Zero Tolerance

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:19 am

It would seem some state legislature's are finally doing something about utterly stupid school administrators who enact mind numbingly incoherent school policies:

"OKLAHOMA CITY – Schoolchildren in Oklahoma could not be punished for chewing their breakfast pastries into the shape of a gun under a bill introduced this week by a Republican legislator."

"In Maryland, Republican state Sen. J.B. Jennings introduced a similar bill last year that would prohibit schools from suspending students for seemingly harmless childish acts, such as playing games with fingers pointed like guns or chewing food into the shape of a firearm."

"In July, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, introduced the Student Protection Act, which aims to stop the enforcement of policies that "punish innocent children" by cutting funds to schools with excessive "zero tolerance" weapons policies. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01 ... -toy-guns/

I just have to wonder why it took so long.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:22 am

I'm wondering why a kid is playing with his/her food by the time they are in the school system, myself.......

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:13 am

They have to enact laws for this? Are the people really that stupid? OMG, time to move. Get the **** out of there. That's retarded.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:56 am

It's sort of nationwide, Merlin. School boards all over the place enacted these reactionary 'Zero Tolerance' policies after 9/11 and other violent events. There is a realization, slowly arriving, that all we're doing is keeping kids out of education unnecessarily by way of punishment. For older students, it gets worse: they get dumped into the juvenile criminal courts, and end up with a criminal record to cope with for the future. The Feds are in the process of trying to address this on a national level, and the example in this thread is of a state doing so.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 3:11 pm

CDN_Merlin wrote:They have to enact laws for this? Are the people really that stupid? OMG, time to move. Get the **** out of there. That's retarded.

I have to agree with ya Merlin. It's utterly foolish that counter-laws need to be created because people in "power" have no discretion or wisdom. I could voice thoughts on why this is, but it wouldn't get us anywhere.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:11 pm

These are just kids. It's normal to play cops n robbers. Are we to teach our kids to play with only dolls since it's not an aggressive behaviour or not threatening? Come on, this has seriously gone to far.

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:37 pm

CDN_Merlin wrote:Are we to teach our kids to play with only dolls since it's not an aggressive behaviour or not threatening?

I'm sorry I must have been absent in school the day I was supposed to learn that shooting someone with a gun was a game.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:21 pm

vision wrote:I'm sorry I must have been absent in school the day I was supposed to learn that shooting someone with a gun was a game.

oh god vision.. really?

When was the last time someone was sent to the hospital for playing cops and robbers? or army? Or even when a kid said the word 'bang'.

It's a childhood game. no one got hurt and no one got 'warped'. because we all knew back then, it was a GAME. not "murder simulator" or whatever they've driven into your head.

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:53 pm

Ferno wrote:It's a childhood game. no one got hurt and no one got 'warped'. because we all knew back then, it was a GAME. not "murder simulator" or whatever they've driven into your head.

Actually, once you fully realize what you are doing when you "pretend shoot someone" it is quite sickening. Wouldn't you think pretend rape or pretend torture or pretend murder was off-putting? Why not also pretend shooting? I know I am in the small minority on this one, but as you all know I am an extreme pacifist (and anti-groupist). I think deeply about about the things I do and the positions I hold. To this day I have yet to hear a good argument as to why pretend violence is Ok. Or pretend theft. Or pretend adultery.

Go ahead, give it a shot. Try and convince me without fallacy. Good luck.

Of course, this doesn't mean I think there should be laws against pretend shooting, only that Jesus probably wouldn't pretend shoot anyone.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:02 am

"To this day I have yet to hear a good argument as to why pretend violence is Ok."

Ummm…..Descent…

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:49 am

vision wrote:Actually, once you fully realize what you are doing when you "pretend shoot someone" it is quite sickening. Wouldn't you think pretend rape or pretend torture or pretend murder was off-putting? Why not also pretend shooting? I know I am in the small minority on this one, but as you all know I am an extreme pacifist (and anti-groupist). I think deeply about about the things I do and the positions I hold. To this day I have yet to hear a good argument as to why pretend violence is Ok. Or pretend theft. Or pretend adultery.

Go ahead, give it a shot. Try and convince me without fallacy. Good luck.

Of course, this doesn't mean I think there should be laws against pretend shooting, only that Jesus probably wouldn't pretend shoot anyone.

you're really going to go there? to "pretend torture"? and "pretend rape"? then "pretend theft" to "pretend adultery"? and to top it all off, try to invoke religion? AW MAH GOD WHAT WOULD JEABUS DO?

no. I don't think I can convince you if you going to go to ludicrous lengths like this to express your point. What you posted.. is simply bonkers.

Besides.. you play Descent, don't you? Your argument is invalid.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:48 am

Spidey wrote:Ummm…..Descent…

Destroying a broken machine with a laser is equivalent to homicide? Wow, did not know... Learn something every day I guess!

Ferno wrote:no. I don't think I can convince you if you going to go to ludicrous lengths like this to express your point. What you posted.. is simply bonkers.

Sure, let's put parental controls on TVs and the Internet and have a movie/game rating system and all sorts of other things to protect children from violent content, then let them act out pretend violence without question. Makes perfect sense!

And I'm the one who is bonkers apparently...

C'mon I thought you guys were smarter than this. Give it another try!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:56 am

Even if you never play multiplayer, there are still live targets in solo play. (storm troopers)

In theory you could avoid those targets like a good little pacifist…

Well, I guess simulated war in the case of the Olympics don’t count either, because the idea there was to prevent war by having “games” instead.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:10 am

Spidey wrote:...there are still live targets in solo play. (storm troopers)

Those are robots, mate. Also, D3 sucked. I didn't enjoy D3 at all and never play it. Of course, I prefer games to be as abstract as possible, partially due to my adhesion to non-violence and partially due to taste. Descent is the most 'realistic' video game I play (and is not realistic at all).

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:53 am

Spidey wrote:"To this day I have yet to hear a good argument as to why pretend violence is Ok."

Ummm…..Descent…

same exact thought occurred when I read that......

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:42 pm

vision wrote: Sure, let's put parental controls on TVs and the Internet and have a movie/game rating system and all sorts of other things to protect children from violent content, then let them act out pretend violence without question. Makes perfect sense! And I'm the one who is bonkers apparently...

Key word here is "pretend". as in "not real". as in "no one gets hurt"

But of course people like you come along and act the "pretend" warps them into mindless killing machines (Jack Thompson anyone?) and enact zero tolerance policies that tell a child they can't use their fingers to make the shape of a gun.

Any thinking person would know kids that do that sort of know the difference between fantasy and reality.

Vision wrote:C'mon I thought you guys were smarter than this. Give it another try!

This is coming from a person who used "pretend torture" and "pretend rape" to try and bolster his point...

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:31 am

Ferno wrote:But of course people like you come along and act the "pretend" warps them into mindless killing machines (Jack Thompson anyone?) and enact zero tolerance policies that tell a child they can't use their fingers to make the shape of a gun.

Thanks for putting me in a "people like you" box. Now I'll put you in one dip$hit. I said above that I don't think there should be those kinds of laws. So now what box would you like to put me in? Right now you are in the box of "people who have (poorly) prepared arguments that don't fit the conversation."

Ferno wrote:Any thinking person would know kids that do that sort of know the difference between fantasy and reality.

You claim to be a thinker? Think deeper buddy. Think about what it means to pretend and why we pretend. What are the benefits of pretending? Think about the wealth of childhood experiences someone has. Then think about how important "cops and robbers" is. Are kids learning something valuable about cops and robbers? What about the kid who like to be the robber? Is he learning that cops are to be avoided? Does the kid who like to be a cop have a full understanding of justice and freedom? Are you sure these kids have a highly developed sense of good and evil?

Ever wonder why some toys have age recommendations? Would you find it troublesome to tuck a 1 year old child into bed using bedsheets that had AK-47's and grenades printed on them? How about a baby bottle in the shape of a handgun? We yell at kids for saying curse words, for lying, for all sorts of things, but not for pretend violence. Why? What is the proper age to tell them we live in a world where there are devices designed for killing people and it is Ok to pretend to use them on each other? What valuable lesson is learned? Do you think toy guns don't spark an interest in owning real ones later? Wouldn't teaching a child not to engage in pretend violence be helpful in shaping a better future for all?

When I think back at my early childhood with all the wonderful things I experienced (sports, riding a bike, art, music, flying a kite, etc...) I can't say I cops and robbers was high on the list. In fact, if I never played it I wouldn't miss it at all. However, I did have an interesting experience with toy guns when I was younger and after I tell you the story this position of mine will make more sense...

When I was about 7 or 8 years old, my friend next door and I were walking around the block with our toy rifles. There was a younger girl, maybe 5, a couple houses down playing with her doll. Apparently we thought is was a good laugh to take her doll and hold it hostage for candy or some dumb crap like that. We put the doll against a tree and threatened to shoot it firing squad style if our demands were not met. Of course they couldn't be met and we pretended to shoot the doll. The little girl became hysterical. At her young age she was able to completely visualize the violence. She was not able to separate the bullies with the toy guns from a real threatening situation. I felt terrible for making her cry. I realized at that moment what I was doing was very wrong and I never played with toy guns again or engaged in any pretend violence.

But hey, it's just pretend, right? No one gets hurt.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:03 am

You make the perfect example for what I’m about to post….you BULLY!

What if one of you had kidnapped the girls doll, and the other had rescued it?

I don’t think the problem we are seeing today has to do with pretend violence, but more to do with the blurring of the line between the good guys and the bad guys…

I went to see Dirty Mary and Crazy Larry with a group of friends, and I was ecstatic when the “bad guys” got nailed at the end…my friends looked at me like I was crazy.

Today we have games where you drive around mowing down pedestrians…I think that is where the problem lies.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Ahh come on spidey I play tons of Carmageddon I don't want to run down anybody or cows for that fact. Even though I could get splatter bonuses. Maybe it's because I over a half century old.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:18 pm

Hehe, Vision's a ultimate pacifist until his toes get stepped on

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:04 pm

vision wrote:Thanks for putting me in a "people like you" box. Now I'll put you in one dip$hit. I said above that I don't think there should be those kinds of laws. So now what box would you like to put me in? Right now you are in the box of "people who have (poorly) prepared arguments that don't fit the conversation."

How about the anti-gun fanatic.

You claim to be a thinker? Think deeper buddy. Think about what it means to pretend and why we pretend. What are the benefits of pretending? Think about the wealth of childhood experiences someone has. Then think about how important "cops and robbers" is. Are kids learning something valuable about cops and robbers? What about the kid who like to be the robber? Is he learning that cops are to be avoided? Does the kid who like to be a cop have a full understanding of justice and freedom? Are you sure these kids have a highly developed sense of good and evil?

Ever wonder why some toys have age recommendations? Would you find it troublesome to tuck a 1 year old child into bed using bedsheets that had AK-47's and grenades printed on them? How about a baby bottle in the shape of a handgun? We yell at kids for saying curse words, for lying, for all sorts of things, but not for pretend violence. Why? What is the proper age to tell them we live in a world where there are devices designed for killing people and it is Ok to pretend to use them on each other? What valuable lesson is learned? Do you think toy guns don't spark an interest in owning real ones later? Wouldn't teaching a child not to engage in pretend violence be helpful in shaping a better future for all?

When I think back at my early childhood with all the wonderful things I experienced (sports, riding a bike, art, music, flying a kite, etc...) I can't say I cops and robbers was high on the list. In fact, if I never played it I wouldn't miss it at all. However, I did have an interesting experience with toy guns when I was younger and after I tell you the story this position of mine will make more sense...

When I was about 7 or 8 years old, my friend next door and I were walking around the block with our toy rifles. There was a younger girl, maybe 5, a couple houses down playing with her doll. Apparently we thought is was a good laugh to take her doll and hold it hostage for candy or some dumb crap like that. We put the doll against a tree and threatened to shoot it firing squad style if our demands were not met. Of course they couldn't be met and we pretended to shoot the doll. The little girl became hysterical. At her young age she was able to completely visualize the violence. She was not able to separate the bullies with the toy guns from a real threatening situation. I felt terrible for making her cry. I realized at that moment what I was doing was very wrong and I never played with toy guns again or engaged in any pretend violence.

But hey, it's just pretend, right? No one gets hurt.

THIS is your counter-argument??

It's all just more anti-gun arguments, juxtaposed with a 'kids being kids' experience. I could spend the next few days arguing my point, but it would be a waste because I'd be talking to an extremist who can't separate experience from a played-out and borderline-stereotypical position. Hey, let's use fear, and hyperbole and call it a well-reasoned argument! you sure have.

and you call my argument weak... I haven't seen an argument this terrible since grade school.

But whatever.. I'll play along. nothing better to do right now really..

Let's start with this.

"Would you find it troublesome to tuck a 1 year old child into bed using bedsheets that had AK-47's and grenades printed on them?"

For starters, they don't print sheets like this, so there goes one argument out the window.

"How about a baby bottle in the shape of a handgun?"

again, they don't make things like this. there goes that argument.

"We yell at kids for saying curse words, for lying, for all sorts of things, but not for pretend violence. Why?"

Because parents already know kids will do this. It's part of growing up. This is getting silly.

"What is the proper age to tell them we live in a world where there are devices designed for killing people and it is Ok to pretend to use them on each other?" The only thing I can come up with after reading this, is it's from a person who is not a parent.

"Do you think toy guns don't spark an interest in owning real ones later?" Now we're going into nonsense.

that little anectode you posted. It was you just being a boy. boys are little shits at that age, and you were no different. That little girl that was upset by what you did. she did that because she's a little girl, and girls get upset by that sort of thing. Not because she thought "that boy did an intentional act and murdered my doll", but probably because she thought "he broke my dolly!". But this anecdote is simply a distraction and I only addressed it as a matter of completion. If I see another anecdote like this that is only meant to be an appeal to emotion, the debate will end right there.

Now let's see you do better without resorting to anecdotes, red herrings or any anti-gun arguments while keeping the original topic in mind.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:27 pm

vision wrote:So now what box would you like to put me in?

Oh good, now I'm an extremist who can't be reasoned with so you aren't going to to argue. How nice of you to keep putting me in smaller and smaller boxes to avoid trying to argue a point. I'm guessing you don't actually have anything to contribute except noise, which makes sense looking at all your other posts on this forum.

vision wrote:You claim to be a thinker? Think deeper buddy.

Go ahead. Give me your best justification for pretend violence.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:30 pm

vision wrote:Go ahead. Give me your best justification for pretend violence.

That's easy.

Pretend violence lessens the need to partake in real violence.

now I'm an extremist who can't be reasoned with so you aren't going to to argue

You're goddamned right

How nice of you to keep putting me in smaller and smaller boxes to avoid trying to argue a point.

When you have an actual point to MAKE instead of "pretend violence=bad", I'll contribute. Until then, ball is in your court now.

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:30 am

Ferno wrote:Pretend violence lessens the need to partake in real violence.

How exactly do people need to act violent again? I must have missed that in school. If I understand you correctly, pretend violence is something we do in order to pacify our urges, like masturbation does for sex? Well I must say you have definitely cornered me because I've never heard this before. I myself don't have any violent needs at all, nor urges. If someone is asexual they don't have sexual desires. I must be... aviolent?

Engaging in pretend violence does nothing but normalize violence. Stick out your index finger and raise your thumb into the shape of a handgun. Now point it at someone or yourself. It is a symbolic act. Think about what it means to shoot someone. Really think about it. Isn't it a horrible thing? Why would you want to make a gesture that symbolizes killing another person, or hurting them, or even threatening them? The way we lead our lives and the things we do have meaning. Real or imaginary violence should never be entertainment (are we ancient Rome?). If you want to lead a good life you need to free your mind of poisons, and violent thoughts are very poisonous. Of course this is hard for most people to understand because, as I mentioned, violence is normalized. Your complete dismissal of this point of view proves my point completely (thank you). But hey, if you want to keep with the status quo, please feel free to teach your kids the valuable lessons and skills that come with pretend gun-fighting. I on the other hand will teach my kids compassion, empathy, and skepticism.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:36 am

I think vision you forget one thing. Violence is built into our genes. We evolved in a violent world and lived in that world far longer than we lived in this civilized world. I will make you a bet. If at some time the world order collapses and you need to get food or medicine for your children and the only way to get was to kill someone, I suspect you would do what you have to do to keep you children alive. now lets hear some pacifist dribble how you would let your children die before you would kill another human...oh but then you would be guilty of killing your child. So the choice is yours Mr Perfect.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:49 pm

woodchip wrote:I think vision you forget one thing. Violence is built into our genes. We evolved in a violent world and lived in that world far longer than we lived in this civilized world.

Here is some good news for you then: we haven't stopped evolving. In fact, we can now somewhat control our own evolution and do it at a faster rate. The world is becoming less violent by the day. There is no reason to feel helpless in the face biology -- though I believe violence is way more a social construct than a biological one, as we can plainly see in different cultures; and cultures do change rapidly.

woodchip wrote:I will make you a bet. If at some time the world order collapses and you need to get food or medicine for your children and the only way to get was to kill someone, I suspect you would do what you have to do to keep you children alive. now lets hear some pacifist dribble how you would let your children die before you would kill another human...oh but then you would be guilty of killing your child. So the choice is yours Mr Perfect.

You read too many conspiracy sites if you think "the world order will collapse." What in god's name does that even mean? And when it comes to food shortages, there are millions of people in the world who watch their children die of starvation every year. Most of them are starving themselves. And yes, violence expectedly goes up in these areas. But that doesn't mean everyone faced with starvation and lack of medicine become a cold-blooded killer. None of these parents who watch their children die are responsible for their deaths. If you think so you are a rotten human being. And how can you equate murder with death by natural causes? Ridiculous. I can't believe I'm explaining something this obvious to a grown man, but here it is.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:11 pm

Vision you are skirting the question.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:11 pm

Around 2 million times per year people "need to" act violently in real life.

Just because you would supposedly roll up into a ball of pacifism in one of those situations and hope you survived is no reason to deny those situations exist nor is it a fallacy to suggest those who defend themselves are wrong to do so.
Pacifism isn't the law of the land, or even the moral standard that our culture holds for itself.
Pacifists are abnormal by society's standards. They may have laudable goals but their tactics aren't nearly so appreciated for good reason.

I read in the local paper today a sexual predator was arrested for breaking into three girls homes on separate occasions and raping them. The first two reacted passively. The third fought him well. He took a black eye with him and left his cell phone in his hasty retreat.
There wont be a fourth girl thanks to the third girl....

Kids playing army man or sheriff etc. is healthy all the way around. Teaching pacifism not so much.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:49 pm

woodchip wrote:Vision you are skirting the question.

You haven't asked a question in this thread.

Will Robinson wrote:Pacifism isn't the law of the land, or even the moral standard that our culture holds for itself...I read in the local paper today a sexual predator was arrested for breaking into three girls homes on separate occasions and raping them.

Again, the same narrow, fearful thinking woodchip has. Afraid to challenge the status quo, just accepting the world as it is without trying to make a change that benefits civilization. Want to get rid of rapists? Teach children non-violence, empathy, and compassion so they don't rape anyone. Don't perpetuate the cycle. Have courage and take a stand for a better world.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:12 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:Vision you are skirting the question.
You haven't asked a question in this thread.

Will Robinson wrote:Pacifism isn't the law of the land, or even the moral standard that our culture holds for itself...I read in the local paper today a sexual predator was arrested for breaking into three girls homes on separate occasions and raping them.
Again, the same narrow, fearful thinking woodchip has. Afraid to challenge the status quo, just accepting the world as it is without trying to make a change that benefits civilization. Want to get rid of rapists? Teach children non-violence, empathy, and compassion so they don't rape anyone. Don't perpetuate the cycle. Have courage and take a stand for a better world.

You are asking those girls to bet their security on the notion that rapists simply were not properly taught at an early age to resist temptation to rape. Seriously?!?

And with that grand attempt at imparting 'wisdom' you judge my perception of how things are as narrow?!? Your fantasy is so narrow would get lost on the tip of a pin like an ant in the Sahara.

I like the way the third girl chose to "take a stand" much more than what you would have us believe you would have done. Furthermore, I think you are outright offensive to suggest she is perpetuating the cycle...or that I am, for recognizing she did the right thing! Take your head out of its container and salute her for being strong enough to realize that sometimes fighting back against violence is the right choice.

You know that kumbaya ★■◆● can get you killed.
Which is fine if that's the way you want to go out but stop passing it around like Rev Jim Jones Kool-aid in the context of how to defend ourselves against real threats. Please! Before you hurt someone!

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:27 pm

News flash: You can have self defense without violence.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:46 pm

vision wrote:News flash: You can have self defense without violence.

OK. I'll bite.

Since I'm a right here right now kind of guy keep it with my example of the three girls in my town I'm talking about.
Each one woke up to a guy holding a knife to her throat...

Tell me how would you instruct the first two girls to adopt your strategy of non violent self defense?

And if it involves nurturing him I swear I'm coming right through your monitor and you are going to have to try it on me....

.

.

that last part was a joke, unroll yourself, get off the ground and proceed with the explanation

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:02 pm

News Flash: Running is not always an option.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:44 pm

Spidey wrote:News Flash: Running is not always an option.

No kidding, really?

You can handle situations like this if you have the proper training, which I think everyone should, especially women. There are a numbers of martial arts techniques that are specifically non-violent. The most famous of these is Aikido. Wikipedia has a succinct description of the philosophy behind it: "[Morihei] Ueshiba's goal was to create an art that practitioners could use to defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury." However, being in a prone position such as lying in bed and having a knife at your throat would better be countered with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Grappling arts are very non-violent and are based on neutralizing a situation and gaining an advantage while causing your attacker to submit. A girl in a situation like this with a single attacker holding a knife would likely have at least one solid opportunity to act safely, if she kept her composure.

Would I expect the girls in the news story to know these techniques to protect themselves? Absolutely not. Would I expect my own daughter to know them? Absolutely. And remember, this thread is about children and violence. The best thing we can do is a society is to teach non-violence, compassion, and empathy. Part of adhering to non-violence is knowing how to avoid or neutralize it. Having a flippant attitude toward violence and violent play works against this admirable goal. We can all benefit from this.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:25 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:Vision you are skirting the question.
You haven't asked a question in this thread.

Sure I have but you are being obtuse. Let me kinda re-phrase it. You hear a commotion in your 12 year old daughters bedroom. When you enter you see a man has torn your daughters clothes off, has his pants down and is trying to rape her. What do you do Mr Pacifist? Try to reason with the man and convince him that rape of children is bad and he should stop? Call the police and hope they get there in 30 minutes?

Is this question clear enough?

And in case you are incapable of understanding what I asked previously, the question was, "If you had to kill to save the life of your children, would you?"

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:55 am

woodchip wrote:Sure I have but you are being obtuse. Let me kinda re-phrase it. You hear a commotion in your 12 year old daughters bedroom. When you enter you see a man has torn your daughters clothes off, has his pants down and is trying to rape her. What do you do Mr Pacifist?

I would try to control the situation and subdue the attacker. At the very least I would try to buy enough time for my daughter to escape, at the expense of my own safety if necessary. Sound reasonable enough? Of course, to you anything short of pulling a Colt 45 on a guy is just foolish and I'm sure you can come up will a millions "what ifs" for me. The answer will always be the same: try to neutralize the violence any way possible without causing harm to myself or the attacker.

woodchip wrote:And in case you are incapable of understanding what I asked previously, the question was, "If you had to kill to save the life of your children, would you?"

Never. The reason why is this. First, I understand people who commit violence are themselves compelled by the world around them. Each of their stories is unique and those experiences move them to make decisions, violent or otherwise. Everyone deserves a chance to be reformed. Secondly, while I do experience great love for the people I hold dear I don't suffer from the same level of attachment most people have. I'm not afraid to die nor am I afraid to lose my loved ones. Like I've said over and over again I am against group-isms and that principal extends to blur the line between how I treat family and strangers, enemies and friends. People who are compelled to violence are suffering greatly, and for that they get my understanding and compassion. This does not mean they get my approval to act out violently. They will meet as much non-violent resistance as I can muster.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:04 am

vision wrote:
Never. The reason why is this. First, I understand people who commit violence are themselves compelled by the world around them. Each of their stories is unique and those experiences move them to make decisions, violent or otherwise. Everyone deserves a chance to be reformed. Secondly, while I do experience great love for the people I hold dear I don't suffer from the same level of attachment most people have. I'm not afraid to die nor am I afraid to lose my loved ones. Like I've said over and over again I am against group-isms and that principal extends to blur the line between how I treat family and strangers, enemies and friends. People who are compelled to violence are suffering greatly, and for that they get my understanding and compassion. This does not mean they get my approval to act out violently. They will meet as much non-violent resistance as I can muster.

The highlighted line pretty much sums up your persona vision. You just don't give a ★■◆● about about your family or kids and you would be more concerned about the stranger trying to harm them. You are the most pathetic person on this board.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:39 am

actually, his view is far from pathetic. It is DIFFERENT from most people, but is admirable for it's consistency. Personally, I am not about to claim that I would act, or even try to, with such consistency.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:57 am

In this case slick, consistency is not admirable.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:05 am

Vision, would you purposely limit the effectiveness of your methods, and likelyhood of success, to subdue the attacker in order to avoid causing him harm?
Or would you maximize your efforts to prevail putting success and the health of the victim above your concerns for the attacker?

And which is the proper path according to your philosophy?