by Mysterious 11 Replies latest jw friends
It is hard for me to know where the line is between self-defense and retaliation. I don't get into physical fights, but if I were attacked, I would defend myself. I might retaliate if things got too heated, but I would consider it all self-defense. If one is attacked, I don't think one should be expected to respond rationally.
Regards,
SandraC
educ8self: What if it did stand a very good chance of getting you what you wanted? If it wasn't futile then would it be okay? And how about fighting back if they are smearing your character? If you didn't argue back might it not be that a lot of people would think it was all true?
Well if it wasn't futile there would be a point to it, you wouldn't be wasting your time and energy - although you gotta look at whether it's worth it too. I don't think whether something is okay in the sense of an absolute right and wrong is useful, you have to look at the actual situation rather than try to force the situation into some moral ideal. I mean look at child abuse, when it's been perpetuated for years people don't tend to have a harsh judgement if the victim finally responded. Again, though the point I was trying to make is that the oppositional attitude of fighting tends to be a waste of energy, it is possible to engage someone in an intelligent way.
So for that matter I have to say you don't want to force the reality of the situation into what you want, either. Realistically speaking you want two things: have a good grasp on the situation first, which means knowing not just the person you are tangling with but just the whole situation including yourself - and second is knowing what you can control in that situation. Fighting in the sense of going Hulk on someone is just trying to force things to be a certain way, but your best chance is if you are really aware of what's going on and what you can do about it.
But aside from the nuts and bolts of how it works, if someone is telling lies about you you have the truth on your side, and the more far off it is the more you have to work with. I would just say don't worry about being too defensive in that case, which can be interpreted the wrong way but present it as a ridiculous claim. And I'd focus on the evidence rather than the personal aspect, just point things out like how the claim is inconsistent with other things people can readily observe. (including their motive if it is pretty obvious) But I have to admit if it was me I'd probably not spend too much time on it, because even if they succeed in convincing people, if those people won't listen to reason they are probably not worth it. Here's a little twist, because it goes back to what you can control - hopefully you won't get so caught up in what other people think that you can't control yourself and be totally absorbed in trying to control what other people think. (or, be controlled BY what other people think!) After all, while we can influence that people will ultimately think what they think.
