What Is The Difference Between a Pacifist and a Victim?

[Drizzt]

What Is The Difference Between a Pacifist and a Victim?


One of my greatest personal heroes, Robert A. Heinlein, once stated flatly that a male pacifist was a contradiction in terms. Heinlein was a brilliant writer, one hell of a philosopher, and very seldom wrong.

He was wrong this time.

He should have said that a male victim is a contradiction in terms.

Heinlein may be forgiven, though. No writer is perfect, and it is a common mistake to confuse the ideologically committed pacifist with the chronic, or professional, victim. Heinlein himself was a pacifist, although I do not believe he ever realized it, but he was never a victim – and he certainly had no shortage of testosterone!

This subject has been very much on my mind for the last day or so.

I have a lifelong and very dear friend who is utterly and absolutely opposed to everything I stand for concerning firearms. I am aware of this, and I have tried and tried to accept it. I am seldom too terribly shocked by what comes out of his mouth, but this time he caught me totally flat-footed and left me completely speechless.

He related to me just yesterday that a couple of years ago, his thirty-year-old daughter came to visit him. He was talking to her as she was unpacking in the guest room of his home, and when she got to the bottom of her suitcase, there was her little handgun that she traveled with.

He was shocked and enraged. He informed her that he had not only never fired such an abomination, he had never even touched one, and he insisted that she remove that instrument of Satan from his home immediately and leave it in her car.

Unfortunately, she did as he asked without a murmur. I would have removed the pistol also, but I would certainly have removed myself as well, both from his house and from his life. Permanently. Then again, I may have misjudged his daughter just a bit. It’s true that she’s never come back for another visit. Smart girl.

I wonder if my friend has any idea of what that little tale that he related to me with such glowing and self-righteous pride reveals about him, and about his feelings for his daughter? Let’s take a closer look.

First of all, and most obviously, it is very, very clear that he does not love his daughter. I have a bit of insider knowledge there, as I was aware that he had made no effort to see her in twenty years, but I would have realized this particular fact anyway.

He actually considered his blind terror of an inanimate piece of hardware to be more important that his daughter’s safety, and she had just driven from California to Texas to visit him!

As an aside, my own father loved me very, very much. If my father had ever learned that I had made such a trip without a firearm, he’d have tanned every scrap of hide right off my backside, thirty years grown or not! As a matter of fact, he’d have raised holy un-shirted hell with me for leaving it in the bottom of my suitcase and not in my purse or pocket!

Not Harry. He was able to pull his soul out and polish it and tell himself what a wonderful Christian he was, and he’s been patting himself on the back for it ever since.

Sadly, my friend Harry is a professional victim. He subscribes to the pseudo-morality that says that it is better to suffer any indignity – even die – than to use force in your own defense or the defense of another. If he is ever mugged or robbed, I am quite sure that I will have to attend his funeral, because he will not lift a finger to help himself.

Harry really isn’t an evil man. If anyone came to his door hungry, he would feed them. He is kind to animals. He pays his bills. He drinks in moderation. And he has a sense of humor that is wicked and delightful. I enjoy his company very much – or I did until he found out I carry a gun. Now that I know his views on the matter, I will never visit his home again (because I am never, ever unarmed), although we have a professional and friendly relationship on the Internet and the telephone.

Harry’s personality has a fatal flaw. He is a murder victim looking for a place to lie down and die. He isn’t alone.

Actually, it is a peculiar form of cowardice, although certainly not the usual sort. Harry is a very religious man, and I am fairly sure that death is not what frightens him. Harry is utterly terrified to look deep into his soul and see the beast looking back out at him. He fears his own inability to control himself once that beast is out in the open. So he holds himself to total and absolute non-violence, regardless of the level of threat brought against him, and he has convinced himself that this is somehow virtuous.

Harry has been very lucky in his eighty years of life. He has never been attacked, or watched someone else be attacked, and tasted the helplessness that would be the natural result of refusing to prepare himself for such an eventuality. So he has never experienced the self-loathing that would result from his inaction. Harry doesn’t have too many more years left to him, and I honestly hope he is never forced to learn that lesson.

Harry calls himself a pacifist, but he is very wrong. He is a victim. Sad and pathetic.

On the other side of the coin, my partner and closest friend in the whole world is a pacifist, as I am. He is definitely male, but the resemblance to Harry stops right there. John is possibly the most dangerous man I’ve ever known.

Contradiction? Not at all.

John believes, as I do, that to initiate force against another human being – or government – is wrong. I’ve known him for years now, and I have seen him under enormous stress and enormous provocation, and I can state with absolute moral certainty that nothing – nothing at all – can make him cross that line.

So he is a definitely a pacifist. Say anything you want to him. He will not escalate the conflict. Tell him that his mother is a scum-sucking whore, and he will grin and ask you where you met her. Bring him a real grievance, and he will try to resolve it so that everyone goes away happy. If it cannot be resolved immediately, he will try to walk away from you so that all parties can calm down. If you will not let him walk away, and you insist on fighting, he will break some portion of your anatomy in very short order (not any particular skill – just age and treachery).

If you are stupid enough to attack John with any kind of lethal force – especially by reaching for his gun – I absolutely guarantee that you will die before your eye even registers that he has reached for his holster. Attack me, and it will happen even faster (although I would certainly try to beat him to it – but he’s fast!).

John is a pacifist, not a victim. And he cares about me, so he will not allow me to be a victim.

It is not immoral to resolve a physical conflict efficiently. It is only immoral to start one. A pacifist is committed to never, ever starting a physical conflict.

You see? No contradiction in terms.

Male pacifist.

John is a pacifist. And John is a man.
--------------------------------------------------------

At a tiny 5'1", Kathryn A. Graham is a licensed private investigator, pilot, aircraft mechanic and handgun instructor in Texas. Also a prolific author, she has written numerous articles, short stories and a science fiction novel entitled Flight From Eden.

Ms. Graham is the Texas Director for Armed Females of America.

http://www.kathrynagraham.com/

http://www.kathrynagraham.com/ezine-pacifist.htm

[FLM]

Great article.

[dfaugh]

Should be published far and wide...

I also consider myself a pacifist, similar to your friend...Of course, I own many guns (as you might guess from me being on TFL!)... I also studied the martial arts for many years....And I'm glad that I have never HAD to use either....However, that does not mean that I would not react with extreme violence, if absolutely necessary(to defend my loved ones for example)... I, too, have a great deal of trouble explaining this to people, thanks for doing it for me!

[FPrice]

GREAT POST!

As far as I am concerned, a Victim is a Pacifist who's ideals have just met up with a person with no ideals who is willing to use force to take from the Pacifist. Kinda along the lines of a Conservative is a Liberal who has just been mugged.

I am not a Pacifist. I believe in using force to combat evil, injustice, and tyranny.

[OF]

That was great.

I am confused on the definition of 'pacifist', however. I was under the impression that a true pacifist would refuse to use violence in any circumstance...even in defense. The definitions below would seem to bear this out.

I always characterized myself as non-aggressive, but not a pacifist.

Any thoughts?

- Gabe


Main Entry: pac·i·fism

Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
Date: 1902

1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

- pac·i·fist /-fist/ noun


Main Entry: pac·i·fist

Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-fist
Variant(s): or pac·i·fis·tic /"pa-s&-'fis-tik/
Function: adjective
Date: 1908

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war

- pac·i·fis·ti·cal·ly /"pa-s&-'fis-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

<edited to reflect the fact that Drizzt didn't actually write this...duh.>

[4V50 Gary]

Difference? A victim can be victimized whether they are a pacificist or a career criminal. As for a pacifist, well, theoritically they don't victimize others.

Oh, on the fellow who told his daughter to get the instrument of Satan out of his house, he's a pacifist who's waiting to be victimized.

[Sixgun]

Harry is the pacifist, John is not a pacifist.

I would consider John to be affable and non-aggressive, but not a pacifist.

Heinlin was right.

[Mute]

Sorry, but I think Heinlein is right. A true pacifist would never use violence in any circumstance. Period. John just wasn't a violent man.

[gorlitsa]

Sorry, but John is not a pacifist. Pacifists, by definition will not use violence for any reason.

Harry is a pacifist. He is not a victim. He may be a victim-waiting to happen, but he has not been victimized yet.

I understand her point, but it's poorly made.

[Crimper-D]

A Pacafist abhorrs violence, this guy's behavior indicates he abhorrs Weapons! - specifically firearms Sounds like his reaction to the sight of a gun is in itself, pretty violent.

This reaction is called Hoplophobia = "Fear of weapons"
OBTW: The definition of "Phobia" is " an Unreasoning Fear" I won't go into the gentlemans' cloaking his neurotic phobia behind a religeous alabi, except to say that it's been done before
I've served in the military with religous pacafists serving as noncombatant medics, they were brave men and served according to their convections - without fear. They certainly were _Not_ victems!

[Redlg155]

I agree. Although it is a great article, he is not a pacifist. At least not in laymans terms.

He should have said that a male victim is a contradiction in terms.

Hmmm....perhaps I am understanding this wrong, but a victim will be a victim no matter what the gender. I see male victims everyday at work. I've also known women to have more morality and courage than many men I know. To say that a male victim is a contradiction in terms is to say that a woman who will fight is also a contradiction.

Anyway...back to the pacifist point. Pacifist is a name. I could also call myself a chicken or a cow. But folks know that I am not a chicken or a cow. If I stand over a body with a smoking gun..even if in defense, I can proclaim loudly that I am a pacifist, but no one will believe me.

Good SHooting
RED

[WyldOne]

That was a great article.

I had some questions, though (don't I always? )...

a male pacifist was a contradiction in terms.

Why just males?

First of all, and most obviously, it is very, very clear that he does not love his daughter.

Other than the insider information we are provided with later, how is this so "obvious" and "clear"?

Before answering that question, please consider that my parents (especially my recently-deceased father) are both extremely anti-gun, and raised me and my sister accordingly.

However, they love us very much and they are wonderful parents. And I take great offense to anyone indicating otherwise.

You do not have to be a gun owner in order to be a good parent and love your children. It is possible for hoplophobes and anti-gunnies to be wonderful parents.

[Sixgun]

Natural selection usually culls out pacifists and other fools.

Unfortunately, civilization protects them from natural selection and they multiply. Democracy gives them power.

[paratrooper]

I would think that a pacifist absolutely refuses to prepare for trouble . When it finds them they become a victim .

[C.R.Sam]

Nuther view.
...Victom....one who has been wronged.

...Pacifist....one who depends on others for protection and other comforts...A PARASITE.

Sam

[Double Naught Spy]

I think Graham is confused on what a pacifist is or isn't. I think Graham is confused on what a victim is or is not.

There may be pacificists who are victims. There may be last resort pacificists, described here as not being true pacifists who only resort to violence as the last resort, such as John in the story. However, there are pacifists who are NOT victims and who do not resort to violence and manage to stay out of violent confrontations through a lot of creative and non-aggressive techniques such as situational awareness, alarm systems, not going out at night and alone, etc. etc. That does not mean they won't get into a violent confrontation, but it significantly lowers their chances.

Harry in the story is NOT a victim. Calling somebody a victim before they have suffered a crime is simply inaccurate. I would contend he is a potential future victim. Graham is playing on the power and sensationalism associated with the victim concept to make a point, only she is flatly in error.

It bothers me when anti-gun people sensationalize facts or events in a manner not representative of reality or simply lie. It bothers me when pro-gun folks do the same things. Graham has sensationalized the story and twisted definitions (or is simply ignorant about them). In logic or rhetoric, such sensationalizing would be considered a flaw of reasoning that is called an Appeal to Emotion where emotional concepts are employed to substantiate points or to gain favoritism when actual data or proper logical reasoning is not there.

I find it amusing that a female writer is the one denoting that John was a pacificst and that John was a man.

[ctdonath]

Martial arts & tools permit one to rapidly halt violence efficiently.

"Only somone who has mastered violence can truly choose to be non-violent. The taoists and buddists who developed the eastern martial arts understood this. Ignoring the problems of violence do not make them go away."

[Hemicuda]

Thankyou, Drizzt, for another rousing article... I enjoyed the read very much!