How is yanking a child's arm not less violent than getting run over by a bus?
Being against violence means wanting to minimize the amount of violence in the world, no? It's a strange strawman to say that being against violence means never taking any forceful action whatsoever - that just leads to violent outcomes through inaction.
Sure , but that's the entire debate. In that example it's easy, of course you'd rather cause a child a little discomfort rather than let them get run over. But what about more serious examples? Would you support the people behind 9/11 if it lead to less deaths overall over an X year period? If yes, would everyone?
It's easy to make your decision when the potential downside (a child cries for 5 minutes) is so minor and the potential upside (a child gets saved from dying) is so much bigger in comparison - it only becomes an interesting debate when you up the stakes considerably. For example, the debate about whether what Mandela did, back in his "terrorrist" days, was justified.
Adding to your point, here is another example: Would you assert that the people on United Airlines Flight 93 should have practiced non-violent resistance when the intent of their hijackers became clear?
Their use of violence against the hijackers was not pacifist, and because they were not pacifists many lives, arguably countless lives, were spared.
They did it out of self-defense (and also general defense). Violence from self-defense is completely different from retaliatory and/or "message-sending" violence.
Violence for self-defense isn't pacifism though. Pacifism is not "only use violence when it is justified".
That you recognize that violence can be justified (for instance, in self-defense) means that you're not a pacifist. That is okay, most people are not.
The author asserts that violence used to prevent additional violence is illogical. You and I both recognize that as false, as both you and I recognize the value that violence can have when it is used for self-defense.
Both you and your parent comment are incorrect. Self-defense vs first strike becomes a gradient very quickly. And the biggest issue is that the person interpreting what happened is usually the one that used the violence.
But back to the main point, there is a world of difference between "self-defense" and "violence used to prevent additional violence". Self-defense is immediate: someone is punching you, so you punch back. The other thing... it doesn't have to be. In my mind, self-defense is justified. But self-defense is defined as "have no other reasonable option", and thus is fairly narrow. If you can negotiate, if you can protect your interests by deterring the enemy, if you can eliminate the enemy without violence, by say sanctions, etc. then you have options and it's not self-defense. Also, self-defense is not the condition where violence is the best option. It's only self-defense when violence is the only option.
Perhaps violence is justified when it's not self-defense, but I don't think you can call any first-strike "self-defense" in order to gain the high moral ground.
Gandhi implored the british to not defend their country, their homes, their families, or themselves. It's a stance against self-defense, something that is almost universally considered an acceptable time for violence.
Tibetan monks have attempted the same and due to differing circumstances they have lost. It's interesting how similar techniques offer varying success rates based on all the other factors at play.
You can't compare "minor violence against one person vs. extreme violence against one person", and "extreme violence against one/a few people vs. extreme violence against numerous people."
Can anyone think of a terroristic act that resulted in one or more deaths actually leading to less net violence? Most seem to cause more violence: Dorner shooting police, causing police to open fire on civilians they thought were him. 9/11 leading to many innocent deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. People are much more likely to respond to violence with violence, than they are to respond with it to peace.
That is not the entire debate. Pacifism and non-violence are not the same as inaction. It's a question of intent. It's indisputable that yanking a child's arm to remove them from danger is NOT violence, because the intent is one of protection.
Being against violence means wanting to minimize the amount of violence in the world, no? It's a strange strawman to say that being against violence means never taking any forceful action whatsoever - that just leads to violent outcomes through inaction.