I take some small measure of pride in being able to at least sort of understand why people hold views completely different than mine. Not always and not fully but I do try to understand not only the reasons themselves but the underlying rationale for those reasons.

That throat clearing aside, there is a, well, not position, really, not even a stance, more like an emotive state that I do not comprehend at all. And that is the rejection of the right to defend. I do not just mean self-defense. I mean any kind of defense.

The rejection of the right of self-defense is most obviously, but not exclusively, seen in the gun debate in the US. Those who reject the right of self defense are sincere in their claims to not comprehend why anyone needs or wants a gun because self-defense is seen as wrong.

Remove it from guns, however, and look at the UK where nearly any kind of self-defense is not only seen as wrong but likely criminal as well. If someone breaks into your home and you reply with any kind of force, you are putting yourself at risk of being charged with a crime.

Another example is the objection to using force to defend property. It's just money/phone/building/goods, how dare you say that is worth more than someone's life! Again, these claims are sincere. It is a rejection of the notion that tangible items are allowed to be defended.

This extends to the rejection of the use of force to defend others. See re the cop being excoriated for daring to use deadly force to stop a deadly attack. Not only can force not be used to defend self or goods, now it is wrong to use it to defend others.

Step back another level of abstraction and you cannot even defend your reputation. If you are accused of anything, the very act of defending yourself is seen as wrong and as proof the accusations must be true. There is no burden of proof. There is only accusation.

I don't comprehend this at all. I do comprehend the vile Will To Power only accusation matters. That is, has been, and always will be human nature. But the moral inversion of defense as good and proper and the inherent right, indeed, necessity, of all humans to moral wrong? No.

I cannot grasp what would possibly cause anyone to look at defense as being immoral. What suicidal impulse must you have to say that when someone attacks, I am in the wrong for defending against that? What universe can exist, now or ever, where that is anything other than insane.

This is not pacifism. This is a reversal of what should be a base human instinct. And I do not comprehend it at all. As best I can tell, it isn't even political, really, though the logical outcomes have some political correlations. But that's secondary, not causal.

It's not nihilistic, since the posture is being presented as morally superior. It's not about power necessarily, though there is, as always, the power of deeming oneself a morally superior being. I cannot grasp quite what it is, other than a rejection of something fundamental.

Mayhap that is it. I consider the drive to survive such an integral part of being human that those who reject it are, to me, rejecting base humanity. Why would anyone do that? Why would you not want to fight with all you have? How is that impulse wrong?

Maybe there is something obvious I am missing. But this is one area where I stare at the opposing side and think you are crazy. Not your position is crazy. You, the person holding that position, are crazy. And I am not sure I want to understand. Not this. /fin