fatman wrote...
I am curious what the OP has to say of the responses so far.
I have feeling he was expecting people to agree that there is a limit to what you can take verbally, and you're a "super pacifist" if you don't agree.
To be honest, you'd be right in thinking that I had an urge to try and prod the posts in a direction that would ultimately lead in somebody saying "yes, there is a limit to what I can take verbally or passive aggressively from someone based on their gender/race/physical & mental limitations, etc." I was going to change scenarios, add conditions, and basically just keep amending my post until people started saying things I "wanted" to hear.
But I figure that the only way to get a true response is to ask the question and then let the answers fall where they may. I worded my question as best I could, but I don't doubt I may have worded certain things wrong. now I have to accept the results.
I would like to make it clear though, that I did -try- to make it impartial. I'm not trying to make pacifism sound weak or aggression barbaric. What I did find interesting is that of the scenarios I listed, people said they'd be willing to fight back physically -provided that the other person threw the first punch-, even though I made sure that none of the antagonists where being physically belligerent. I find the self-defense reasoning the most common/convenient way to justify aggression, and wanted to see if there were any other ways to justify it that I could agree with.