 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Quakers, at the time of the forming of a voluntary mutual defense association, or federation of independent, free people, in liberated states, were non-violent, and therefore they could not, in good conscience, participate in the violence on the defensive (nor the offensive) side.
They did not side with the criminal British, and in that they were on the side of the defenders; even if they did not resort to defensive violence themselves.
Some of the infiltrators in the ranks of the defenders were keen on spreading the lies that make the claims often repeated to day such as "If you are not with us, you are the terrorist," and so the Quakers were, in some cases, violently attacked by those who pretended to be on the moral (defensive) side. There are records in the official record, where it is recorded that the Quakers were allowed, by true law, to object, by moral conscience, with the use of violence, even in defense.
I can try to remember to link those records at some point, but my effort right now is to expand some on the idea of why it is not only moral, but it is necessary to resort to defensive violence when presented with offensive violence.
In short there is a necessity to have, hold, maintain, and broadcast, in no uncertain terms, that defenders will defend, and will do so violently, so as to constitute a deterrence against aggressive violence: crime does not pay at all, let alone allowing crime to pay well.
Suppose said Quakers constituted the entire population, and suppose one Quaker was born a sociopath, and this one individual started to hack up other Quakers. One individual, without any restraint exerted upon this one individual, daily, weekly, monthly, wades through massive amounts of innocent blood, on a path of cruel and unusual mass murdering, even torturing, mayhem.
Now suppose that one Quaker has had enough of it, and this one Quaker also steps over the line, and this one Quaker attempts to restrain the mass murdering, torturing, criminal, but fellow former Quaker.
So now there are 3 groups of people.
Group 1 (by far the largest group)
The entire population of non-violent, passive, Quakers.
Group 2 (one individual aggressive criminal perpetrating war of aggression for profit: because he can, because he likes to torture and destroy at his exclusive pleasure)
Group 3 (one defender)
The offender meets the defender and the defender offers restraint as a means by which the offender can remedy the criminal path chosen, willfully, by the offender, with malice aforethought.
What happens if the defender decides not to accept the offer of remedy, and instead the defender claims he will take the offer, but instead (because the claim of taking the offer was a lie) the criminal murderer, turning into a criminal fraud, attacks and kills, after torture, the one lone defender?
What happens if the defender is able to accurately judge the lie, and the murderous intent of the criminal, and as a last resort the defender defends himself, and all the potential, future, innocent murder victims, who are potentially also torture, terrified, by this criminal, and the defender restrains the criminal against the will of the criminal?
Now there are still 3 groups.
How does the defender manage to divide his economic power (he has no political power because all the other people are either criminals, who are proven liars, or adamantly against any violence whatsoever, and they cannont be convinced otherwise) - how does he divide his limited economic power - with a sense of triage, or a sense of expedience, if another former Quaker, born a sociopath or not, perceives the opportunity to run amok, torturing, and mass murdering innocent Quakers?