Hi Tony-Originally posted by Kimpatsu
There's the logical fallacy again; gouging out the eyes is not the only way to stop an agressor. A simple poke will do as well; you don't have to leave someone blinded to protect yourself.
I'm off to spontaneously combust, now
Best,
We don't disagree that much, because I totally second the idea that killing or maiming someone should be about the very last thing you would want to employ in self defence.
However, the idea that it is *never* necessary to stop an aggressor I would disagree with.
I can conceive of situations where it might be the only way to be sure that a threat to your life or that of your familly was ended. As a rule of thumb, I believe that if someone tried to kill me, then I would feel justified in responding in kind.
(Incidentally, it's fine detail, but I suspect that if someone is pumped up, drunk or on drugs then just a 'poke' to the eyes will *not* stop them- they'd probably carry on coming at you as long as they could see you and move after you. Hence the need to either run like hell or mount an attack that destroys their physical capacity to cause you harm i.e injure their knees etc.)
The really interesting thing about this thread to me is that the vast majority of people, as Don says, can intellectually prepare themselves for the idea of needing to kill and sometimes even romanticise it, but could they do it? My answer to the poll would have been 'I don't know'- because until I'm in that situation, I have no idea how I would behave.
Don's point about the unconscious preventing actions that the person has rationally decided on seems very important as well.