This thread makes me think of the martial art Aikedo. Wherein the principle is to neutralize the aggressor, while causing as little (or no) lasting damage to them as possible.
An interesting principle that can be surprisingly effective in the hands of a practitioner. However, of the resources I've read, awareness is the most trained conflict resolution skill they use. And I do believe that good awareness is pivotal for preemptive conflict resolution. Though it may not always keep you out of trouble, it will drastically reduce your odds of it.
As I said earlier self-defense is always justified in my mind. The trick is to make it appropriate to the threat, which isn't always easy.
This is one of the key principles I try to follow. I would call it one of my ideals I strive and push for. Having been in martial arts for about 10 years I have always wondered what would happen if I got in a fight outside of class, but I have never had anything ever escalate into a full on fight. *stupid ideal, someone fight me!!!!*
Take what I say with a grain of salt, because that's all it is compared to the ocean of complexity when it comes to actions and real life.
Whoops! Well, there goes my credibility on the subject.
I suppose I should have also mentioned that I'm not a practitioner. I simply read a book about it because I found it very interesting. Though I wouldn't mind learning it. Sadly, there are no instructors in my area. :sad:
Ni > Te > Ti = Fi > Ne > Si = Fe > Se
I was gonna say, "No, hitting is never justifiable," but (MIRACLE) I realized that doesn't mesh at all with the real world. If anyone threatened my family, especially my little sister, with physical violence, my first reaction would be to slug them in the jugular.
So I agree with Kra, self-defense is definitely justifiable.
As for child rearing? Never. But that branches into a whole different topic
"So I say, live and let live. Thatís my motto. Live and let live.
Anyone who canít go along with that, take him outside and shoot the motherfucker."
- George Carlin