Pacifism to a point..

Imagine two people with two opposing yet equally passionate viewpoints.

Now imagine that one of these two people, no matter how strong his convictions were.. would never resort to killing another person to resolve a difference of opinion. Whereas the other person, could find a way to personally justify such an act.

Between these two people, who would win the debate?

I believe that no matter how often the debate between these two is repeated, the one that is willing to kill for their beliefs will always win. He will always win because if he cannot convince the other person that his way is the right way, he can always resort to removing the opposition through force.

This brings to mind:
- John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Ghandi.
- People bringing guns to protests and presidential events.
(http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/17/crimesider/entry5247140.shtml)
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/18/gun-protests-obama)

I know that I won't be the one to throw the first stone... but if someone keeps throwing rocks at you, when is it the right time to throw them back? Or is it right to throw them back at all?

...