I agree with you on the subject of firearms but they do have a place (last
night I watched a documentary on how the Taliban have been massacring their
own Afghan countrymen, wiping out villages etc,there was film showing people
being executed for no reason, the villagers value their lives and are using
violence to defend themselves and their children-who else is going to do
it?should they lay down and die?).
Re:
Recently a friend left my house and walked to the local tube station (metro)
across a local park. A fourteen year old boy was bullying an eleven year old
boy, so my friend intervened and separated them. The fourteen year old went
off and got his friends, and attacked my friend before he reached the far
side of the park,causing a fractured cheekbone that needed hospital
treatment.
Recently in the UK a young 11yr old boy was bullied (stabbed) by 4
boys of 14-15yrs. There were several passers by who witnessed it and did not
step in, phone for police, the poor boy was left to die. This was a child
who was returning home after computer club and was picked on presumably
randomly.The quality question is "Is a cheekbone WORTH more than a human
life",seeing as how the intellectual level values an idea over a society I
think not.i agree with most of what you say, I used to know a lot of violent
people and know the background that has led some of them down that road,but
decent law abiding people have a right to defend themselves. Common sense
and a bit of forethought will keep you out of a lot of situations, but a
colleague of mine got mugged less than a 100yards from work not so long ago,
he was a pacifist.
Your friend sounds like a decent guy, I hope he's ok now.
(excuse me for preuming your friend is female)
stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizaphanian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 27 June 2001 10:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Stephen wrote:
> i don't know
> of any martial art that doesn't take the "only for defense, never attack"
> line seriously when you talk to its senior practitioners.
Aikido certainly does, and I would argue that ju-jitsu is sympathetic to
acting only in self-defense (or defense of another).
> I grew
> up in a rough area and a non-violent response would not have helped
victims
> i had saved from worse beatings.
A little story: I still live in a very rough area. Recently a friend left my
house and walked to the local tube station (metro) across a local park. A
fourteen year old boy was bullying an eleven year old boy, so my friend
intervened and separated them. The fourteen year old went off and got his
friends, and attacked my friend before he reached the far side of the park,
causing a fractured cheekbone that needed hospital treatment.
The point being that violence begets violence; even if there arise
situations that leave us no alternative but a violent response, those
situations have come about because of poor judgement, mistakes or plain evil
intent earlier on in the process. The only way to make things better is to
stop the cycle of violence escalating, and work towards reconciliation.
Personally, I don't think the widespread presence of firearms helps in the
endeavour.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
