Robb Allen said:

Ah, so my decision to dump Dean for his intolerance of people who held different views on Muslims than he did was a good move. Glad to know I've stopped wasting time over there.

Funny thing is I agreed with his views, but his intolerance and foot stamping that you MUST follow his views or get lost. So I got lost.

I harbor no ill will against Dean. He's an interesting person, but disagreeable on many things.

I for one will be instructing my girls the same way my father did to me - Don't take the first swing but make sure yours is the last one that counts. Violence is not always bad, unlike the train of thought over there. Defending oneself is never to be frowned upon. And yes, groping requires instant, painful, response.

Robb Allen said:

In my school we seek to ensure that he does not have to do so.

What does your child do when the bully isn't deterred by the "Timmy. If you don't stop picking on the other kids we'll have to talk to you again." shtick that passes for discipline these days?

I want my children to never use violence unless necessary, and if so, understand that their father not only will not be angry at them for using it, but expects them to use it overwhelmingly.

The ability to use violence but choosing other paths when available is a sign of civility. The inability to cause violence is simply domestication.

Naftali said:

Hi Rob, thanks for linking. Inter-blog activity is good for all involved.

As I am the author of the quoted comment, I wanted to clarify my view a bit.

Self Defense is a primary human necessity, and for this reason any man or woman must be willing when necessary to do it, and to do it decisively.
Vigilantism is not a pejorative.

However, it is perhaps the primary role of a Government to enforce Law and Order, simply so that the governed do not have to themselves. If they had to it would mean they would have that much less time and energy to devote to higher purposes such as, say, building stuff. Also, rule
of law creates an environment where not only the strong survive. To the extent that the government is unable to meet this obligation, individual citizens must enforce the law themselves. No Government yet has been perfect in this regard and there is no reason to expect that to change. So vigilantism remains a human necessity; Of course you have to shoot the intruder until dead and punch bullies in the face.

What I objected to in the comments is the suggestion that Government abdicate its law enforcement role, requiring its citizens to fend for themselves. Like a school that would allow bullies to run loose, in effect requiring other students to divert resources for their own self defense, when the school should have made the environment secure to the best of its abilities.

In a school punching a bully should be encouraged. But allowing a bully to remain in the school is simply inefficient.

Naftali

Robb Allen said:

Sorry Naftali, but you're wrong on many accounts.

First, you never shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat. IF that happens to kill, so be it, but that should never be your intent.

Second, it is NOT the government's role to provide for my personal safety, only the general safety. Each and every citizen is a police officer, bound by morals to protect their own. That's why a citizen's arrest is an actual thing. The police only are paid to do a job you and I are required to do every single day. The difference is the police are paid to seek out the trouble while you and I only deal with it when it pokes up its ugly nose into our personal business.

To be a vigilante is to seek the trouble. Your child punching the school bully is not seeking the trouble and hence not vigilantism.