violence, even among those who profess it. Just as there is among those who are willing to use violence in self-defense.

The key is to make informed decisions based on reason and consideration of the realities of violence.

 

[Viola]

*********
Caution: For some DA's that would consistute "Lying in Wait" and they might charge you with murder in some states. The key is if you were in fear of your life for home defense in most places.

Just remember it's best to tell them to put the electronics down first because most stuff won't survive being dropped by the perp.

Don't know about you, but I'm too small to warn a guy. I gotta hit him fast and hard before he knows what I mean to do before he realizes and knocks me cold or worse.

EDIT: I guess that's more "when does a lady fight back" though huh?

 

[HadleyH]

So, what happened to Lear? Curious to hear who threatened him today. Perhaps he interacts with the world differently now, depriving us of further anecdotes?

If I may,I will say this for Lear, if you read some threads back, Lear said he was moving on on this topic, and so far he has kept his promise.
A gentleman knows when to fight back .... and also when it's not worthwhile to do it.

 

[Diamondback]

A gentleman knows when to fight back .... and also when it's not worthwhile to do it.

DingDingDING! Real winner of the thread, right there.

"A time to every purpose under Heaven."

 

[HadleyH]

DingDingDING! Real winner of the thread, right there.

"A time to every purpose under Heaven."

Bowing gracioulsly lol

Why, thankyou Diamondback!

 

[Fedord Spaniard]

A hypothetical question...

To the members that wear hats.... This has never happend to me but here goes, if a stranger came up to you or walked by you and he intentionally knocks your hat off your head, do you think its justifiable to crack the guy in the face for this?? I ask because where im from there are some people that would actually be stupid enough to knock a hat off a person's head. For reasons that i dont know, other than maybe they must have a death wish to do that to a stranger. So what do you think, is the backlash reaction gentlemenly or no?

 

[carebear]

The question is would that responding force be moral and legal?

I wouldn't hit someone for knocking off my hat. It's just property, hitting someone would be unjustified assault under the law and I have nothing to prove to the kind of punk who would do that.

That kind of activity is pseudo-tough guy stuff, it's only done by insecure wanna-be alpha males who are trying to improve or maintain their status to other insecure wanna-be alphas.

I may not be an alpha-type but I'm more than secure enough to ignore barking puppies.

 

[Spitfire]

To the members that wear hats.... This has never happend to me but here goes, if a stranger came up to you or walked by you and he intentionally knocks your hat off your head, do you think its justifiable to crack the guy in the face for this?? I ask because where im from there are some people that would actually be stupid enough to knock a hat off a person's head. For reasons that i dont know, other than maybe they must have a death wish to do that to a stranger. So what do you think, is the backlash reaction gentlemenly or no?

No! That's why I seldom wears a hat.

 

[Orsini]

To the members that wear hats.... This has never happend to me but here goes, if a stranger came up to you or walked by you and he intentionally knocks your hat off your head, do you think its justifiable to crack the guy in the face for this?? I ask because where im from there are some people that would actually be stupid enough to knock a hat off a person's head. For reasons that i dont know, other than maybe they must have a death wish to do that to a stranger. So what do you think, is the backlash reaction gentlemenly or no?

Hip throw.

 

[carter]

If I may,I will say this for Lear, if you read some threads back, Lear said he was moving on on this topic, and so far he has kept his promise.
A gentleman knows when to fight back .... and also when it's not worthwhile to do it.

Thanks for speaking up for Lear, Hadley.

This thread has moved considerably past the original question and anecdotal responses to a practical as well as theoretical and in-depth discussion. As such, it has been of interest and provided material [perhaps] not forseen by the originator.

It's been educational to say the least.

 

[HadleyH]

Thanks for speaking up for Lear, Hadley

You are welcome carter! ~~~

 

[Viola]

To the members that wear hats.... This has never happend to me but here goes, if a stranger came up to you or walked by you and he intentionally knocks your hat off your head, do you think its justifiable to crack the guy in the face for this??

It might be satisfying but I don't want to get cracked back so I won't go there.

Not promising not to make a loud, hollering scene though.

 

[scottyrocks]

To the members that wear hats.... This has never happend to me but here goes, if a stranger came up to you or walked by you and he intentionally knocks your hat off your head, do you think its justifiable to crack the guy in the face for this?? I ask because where im from there are some people that would actually be stupid enough to knock a hat off a person's head. For reasons that i dont know, other than maybe they must have a death wish to do that to a stranger. So what do you think, is the backlash reaction gentlemenly or no?

There would be no backlash reaction from me, other than to pick up my hat, put it back on my head, and move on. I believe that part of the 'bully's' goal is to provoke any sort of negative reaction. I would not give him the satisfaction. I dont humor children.

 

[Harp]

Me, I would likely have taken the Louisville Slugger I keep under my bed, and split said goon's head like a Halloween pumpkin before calling the police...

Liz:

Is that a Louisville Slugger Ernie Banks (#14 1st Base, Chicago Cubs) signature bat?
...please pm if it i$.

 

[Foofoogal]

Once you understand the details of what you will be facing then you can make a truly informed decision on whether non-violence is really for you. If it is, you will also now know the effective means to live that way among people who don't necessarily share your basic beliefs.

More important than knowing how to interact non-violently once that is forced upon you, is to learn what the signs of impending crime are and how they can be avoided or deterred non-violently. Realizing that also takes the wisdom to set aside one's preferred beliefs and learn from people who know what they are talking about.

absolutely correct. This is no different than knowing the culture of countries and what is seen as rudeness. Knowing which hand not to shake in fact. Cultures are very different and even in America cultures see things very differently.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Liz:

Is that a Louisville Slugger Ernie Banks (#14 1st Base, Chicago Cubs) signature bat?
...please pm if it i$.

Nope, it's a lovely 34-ounce Carl Yastrzemski model. After all, I'm a lifelong citizen of Sox Nation, and I'd never think of inflicting grevious bodily on a burglar with some foreign bat.