I’m keenly aware that there are many who are against self-defense. What I wonder is if they are able to carry that thinking to its conclusion.
If those same people lock their doors, they believe in self-defense. It’s passive self-defense, but it’s SD nonetheless. What they’re against is active self-defense. What’s the standard? Where’s the rule?
And why will they defend their position and themselves vocally, but not physically? It’s like the vegans who are vegans out of a sense of love for animals – why aren’t vegetables given dignity? What keeps veggies out of the running for self-worth? Even so, why is it OK to defend oneself vocally, but not physically? What’s the standard?
One needs to choose his position and think it through. Does it really make sense? Those who are vocally defending their positions, thereby using their freedoms, are trying their hardest to take away other defenses and freedoms from others.
In the end, they may find that their seemingly peaceful search for non-violence actually in a loss of all liberties, including their freedom to speak out.