When, if ever, is violence justifiable?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by morningrob

When you mentioned that failure to defend one's self would be violence to one's self. Good point, my question is whether a physical defense would necessarily presume that you would still be alive. You are presuming the answer is yes, again at least that is how I understand your post. If that is incorrect please let me know and I will try to answer you better. I am saying that one cannot make that presumption.

mhen you ask for something.

Hey Rob, I'm saying (or meaning to say) roughly the same thing here. No, you don't KNOW that responding with physical struggle will lead to survival. But say the situation is such that it looks clear that failure to struggle = certain death. In that case struggle = possible survival. I say by all means! You don't know the outcome, but if from the info you have it looks necessary, you do it. Fight for yourself if you must. Better if it never becomes necessary.

As for the disagreements, it is okay to disagree. And to express disagreements. Friends do disagree sometimes, perhaps even often, and that is okay. What matters is how we treat one another in expressing disagreement. So I say, don't bow out of the conversations, it's always okay to express an opinion. For instance, I disagree with your point about gators, but hubby is waitin' fer me right now 'n I gotta go. So I'll address it later. Ya may hafta remind me.

[Lydia]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

At what point, if ever, is violence an appropriate option?
The non-violence movement obviously stresses non-violent change at all times, but what happens if/when that doesn't work? If, for example, we were in the middle of a large scale war (of WWII proportions), would you eventually resort to violence?

My commitment to nonviolence stems from religious convictions. I'm not convinced that it should (or even could) be extended into secular, governmental issues. And even if it could, I don't think it's wise to blur the lines between church and state. Those boundaries are there for a reason.

In an ideal world, I would never resort of violence. If I was attacked by something sentient in this ideal world, (I was too weirded out by the thought of alligators wandering the streets of downtown Toronto to think of a good reply to Zerbie's question ) the authorities would be close by. Or I'd run away very quickly. Or I'd be witty enough to verbally disarm them.

Realistically? I'd fight for myself or my family as long and as hard as I had to. I'd do everything I could to prevent the assailant from being critically wounded, but I'd pick my life over his or her life in a heartbeat.

Once the crisis was finished I'd feel guilty for doing so, and if the other person I'd probably feel as though I need to repent of what, IMO, was a sin. But in the meantime I'd fight.

Conflicts like WWII could have been successfully approached nonviolently, but they really would needed to have begun in the 20's to be effective. Or better yet, there should have been a more nonviolent approach in '18 when WWI ended to help avoid some of the blaming and shaming of the German people that happened during that time period.

[kimmyd]

I DON'T call myself non-violent. Nor would I refer to myself as violent.

What I am is a person who will, at all times, defend those she loves by whatever means necessary.

You don't have to approve of that or like it, nor do I care whether you do or not.

While it is unfortunate, violence is part of our world; there are and always will be people who insure that we face it one way or another.

If, God forbid, it touches myself or my children, I will do all in my power to make sure myself and my kids are not harmed.

Originally Posted by morningrob

As you admit you know nothing about me, therefore do not presume what I know or do not know.

All you have proven is your love of violence. If you would like to solve issues that way, ok- but you will be the victim of the violence in which you preach. Your words to my response only show hate and violence. Or at least that is how I interpret it.

I should mention by forum- I did not mean website. I meant conference, workshop or somehting like that.

Again, if you want to claim violence as a means of solving problems, go for it. Just do not call yourself non-violent- you are not.

[kimmyd]

Lydia, what a great post.

I'm not sure why I'm being labled 'violent' for stating that I'd fight for myself and my kids. Nor do I really care.

But seeing so many others on here saying the same things means that I'm not in the minority.

But even if I was--those kids are mine. In the end, it comes down to how I'm going to protect them--and standing there being passive and kind because someone dictates to me that that's the right thing to do while they're in danger just doesn't cut it.

BTW, I loved you WWII view. Very interesting and well thought out.

Originally Posted by Lydia

My commitment to nonviolence stems from religious convictions. I'm not convinced that it should (or even could) be extended into secular, governmental issues. And even if it could, I don't think it's wise to blur the lines between church and state. Those boundaries are there for a reason.

In an ideal world, I would never resort of violence. If I was attacked by something sentient in this ideal world, (I was too weirded out by the thought of alligators wandering the streets of downtown Toronto to think of a good reply to Zerbie's question ) the authorities would be close by. Or I'd run away very quickly. Or I'd be witty enough to verbally disarm them.

Realistically? I'd fight for myself or my family as long and as hard as I had to. I'd do everything I could to prevent the assailant from being critically wounded, but I'd pick my life over his or her life in a heartbeat.

Once the crisis was finished I'd feel guilty for doing so, and if the other person I'd probably feel as though I need to repent of what, IMO, was a sin. But in the meantime I'd fight.

Conflicts like WWII could have been successfully approached nonviolently, but they really would needed to have begun in the 20's to be effective. Or better yet, there should have been a more nonviolent approach in '18 when WWI ended to help avoid some of the blaming and shaming of the German people that happened during that time period.

[Zerbie]

Excellent!

Lydia raises an utterly critical point, which is that non-violent means need to be used to diffuse a situation BEFORE it escalates into violence. That means having the forethought to avoid getting into circumstances to begin with that will lead to "violent" situations.

What I was gonna say about gators: Not much of a point, but just that violence certainly CAN be committed against gators. When they are tied up, trapped, euthanized, etc. just for being inconvenient to human beings, that is violence to the gator. Hey, if the gator's lunch fights back and you could ask the gator about it and hear his answer, he might even call that violence.

[Lydia]

Originally Posted by kimmyd

Lydia, what a great post.

I'm not sure why I'm being labled 'violent' for stating that I'd fight for myself and my kids. Nor do I really care.

Thank you.

I can only speak for myself, but I label self-defense as (a form of) violence because IMO it can be. When you're defending yourself you may have to do some pretty injurious things to the other party.

If I was violently attacked by someone, I may have to resort to some pretty violent behaviors to escape. I'd probably draw blood, and if it was an even match I might even injury that person severely. Self defense isn't a pretty thing, it isn't a nice thing. But it's sometimes a necessary thing, unfortunate as that may be.

Many pacifists won't agree with me on that point, and I think that's where the "violent" label on self-defense comes into play. I have extended family members whose nonviolence runs so deeply inside of them that they wouldn't physically defend themselves if they were attacked, partially because if their assailant were to die they wouldn't know if he or she would make it into heaven. And they would rather die themselves than risk "sending" someone else to that other place.

Anyway, I know you said that you weren't interested in the reasoning behing this but I thought other people might be interested.

(edited because I can't seem to spell properly today)

[Vortex]

From reading the posts on this topic, for me the issue comes down to our own morals and principles and the sacrificing of those morals and principles. I don’t think anyone here is advocating violence as the method for solving our problems, we all see nonviolence as the ideal resolution to conflict. Where we differ is whether or not these morals and principles of nonviolence should be sacrificed when faced with a true threat to our own survival. To which I pose the following questions.


What are our principles without us?

If the dog, the alligator, or the person with the gun kills us and we die willingly for a principle does it mean anything? If we’re dead what good are our principles?


What are we without our principles?

Is the use of nonviolence really about outcome? We all hope that through the use of nonviolence we can resolve our conflicts without violence, but what if we fail? Does that devalue the principle of nonviolence? Are our principles really about success, or are they about who we are as a people?

I like to believe that being in the right on an issue no matter the outcome carries with it its on success.



P.S. I notice this topic getting a little testy to which I say to you all, we should not beat each other up over this issue, considering the fact that most people will not put nearly as much thought into this issue their entire lifetime as many of you have just in these post. I see the discussion itself of this issue despite its contentions as success in it of it self.


Vortex

[Lydia]

Originally Posted by Vortex

P.S. I notice this topic getting a little testy

It is

[kimmyd]

Actually, thanks for that explanation, lydia. I appreciated reading it.

I have very religious family members who do the same thing, live by the 'Turn the other cheek' attitude. I find that...well...lame.

Originally Posted by Lydia

Thank you.

I can only speak for myself, but I label self-defense as (a form of) violence because IMO it can be. When you're defending yourself you may have to do some pretty injurious things to the other party.

If I was violently attacked by someone, I may have to resort to some pretty violent behaviors to escape. I'd probably draw blood, and if it was an even match I might even injury that person severely. Self defense isn't a pretty thing, it isn't a nice thing. But it's sometimes a necessary thing, unfortunate as that may be.

Many pacifists won't agree with me on that point, and I think that's where the "violent" label on self-defense comes into play. I have extended family members whose nonviolence runs so deeply inside of them that they wouldn't physically defend themselves if they were attacked, partially because if their assailant were to die they wouldn't know if he or she would make it into heaven. And they would rather die themselves than risk "sending" someone else to that other place.

Anyway, I know you said that you weren't interested in the reasoning behing this but I thought other people might be interested.

(edited because I can't seem to spell properly today)

[morningrob]

A couple of responses.
To Kimmyd.
I made the presumption as this is a website about a group which uses non-violent means for change, that the responses would be with a goal of people who are attempting to have a non-violent lifestyle. I apologize for presuming something different. Please do not understand that I mean that you are bat-toting lunatic either. Only that you believe that violence might be appropiate in certain (shall I also say limited?) circumstances.
However, I should say that I misread one major part of your first post. In essence, I did not read the line (or skipped over, or something) the part where it said where you said If somebody was attacking my kids you would not be quoting Gandhi or King. Basically I skipped that line in my reading. If you read your post without that line, then you could see the context in which I was making my reply. While not an excuse, an explanation. In other words, I thought you wanted to whack me with a bat.
Let me, if I may, make a better response. First, I believe it seems that we are coming at the word "reason" from two different viewpoints. I believe, that you were using the word "reason" in a psychological sense. In other words, the attacker is an altered state of mind and is not in control of themselves. I was using the word "reason" in a philosophical sense. In other words, as humans we all have the capacity to make decisions. I have no disagreements with the way you described the attacker, as I mentioned in another post, it seemed to me that you were proving my point.
Second, it was inappropiate of me to say that you loved violence. I should have made a distinction between a person who uses violence and a violent person. Therefore, please accept my apology for my words, they were wrong. However, the part of my post in which I say that those who use violent means will eventually have violence visited upon them, that I am not taking back. I do not mean to say that violence will specifically directed towards you by this. Perhaps, an analogy might be helpful. Imagine an empty glass. Each violent act (and I am including self defense that resorts to violence in this) fills the glass with water. If people do not act in a way in which the glass gets empty again, eventually the glass will fill up and overflow. Once it overflows, all people get wet, no matter their personal choices throughout their life. This is my point, in that individual acts of violence, even those acts nobody else knows about, will eventually cause violence to visit all of us.
Third, you made what I thought is a common but incorrect presumption. That is that non-violence is passive. This was in your post at 10:24 pm. I would disagree with the statement that non-violence is passive. I would not agree with that.
However, examples would have to go back to King, and you believe that he is my God (yeah, still a bit ticked off about that one, which will be point four). Furthermore, a personal example would mean me breaking confedentialty (did I spell that right) and I am not going to do that.
Fourth, I would say that a group who says that King and Gandhi are their examples of non-violence and then for me to make a reference to one of them is appropiate and not making gods out of them.

To Joe:
In essence I am insulted by your response. Was I being forceful, yes. Was I stating some truths as I understand them, yes. Could I have been clearer, yes. However, as you never quoted me directly and only threw out generalities, I really cannot respond beyond this. This point, about people throwing around generalities, has already been made before in another thread- I think it was awediot who brought it up (I might be wrong). Furthermore, if you read my next post after my response to kimmyd, I fully admitted to having my own demons and needing to work on them. I understood your post, in light of both of my posts, as rubbing my nose in my own failures.

To Vortex:
IS it getting testy, one way of seeing it. Is it passionate, yes and thank God for that. Personally I do not understand why there are not more posts about this subject- it seems most are interested in people's favorite flower (I used a question I asked). Please, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that post, only that does not this question go to the heart of this website?

To Lydia:
I am in agreement with you about my reasons for non-violence, in other words religious principles. However, is this to say that non-violence is a purely religious/spiritual conviction? In other words, can anybody imagine what it would look like for a government to pursue non-violent strategies?

[morningrob]

Originally Posted by kimmyd

I have very religious family members who do the same thing, live by the 'Turn the other cheek' attitude. I find that...well...lame.

One other thing. I would like to mention that there is some good scholarship that says "Turn the Other Cheek," as understood within the context of Jesus' time is actually a form of protest and resistance. I could go into this in greater detail if you would like, but it would have to wait until I can go home and get my sources out. In other words, don't expect a better explanation until tomorrow, if you would desire it.

[suzer1013]

Originally Posted by morningrob

One other thing. I would like to mention that there is some good scholarship that says "Turn the Other Cheek," as understood within the context of Jesus' time is actually a form of protest and resistance. I could go into this in greater detail if you would like, but it would have to wait until I can go home and get my sources out. In other words, don't expect a better explanation until tomorrow, if you would desire it.

Rob -- I, for one, would love to hear the scholarship on that. That has always been of interest to me. I agree with "turn the other cheek," but my question is -- for how long? How long does one continue to "take it" before hitting back, so to speak? Perhaps the info. you have can shed some light on that for me, give the story a different perspective. I'd love to see what you have on that subject. Thanks!

Susan

[suzer1013]

Here's an anecdote from my life. I'm wondering what I can learn from this regarding non-violence.

When I was in the 5th grade, I was one of the kids who was bullied. This was because I was sort of chunky, and was an emotionally sensitive child who was ripe for the picking for some of the more bullying types. I was picked on mercilessly by one particular girl and her "pack" of friends who accompanied her. There was one girl, Kristin, who was the only person in 5th grade who was nice to me that year. It was an awful year.

Anyway, I came home crying day after day, after being called every name in the book, having dirt thrown at me, etc. Needless to say, being called "fatso" and "blubber" and every other derogatory name for overweight kids didn't help my self esteem any.

My mom tried to console me, to tell me those other kids were just mean, and I was so much better than them because I was nice and sweet and didn't resort to name calling, that I didn't want them as friends anyway. But the teasing and bullying went on and on -- I don't even know for exactly how long. I was miserable and unhappy and hated to go to school. I was in fear constantly. This was the 70's, and anti-bullying programs in schools was unheard of. I had tried asking them to stop, I had tried avoiding them, I had tried calling them names back -- all of which made them laugh at me harder and intensify the bullying.

Finally, after months of this, my mother had had it. She shook her head and said "Susan, the next time Jeannine bullies you, I want you to punch her in the nose, as hard as you can."

I was stunned. My mom had NEVER advocated any kind of physical retaliation -- in fact, always taught us that hitting was wrong. I wasn't sure, but she said that at that point, it might be the only thing that would stop Jeannine.

So, I did. The next time it happened, I punched that little girl. Got her in the stomach (not the nose), and her posse proceeded to jump on me, kicking me and pulling my hair, spitting on me, etc. Jeannine and I were dragged to the principal's office by a teacher, where I sat crying and explaining what had happened. Jeannine sat rather sullen and angry, not crying, but calm. The principal somehow got her to say she would stop bullying me, and she would stop encouraging her friends to do so. And she did! It all ended.

I know this story deals with children, but frankly, alot of disputes in our world seem to occur at a 5th grade level mindset. I learned that sometimes, to stop abuse, I had to stand up for myself in an aggressive way. I had to show them I wouldn't take their bullying any more. Had I gone to the principal first, I believe the taunting would have continued, probably at an increased level (then I would have been a "tattletale").

Anyway, I can't help but think about that when I think about non-violence. I wonder what, if anything, I could have done that would not have been physically attacking my opponent.

Maybe bullying on the playground is not a good analogy to use, but I guess it has informed my way of thinking, so I thought it was worth sharing.

I've never again used physical violence to solve a problem, as I did in the 5th grade. And I'm not sure that Jeannine ever bullied anyone again -- I don't remember her doing so (we went through school and graduated the same year), so perhaps she learned something from it and changed her ways, I don't know. She seemed genuinely remorseful after that, and was always polite to me, though we were certainly never "friends."

Susan

[kimmyd]

YOU GO GIRL!

I loved that story.


I'm sure it was scary and horrible and the last thing you wanted to do...but sometimes, what else works???

I am very, very sorry you got called those names though...been there, and they really do leave their scars.

The only good thing is, those scars can make us stronger and teach us compassion.

Originally Posted by suzer1013

Here's an anecdote from my life. I'm wondering what I can learn from this regarding non-violence.

When I was in the 5th grade, I was one of the kids who was bullied. This was because I was sort of chunky, and was an emotionally sensitive child who was ripe for the picking for some of the more bullying types. I was picked on mercilessly by one particular girl and her "pack" of friends who accompanied her. There was one girl, Kristin, who was the only person in 5th grade who was nice to me that year. It was an awful year.

Anyway, I came home crying day after day, after being called every name in the book, having dirt thrown at me, etc. Needless to say, being called "fatso" and "blubber" and every other derogatory name for overweight kids didn't help my self esteem any.

My mom tried to console me, to tell me those other kids were just mean, and I was so much better than them because I was nice and sweet and didn't resort to name calling, that I didn't want them as friends anyway. But the teasing and bullying went on and on -- I don't even know for exactly how long. I was miserable and unhappy and hated to go to school. I was in fear constantly. This was the 70's, and anti-bullying programs in schools was unheard of. I had tried asking them to stop, I had tried avoiding them, I had tried calling them names back -- all of which made them laugh at me harder and intensify the bullying.

Finally, after months of this, my mother had had it. She shook her head and said "Susan, the next time Jeannine bullies you, I want you to punch her in the nose, as hard as you can."

I was stunned. My mom had NEVER advocated any kind of physical retaliation -- in fact, always taught us that hitting was wrong. I wasn't sure, but she said that at that point, it might be the only thing that would stop Jeannine.

So, I did. The next time it happened, I punched that little girl. Got her in the stomach (not the nose), and her posse proceeded to jump on me, kicking me and pulling my hair, spitting on me, etc. Jeannine and I were dragged to the principal's office by a teacher, where I sat crying and explaining what had happened. Jeannine sat rather sullen and angry, not crying, but calm. The principal somehow got her to say she would stop bullying me, and she would stop encouraging her friends to do so. And she did! It all ended.

I know this story deals with children, but frankly, alot of disputes in our world seem to occur at a 5th grade level mindset. I learned that sometimes, to stop abuse, I had to stand up for myself in an aggressive way. I had to show them I wouldn't take their bullying any more. Had I gone to the principal first, I believe the taunting would have continued, probably at an increased level (then I would have been a "tattletale").

Anyway, I can't help but think about that when I think about non-violence. I wonder what, if anything, I could have done that would not have been physically attacking my opponent.

Maybe bullying on the playground is not a good analogy to use, but I guess it has informed my way of thinking, so I thought it was worth sharing.

I've never again used physical violence to solve a problem, as I did in the 5th grade. And I'm not sure that Jeannine ever bullied anyone again -- I don't remember her doing so (we went through school and graduated the same year), so perhaps she learned something from it and changed her ways, I don't know. She seemed genuinely remorseful after that, and was always polite to me, though we were certainly never "friends."

Susan

[kimmyd]

MB,

I was out of line saying King and Ghandi are your gods. I'm sorry. It was really rude.

I would also VERY much like to see this scholarship.

Something else interesting I just learned: I've always had a hard time believing that Jesus, obviously a human, could be born from a 'virgin'. It defies...well...reality. Can't happen.

One day about two weeks ago, I mentioned this to the judge I work for (we were having a heated discussion about the whole Divinchi Code thing), and he said that the term 'Virgin' back then meant not having given birth to any children yet.

So in that sense, she was indeed a virgin.

IMAGINE!

It comforted me to know that the Bible isn't the pack of lies I've come to think of it as.

Sorry--the whole 666 date made me say that just now.

Anyway..sorry MB and love ya.

Kimmyd

Originally Posted by morningrob

One other thing. I would like to mention that there is some good scholarship that says "Turn the Other Cheek," as understood within the context of Jesus' time is actually a form of protest and resistance. I could go into this in greater detail if you would like, but it would have to wait until I can go home and get my sources out. In other words, don't expect a better explanation until tomorrow, if you would desire it.

[suzer1013]

Originally Posted by kimmyd

YOU GO GIRL!

I loved that story.


I'm sure it was scary and horrible and the last thing you wanted to do...but sometimes, what else works???

I am very, very sorry you got called those names though...been there, and they really do leave their scars.

The only good thing is, those scars can make us stronger and teach us compassion.

LOL! Yeah, the scars can make you stronger, and I hope and pray that what happened also taught Jeannine some compassion. I think it did, but I really have no way of knowing.

My question has always been, though -- was it the RIGHT thing to do? It was obviously not the non-violent thing to do (as a 9/10 year old, I didn't have a good grasp of non-violence, though I had been taught pretty well at home and in Sunday School).

Perhaps it's a bit off subject. I mean, I understand the schoolyard situation isn't really talking about non-violent social change in the way Soulforce is, but I do think it correlates in a larger picture sort of way. If we can teach our children peaceful means of resolving problems, perhaps the world would be a better place. I've always wondered, could I have changed their abusive behavior toward me in any other way? I don't know -- can't go back in time and find out.

Susan

[kimmyd]

That's just it--NONE of us are truly non-violent.

It's just that we pray we'll never be in a situation to have to choose whether or not to be.

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

Morning Rob,
I sadly fing more passive violence in your repsonses to your adversaries than the violence you deplore so much. I ask that you take a moment to choose your words more carefully and not make such assumptions about your adversary. Choose words that are those of a friend giving advice as opoose to making accusations and assumptions.

None of us will ever be truly nonviolent, but in our stride to be as nonviolent as we can be,we must see are adversary as our friend and future ally and your posts lack that quality.

I hope you will take my words as loving advice. I know you mean well, but the means must be justified with the end.

[kimmyd]

It was right and wrong: sure, fighting is 'wrong'...but what you did stopped her torment dead in it's tracks. It gave you a break from the abuse and confidence in your ability to control your life a little better.

So measuring right versus wrong on the scales?

Right has it.

I hope her nose was sore for a good long time.

You want to talk about violence: once, my sister got mad at me all b/c I gave her this really terrible haircut (we were playing barber). I kept trying to even everything out, and she ended up with no hair but for a tuft on the left side and a few strands on top.

In retaliation, she shaved off the hair of all my dolls!!!

So I took scissors and poked out all the eyes of HER dolls.

Then we got into a huge rolling-on-floor brawl that ended with my dad pulling us apart. He took in my sister's hair (or lack of it), the shaved and eyeless dolls...and gasped, "My GOD! What kind of girls ARE you???" This was when the old Damien movies were out, and I think he was actually scared of us.

We cried and begged for new dolls but he said no way would he subject any more dolls to the likes of us.

So all we had were blind, bald dolls until next Chrismas, when my parents finally thought we were good enough to get new ones.

Like I said, I've since moved on to baseball bats.

I think she uses taser guns, but I'll have to check....

What can I say...I'll be a tomboy for life.

Originally Posted by suzer1013

LOL! Yeah, the scars can make you stronger, and I hope and pray that what happened also taught Jeannine some compassion. I think it did, but I really have no way of knowing.

My question has always been, though -- was it the RIGHT thing to do? It was obviously not the non-violent thing to do (as a 9/10 year old, I didn't have a good grasp of non-violence, though I had been taught pretty well at home and in Sunday School).

Perhaps it's a bit off subject. I mean, I understand the schoolyard situation isn't really talking about non-violent social change in the way Soulforce is, but I do think it correlates in a larger picture sort of way. If we can teach our children peaceful means of resolving problems, perhaps the world would be a better place. I've always wondered, could I have changed their abusive behavior toward me in any other way? I don't know -- can't go back in time and find out.

Susan

[Zerbie]

I don't think Suze's story is off topic at all. It's one example, and a smaller, simpler one to discuss than, say, WWII. It is one look at what one can do in a nearly powerless situation. As adults, we can stand up and walk out of the room if we are in an intolerable situation - even at work, though with the understanding we may be jeopardizing our jobs. But a 9 year old can't get away with walking out of school and not going back. She has to be there every day.

I dealt with constant problems at school of a similar nature. K through second grade it was an escalating series of physical attacks. A group of boys once picked me up, held me upside down, and dropped me on my head in the middle of the 2nd grade classroom. Teacher was in the hallway chatting with another teacher at the time. When I was able to move, I ran to her and said " (names) tried to kill me." She literally WAVED me off with her hand. Things of this nature continued the entire year.

Towards late spring, the class bully accosted me when the teacher was out of the room. He put his hands over my mouth and nose, firmly, and left them there. I waited, sure that no 9 year old wanted to actually kill an innocent kid in his class. Shortly, I needed to breathe. Desperately. I struggled, he kept his hands clamped down. Did I keep waiting? *&^$, no. I kicked him in the package AS HARD AS I POSSIBLY COULD. And immediately became able to breathe. While he writhed on the ground I stood over him, lowered my voice about an octave and sneered, "Good." As it turned out, IT ENDED his bullying career forever.

Would I have gone out of my way to engage in that "violence."? Oh heck no. I had to be desperate to breathe before I even considered it, but once the need became apparent, I didn't think twice. I gained from that experience a sense that I can probably protect myself from future attackers, and he never tried to harm me again. To this day, i don't know what would have happened if I had NOT fought back. Would he have let go? or would he have become a 9 year old murderer? I don't know. I wasn't going to trust a guy whose hands were over my nose and mouth to be the one to decide whether or not I get to breathe. I couldn't risk that. And I wouldn't expect anyone else to.

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by Vortex

I notice this topic getting a little testy to which I say to you all, we should not beat each other up over this issue, considering the fact that most people will not put nearly as much thought into this issue their entire lifetime as many of you have just in these post. I see the discussion itself of this issue despite its contentions as success in it of it self.

Originally Posted by morningrob

To Vortex:
IS it getting testy, one way of seeing it. Is it passionate, yes and thank God for that. Personally I do not understand why there are not more posts about this subject- it seems most are interested in people's favorite flower (I used a question I asked). Please, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that post, only that does not this question go to the heart of this website?

I'm not sure exactly how it was infered from my post that I was suggesting that this discussion isn't warrented, but perhaps further clariffication is necessary. I was only pointing out that in taking up this discussion we are taking a step that many will never even explore, it is my hope though that in the process of which that we not make enemies out of eachother.

My apologies for any confusion.