So Susan (that’s her name, btw): the UUist commenter, said in her post that she would probably react identically, whether someone was attacking a member of her family, or a member of her family were “attacking” someone else.
What about a more meaningful situation? Say, where a member of her family were attempting to defend against having already been attacked?
See, there’s the thing: many variants of self-defense necessarily involve the use of physical force, as a countermeasure. This is why I cannot take “nonviolence” seriously.
Sometimes, self-defense necessarily involves being “violent” toward one’s attacker.
For example, let’s look at some of the simple self-defense techniques advocated as an anti-rape strategy:
Does the above include the attempt to ‘talk your way out of it”, or suchlike? Yes.
However, by the (skewed, and quite frankly evil) standards of many advocates of “nonviolence’, the m ere act of attempting to defend oneself makes one indistinguishable from the attacker.
Take the arch-advocate of “Nonviolence”, Mohandas Gandhi.
(Hint: I will never refer to the individual in question as “Mahatma”, because he may have been many things, but he was most definitely not a “great Soul”.
When asked about how he thought the Jews should have reacted when the Nazis attempted Genocide against them, this was Gandhi’s “principled” response:
Essentially, Gandhi’s “advice” to Jews was: to NOT resist as they were herded into cattle trains, and shipped to slave labor/extermination camps. Rather, they should have killed themselves voluntarily. The “reasoning”?
Typical Death-fetishist “logic”:
For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.
In other words, any attempt at self-defense is neccesarily an indication that one is not “Godfearing”.
Another tidbit of Gandhi’s “wisdom” on this issue:
“Hitler,” Gandhi said, “killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”
In other words: do the butcher’s work for him!
So, no. “Pacifism” is basically a euphemism for either cowardice, or the bystander effect. Either way, it is indefensible.