What to do if you happen upon a peace rally with people saying, "There should be no retaliation."

1.  Engage protestor in a brief conversation, and ask if military force is appropriate.
2.  When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
3.  Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful. We should not cause more violence."
4.  When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face just as hard as you can.
5.  When he gets up to punch you back, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because "that would be awful." Instruct him that he should not cause more violence.
6.  Wait until he agrees, and pledges not to commit additional violence.
7.  Punch him in the face again, even harder this time.
8.  Repeat steps 4 through 7 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

This was passed on to me by Cyndi, I think it's a valid and interesting take on things. Not a new take, but an interesting way to put it in the simplest terms. It doesn't necessarily prove it's *necessary* to punch back but it does show how it's human nature to want to fight back, and I think that shouldn't be ignored. You don't survive long if you don't fight back because not everyone is nice and peaceful. There's always someone who has a chemical imbalance, or just a mean disposition who can and will hurt you if even if you don't fight back. *thinks back not-so-fondly to high school*


I had someone punch me in high school specifically to try to provoke a violent reaction. I kept replying with words, she kept hitting. I made my way to class. Sure, I'd taken a few punches (to the back of my head, near the base of the neck, she wasn't very nice), but she seemed far more affected by the encounter than I was. Who knows, maybe she became a better person for it.

I'm not saying non-violent action is the right route here, but plenty of people have had massive effects through that path. You just have to be willing to get hurt and keep your mind focused on the long run.


Just getting around to replying to these.

What happens if they don't want to just punch you? What if they actually want to end your life? You could make a point by not fighting back and dying a martyr. What happens if they want to kill your family? What if they want to kill thousands of people? There's a line somewhere in there between where fighting back is usefull and useless. Personally, if someone tried to physically attack me *once*, I would try to get away and not think anything of it. Maybe even the second time I might. By the third time, they wouldn't get away with it again, and the other scenarios it wouldn't even take once. That's just my perspective though. I've had people that no matter what I did, kept coming at me, stealing things, hurting my brother and sister, laughing at anything I said, not listening to anyone else to stop. It takes a lot to get me to take action, but you're in a world of hurt once I do. :P And I thinkt hat's how the nation is reacting too, and I don't see a problem with it so far. Again, just my perspective.

(I know these comments don't necessarily reply only to your post leora, I'm going to point other responses to here so I don't have to type things multiple times. :D)


Ghandi's birthday was on 02OCT.

Personally, I'd have walked or run away after the first punch, as I don't think I'd really have an overwhelming desire to continue the "discussion."


True, int he outlined situation, the person doing the hitting doesn't necessarily wish you harm so running/walking away would probably be very easy. See above for other comments.

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?itemid=12445074&view=17450383#t17450383


What should also be noted is that sometimes there is no other option that will attract attention to the fact that you are displeased with the current situation. If we as a society were to sit back and simply soak up punishment whenever someone felt it should be delivered upon us, there'd soon be precious little left to call our own.

I know that by now, some people reading this are dismissing me as a warmonger, and maybe I am. But I recognize a need in today's world to maintain a willingness to hit back if we are attacked. It's not always the best solution. Sometimes though, diplomacy just doesn't work. When this happens, I personally am glad that we have an option other than collectively shrrugging and saying "well, we tried..." while we wait for the next incident.

Anyway, I'll just go on record as agreeing I guess. Human nature being what it is, sometimes it's important that we not forget that some folks out there won't take no as an answer and need to be shown through object lessons.


We talked about this on IRC, and I do agree with that. There comes a limit and a time when there is no other option. Sometimes the bullies will just keep on bullying no matter what you do to pacify them.


I just showed my neighbour at school
he loved it

Anyways, back to class


haha, LJ'ing in class, bad!


i do that all the time
heck i code and stuff in classes


Actually, so do I. :) I have my laptop everywhere, so during breaks and such I go up front and plug into the network even in non-computer classes. :P


human beings are the most dangerous aggressive creatures in the world. It would be wise not to upset them. If you do upset one, you have two choices, get the fuck out their way, or turn on your own dangerous mode.

It may not necessary to punch back ever in this case, since punching back will annoy the aggressor.

However the martial artist in me concedes this point: If you are being troubled by a large group of people: Deck the biggest of them. This will demonstrate you are a dangerous creature and are not afraid. Animal instinct within them (he kicked our alpha males ass) can pacify the situation very quickly.

However, when it comes to the current world situation, we find ourselves screwed. Imagine you are blindfolded and somebody punches you. You remove the blindfold and there are dozens of people in the room. You spot where they are stood, and then you are blindfolded again. Do you lash out at the prime suspect? What if there are two prime suspects? What if the prime suspect moves and places an innocent in the way?

Sounds like an awfull mess to be in huh?


Yes, I do see the point that in this particular case, it may not be necessary to punch back, and would indeed be easier to run/walk away. I talked about limits above in my reply to leora.

I like your example as well, it applies the idea to a slightly different situation where it may indeed be the only/best solution if you want to survive the encounter.

I do see your point witht he current world situation, but I'm also going to assume Osama bin Laden isn't an innocent (at the very least, he's calling for war on us anyway), and neoither are the terrorsists we are going after. I may be wrong that everyone they're going after are necessarily BadGuys™ but I'm willing to accept that a lot of them are. And of course, the main issue then becomes what our information really is, and I don't think we'll really ever know, or least not until it's all over.


There are those of us to whom step 5 doesn't apply. I wouldn't punch back. If I was getting continually punched, I would run/walk away.


See above, it was conceded that in this *exact* case you could easily walk/run away. Applying this to other similar cases is where the hang-up comes I thing.


I have to say that my first response would be the same as Joe's - run as fast as possible once I'd finished picking my teeth off the pavement. Or perhaps before.

And the example would be more accurate if, after punching the person, you picked up a couple of small, adorable children and held them in front of you - I'm sure he or she would be less likely to lash out immediately, and more likely to, say, call the police and have you hauled off to jail.


See my reply to him and above comments.

There's several other similar scenarios this could take where the results and actiosn taken would need to be applied differently. Mostly, the reaction and discussion is what I think is important. :)


There is a rather large difference between direct violence on your person caused by someone who you know for sure did it, without anyone else's involvement...and 'Hell, we think this country might have something to do with something, so let's the bomb the hell out of it to make ourselves feel better, and if we hit some innocent people in the process, we'll drop some food and medicine and make it ALL better.' ;)


There definately is. I also don't think it's that simple in your second example. :P See my comments to leora for basic response, and in particular, I think my comments to mod above correspond to this too.


Person A and Person B are talking. They get into an argument, and Person A punches Person B hard, in the face. Then Person A walks/runs away. Person B gets up, brushes him/herself off and looks around but can't find Person A, so decides to just grab Person C (who happens to be walking by) and punches them instead. Do you get the point I'm making here?

The problem with suicide terrorists is that you can't get back at them - they're already dead! And you can't interrogate them and find out who told them to do what they did either. So the best you can do is try to guess who they were working for, and go after those people. Dropping bombs in the general viscinity of where you think those people are is imprecise at best, and completely ineffective at worst.

I think that killing innocent people is always a tragedy and never excusable, no matter where those people live or what language they speak or what religion they practice or who their neighbours are. I'm practical enough to realise that it's sometimes "necessary for the greater good", and I accept that... but it's still a terrible thing.


Yep, I see your point as well. See my comments to mod above on how I think this ties into the current world situation. I don't think Osama bin Laden or the terrorists they are going after are a random Person C with no guilt/responsibility.

The suicide terrorists don't work alone though, they act under direction from a large body generally, the person who supplies the money, weapons, etc. I don't think this is a general vicinity thing, or England and others wouldn't be going along with it after the US shared it's information with them. I would think they would have backed away if it was all that general and imprecise. On the other hand, if it is general and imprecise and they all are going along with it still, the problem isn't just the USA. :P

I don't like the term "killing innocent people". I don't like when people say if they wanted to bomb somewhere, they should have bombed military targets instead of civilian targets. We're all people, we're all citizens, I don't think a soldier deserves to die any more than I do. And I don't think we can judge the innocence or guilt of anyone decently. You'd have to either find a global moral ground, decide on a specific moral ground to use, or else base it on this case alone with no outside influence. The first is mostly impossible, as is the second, and the third means we don't do anything which I don't agree with.

I do think killing people in general is kind of sad, but it happens every day in every country anyway. I do agree totally on that last part, someone it is necessary for the greater good, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.





Bill 
Morgan 
Jason 
Melanie 
Josh 
Theo 
Justin 
00101101 
Chris 
Lynn 
Bryon