Pacifists, I have a question.

[II2]

Wait...really? They teach that to people? What if they're in like Texas where some people wear t-shirts in the dead of winter sometimes?
That diagram is literally just pulling someone's arm by the sleeve and hoping they don't stop or overpower you before you get them into a lock on the ground.
WTF?

Don't be thick, it's a martial diagram for a joint lock from the old US marine combatatives handbook. Pictured are soldiers in full uniform, sans any equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Combatives_School

It's actually one of the 'gentler' moves, relatively speaking, since the handbook focuses on full contact techniques designed to disable and kill.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I'd like to think of myself as a pacifist but I would most certainly hit the person back if I was being attacked.
However with martial arts training you learn to use restraint and I'm confident I wouldn't use unnecessary force. All I've ever had to use of my practical martial arts training is snapping into fighting stance when being attacked. That's usually all you need to do.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Here's something for you pacifists to remember the next time you want to say violence solves nothing: violence has solved more problems throughout history than any other method.

Erm. Nope. This isnt just wrong. Its demonstrably wrong.

How many times a die do you fix a problem between you and someone else with violence?

How often do you do it with talking?

Count the number of major wars in recent history. Now get me a list of every single peace treaty and trade agreement and charity case that solved a problem and we shall see. This statement is so obviously wrong its not even funny.

 

[CrazyJew]

I am psychologically restrained. I just can't cause harm unless some red buttons are pushed.

 

[lacktheknack]

Here's something for you pacifists to remember the next time you want to say violence solves nothing: violence has solved more problems throughout history than any other method.

...Except diplomacy. Fighting starts and sustains wars, diplomacy ends them.

OT: I hate fighting, and go to hilarious lengths to avoid it. So in this bizarre scenario where I'm being attacked (which simply would not feasibly happen), I'd give him a shove and leg it. Why fight when there's evasion?

 

[Xorph]

I'm more of a pacifist in the sense that I'd never intentionally start a fight. If someone we're trying to egg me into hitting them, I never would, even if they did something like a punch to the shoulder or something. But if they came out and started attacking me, I'd defend myself with all my ability. And by "all my ability" I mean I'd probably try to bite them in the arm and tear as much off as possible

 

[Yopaz]

Here's something for you pacifists to remember the next time you want to say violence solves nothing: violence has solved more problems throughout history than any other method.

Sure, but violence is also one of the biggest problems both today and in the past.

OT: Not having been in this kind of situation I'm not sure. Most likely I would just get out of there, failing that I would most likely push him out of my way.

 

[miketehmage]

If a single person, of the same height and build as you, were to hit you, and continue to hit you repeatedly, would you hit them back?

Your question is based on the false assumption that Pacifism must necessarily mean total non-violence.

I could easily formulate an equally polemic question for you:

If you don't believe in Pacifism, do you think it's okay to beat somebody up to steal their lunch money?

Ah, well then, forgive my ignorance.

 

[requisitename]

I dunno about the specifics of law where anyone else is, but where I am, the person who goes to jail is the person who wins the fight - whether that is the person who started it or not. I kid you not. If someone attacks you and you beat the living shit out of them, you're going to be the one calling someone to bail you out.

So, I find it better to defend myself in ways other than hitting/kicking if necessary. I try to retreat, if it's feasible (because I've found it solves a ton of problems).. if not, I'll immobilize the attacker until they calm down.

If I've tried both of those and neither is working, I guess I might resort to just enough violence to make them stop.. but, truth be told, I've never been in a situation where neither retreating nor restraining my opponent worked.

Legally? Absolutely. In a stand your ground state like the one I live in you aren't required to try and retreat or any other nonsense. If you are being attacked it doesn't matter if the attacker is using a weapon or not you are legally allowed to defend yourself. The law it's self reads:

A person is justified in using deadly force; and does not have a duty to retreat;if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider shooting someone who isn't armed "reasonable means". That law could definitely be worded better, I think.

 

[ElPatron]

Same size?

I think I suck at fighting, but I think my pain threshold would help me kick the shit out of the attacker.

There could be a backlash to reacting, your attacker could get his boys to beat you down because you beat the shit out of him. This could result in you ending up dead.

And somehow being assaulted by a crazed person who just started beating the shit out of someone

I did, however, continue to mouth off to him though.

/facepalm

I'm sorry, I think your mistook "pacifist" for "rubbish strategist". That's not turning the other cheek, that's pulling the pants down and showing both cheeks.

1. You're human. I.E. an animal. An animal will do everything to maintain his physical integrity. Not making use of self-defense is unnatural.
2. What matters is the intention behind the action. By your logic every death caused by negligence is murder or at least "manslaughter".

 

[Xanthious]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider shooting someone who isn't armed "reasonable means". That law could definitely be worded better, I think.

The line of thinking behind shooting an unarmed person is that often times you have no way of knowing if a person is armed or not. If I'm attacked on the street or have an intruder in my home I have no way of knowing if the person attacking me or breaking into my house is going to draw a knife or gun. If I wait to find out before shooting him it could very well be too late. So with that in mind it's best to treat any intruder or attacker as one that could in fact be armed lest it may be too late if you wait to find out and be certain.

 

[Patrick Buck]

I had a fight couple years ago.
I was sitting with some friends, and he and two others wondered over, (They were friends with my friends, but not with me), and told me to leave.
I said I wasn't doing anything, and the only reason they came over was to shoo me away from their friends. (Which was true, I asked one later).
One of them slapped me.
I asked him to stop.

He did it again.

I told him to stop. And leave me alone.

He did it again.

I rugby tackled him, kneed him in the balls, and put him on the ground before the others could do anything.

Got put in icolation for a day.

Don't think I was particually unjustifyied. But if I really need to fight, I will. And Can.

But I try not to... I did warn him twice. More than reasonable.

 

[SEXTON HALE]

There are definitly better ways to take control of a situation than just beating your attacker into submission.It may seem like a good idea at the time but from my experience I usually end up with some regrets about it.Talking sometimes helps but its kind of unreliable because words dont have as big an effect as you would hope unless you use them very carefully.There have been some good posts on different types of grabs but these require a fair amount of practice to be used effectivly though they are by far the best way to deal with an attacker.As well as those I dont believe there is any shame in fighting dirty some people treat a fight like there is some set of rules you have to follow ive never read them.

 

[requisitename]

The line of thinking behind shooting an unarmed person is that often times you have no way of knowing if a person is armed or not. If I'm attacked on the street or have an intruder in my home I have no way of knowing if the person attacking me or breaking into my house is going to draw a knife or gun. If I wait to find out before shooting him it could very well be too late. So with that in mind it's best to treat any intruder or attacker as one that could in fact be armed lest it may be too late if you wait to find out and be certain.

To be honest, I've nothing against Castle Doctrine. I figure if someone I don't know is in my house, there's a good chance that there's not a good, non-criminal reason for it. So, yeah.. I'm actually pretty okay with shooting intruders.

My problem is more in the Stand Your Ground aspect (especially coupled with concealed carry). Things aren't clear cut. If something goes down in an area without witnesses, the only word you have is the word of the person who didn't get shot and killed. S/he is not exactly a reliable source for what really happened when you consider the fact that if it wasn't justified, they could be facing the death penalty in a lot of states. It just seems there are too many ways it could be abused, in my opinion. It brings up the matter of "At what point does a threat warrant deadly force (and what, exactly, constitutes a threat, anyway?)?"

So, while I see what you're saying - and I always operate on the assumption that anyone attacking me may be armed, too, I just don't carry a gun to shoot them with - I'm still not comfortable with people being allowed to carry concealed guns and shoot anyone they deem to be threatening them.

 

[Xaio30]

If a single person, of the same height and build as you, were to hit you, and continue to hit you repeatedly, would you hit them back?

Here's the thing. You assume that I have to hit him/her for it to end. What stops me from blocking as many punches as I can and then try to incapacitate him with a grappling move or similar technique? It does not have to hurt, and it makes the person unable to cause more violence until the police has arrived.

And If I had no chance of blocking the punches, then I would probably have no chance at landing a hit either. Not that I would try.

 

[SextusMaximus]

If a single person, of the same height and build as you, were to hit you, and continue to hit you repeatedly

I'd might be scared. I'm a fairly big guy so if another one like started punching me, it could be really scary. Then again, I have a higher pain tolerance for punching, so chances are that it would just be annoying.

If someone is hitting you, why wouldn't you hit back? What gives them the right to hit you? And why shouldn't you defend yourselves?

Why do I have to hit them back though? What if I don't hit them back and still defend myself? You're imposing a false dilemma here - I can defend myself without punching people. Well I can defend myself from punches, at least. Block and if need be, try to restrain them. If the other party continues, maybe throw in some hits of my own. But defence =/= hitting stuff. Trust me.

Oh, and I wouldn't start hitting, because I'm a fairly big guy. Not that I'm a pacifist but I could really hurt somebody if provoked. That's how I grew up, so that's how I tend to do stuff now.

this.

get the fucker person into a lock

and hold him there until he calms down.
-----------------------------------

since you got in a 'fight' with no chance to talk your way out of it,
he either is drunk or in rage. both states where you can easily overwhelm him since they are likely to do errors.

being a parcifist does not mean you have to be someones *****.
it mean more that violence is the last of your options and if used, it should incapacitate your opponent just enough to give you a head start.

You realise that lock is completely ineffective right? Like you'd only be able to employ it on a guy who had never HEARD of the concept of fighting before?

It might be a joke poster but I'm just checking.

 

[The Funslinger]

I'm not an aggressive person at all and for the principles I can respect pacifism. But from an evolutionary/survival point of view, being attacked and not doing something about it is retarded unwise.

That's alright, I think we're all in agreement that that would be fairly retarded...

OT: Well, I'm somewhat sociopathic, so at that point I'd stop giving a shit about his personal safety and lamp him...

 

[Jegsimmons]

firstly, a headbutt to the nose, then i kick is balls, then i take a boxing stance and aim for the jaw.

obviously im not a pacifist, but i sure respect then for their restraint, thats hard (if not foolish, in my own opinion)hard stance to take.

 

[Raven's Nest]

I'm not an aggressive person at all and for the principles I can respect pacifism. But from an evolutionary/survival point of view, being attacked and not doing something about it is retarded unwise.

That's alright, I think we're all in agreement that that would be fairly retarded...

OT: Well, I'm somewhat sociopathic, so at that point I'd stop giving a shit about his personal safety and lamp him...

I felt bad when the idea of a person with downs syndrome being attacked and not fighting back popped into my head...

Actually now I think about it, I wouldn't get into a fight with a downs kid... They have a mental (sorry) amount of strength. Once saw a 13 year old kid with downs beat the crap out of the headmaster (who was huge himself), because he interrupted him having sex with his girlfriend (who also had downs) in the middle of the playground... True story.

 

[Stu35]

I think the question is flawed.

When under attack, the average person, regardless of their normal beliefs, becomes subject to the fight-or-flight rush. On an intellectual level you may be a pacifist - your body might not know then when it's full of adrenaline and determined to survive - your body might decide the best way to do that is to swing like crazy and hope the threat goes away.

Conversely, you may be convinced that you'd snap the neck of anybody who so much as laid a finger on you - your body might decide that it wants to get as far away from the threat as possible.


I'm not saying this is true of everyone on this forum. I'm saying it's impossible to say who its true for and who it isn't... After all, I could tell you all that I'm trained in 8 different martial arts and am a champion boxer and MMA fighter, that 19 people have tried to mug me in my life and all of them are now dead.

I'd be lying...


...

Just a thought.