It is up to you to live your choice. I think much of what is being discussed moves well beyond torture and into theory of violence v pacifism.
Yes. I saw the debate moving in that direction and thought it a more intresting subject to address. However, I note that you didn't exactly answer my question:
if it were up to you, would you allow me to live by my principles? One of which is defending myself and those I care about with such force as is necessary, up to and including lethal force? Or if you could take that choice from me by law, (gun banning for instance), would you do so?
We disagree. Many would have died. The more seen violence that is done against a group the stronger they become. Killing to many and eventually even the leader sees the error in his ways.
I do not mean to be patronizing, but this is very naive. The leaders I mentioned were not dissuaded by the deaths of millions of innocents, nor were their followers. People who are willing to be passive resisters and not only die themselves, but watch their friends, family, siblings, children and parents die, without submitting and without using lethal force in self-defense, are rare. A good many
say they would, but in my experience most are engaging in self-delusion. Regrettably I've found that many self-identified "pacifists" or war protesters are far from being truly peaceful. (present company excepted, I hope.)
We are in the society that we are in. We are all humans at a different point on the evolutionary mountain. Society and the human race does not change in a day or a year. I don't expect people to be ready to live in my world today. My vision is not this type of world at all. I am part of a large commune with socialistic principles to govern us within the greater society. It is not the way that you live day to day you against the world.
Ma'am, I consider that to be part of the problem... you have a vision, but your vision is not reality as it exists or is ever likely to exist. "I don't expect people to be ready to live in
my world today." Whew, that statement reveals a lot. There is only one world, and you and your commune are part of it, and probably could not exist in present form except that you are defended by non-pacifists. You also didn't answer my question about what would happen if all cops set aside their weapons
today. Today, in the real world, not in some maybe-some-day fantasy world, please.
I think there will always be criminal minds. Do you use violence against them or do you contain them. Do you house them like animals or do you attempt to rehab them. All questions in need of answers.
Perhaps you would propose some answers that fit into your pacifistic philosophy, if you can come up with any which would actually work in the real world as it exists today.
I bolded one sentence to highlight something. A long time ago in a non violent protest I was not very old just 20. The march had ended and the painless march cost me my ability to walk when i was attacked and beaten by one of your benevolent police officers. I walked with two canes all from that time until last year when i was moved full time to a wheel chair. I am not certain what you mean by painless.
I am sincerly sorry that a policeman injured you. Cops are people too, and like any group of people there are some who are evil. The majority of cops I've known were truly concerned with protecting the innocent... and those were different times as well. That was your experience, allow me to relate one of my own:
On the other side of the fence...I was once an Event Marshal in Washington DC, during a protest. On one side was a Veteran's group, on the other were various War Protest groups. There were thousands of screaming people; I and my comrades were in the middle, charged with keeping the peace. To be perfectly frank, I found the Vets to be much better behaved than the "pacifists". The war protesters hurled vile personal insults at the vets; had to be restrained from flinging balloons filled with excrement; indeed some of them seemed hell-bent on provoking the vets to attack them. I do not consider this a form of "pacifism" or "peace-making" or being "anti-war", but rather of hypocracy.
There is a song by Bob Dylan where he says something interesting:
While I appreciate that songs are often dear to people's hearts, a song proves nothing.
I really don't ask anyone to fight for me. I would rather die than have one ounce of an others blood shed for me. I suppose i get the benefits in a way. I will not raise a weapon. I will defend myself. I will not kill. I will not torture. I will not do any harm that is not required to subdue an attacker. That is a principle.
I ask you again, if that had been
US policy during 1939-1945, what would have happened? Tens of millions more would have died, which I find unacceptible; and in the end those like Stalin, Hitler and company who were willing to butcher millions and millions would have ruled, and oppressed those who survived, and this is also unacceptible. Pacifism is a house of cards; if were not guarded by soldiers and police it would come tumbling down in a moment.
America in it's policy to torture has lost it's way. It has changed into the enemy.
Regrettably, it is no suprise to me to hear someone self-labeled "very liberal" profess America as the enemy. I sincerely hope you never have to find out, personally and first-hand, how bad the
real enemy can be.
G.