thread: 2005-05-16 : Violence
On 2005-05-17, Christopher K wrote:
Christopher, you replied to me—
"Earlier Vincent actually had to ask if it was all right for a woman to protect herself from a rape using violent means, since men of integritty (according to some views) would never use violence if they were being beaten or killed.
See.... the fact that this is even on the table is for me insane. How have is it even come to this?"
Vincent was saying something like, "hey, you people with your nonviolence thing are sounding pretty crazy to me. Are you THIS crazy? Huh?" And the answer was pretty much "no." That's all.
"How it came about ... throguh denying, fearing, shaming—yes, and other more well meaning propositions as well, I'm sure...."
Eh, I don't know about that. I think it came about through nonviolence as a discipline and a practice being relatively unknown and easily conflated with some things that it is not, such as a policy of complete submission to force.
"What matters is, I'm looking ath Vincent's question (I have no idea if its his personal point of view—I just know question) and thinking, this is crazy. The man of integrity never lifts a finger to save himself even though he's got a wife and kid expecting him to come home? We've got to puzzel through whether a woman is morally justifed in scratching out the eyes of her rapist?"
No, not at all. Vincent (if I understand the context) was trying to suss out what people were trying to tell him they believed, and presented the most extreme example he could come up with, as it would quickly allow him to understand what people's beliefs entailed under extreme circumstances.
So I think you're right that people would have to be crazy to be seriously debating points like that, but that you may be factually mistaken about why that was brought up in this discussion.
BTW, I'm not interested in "moral justification." There may be some people who are, but not me, not at the moment. I've heard terms like "moral high ground" bandied around a lot and for the record, I at least have had no interest inf labeling anybody, violent or nonviolent, "morally right" or "morally wrong."
