Now, I totally agree to looking for a non-violent solution whenever practical. Aside from ethical considerations, I find violence painful, risky, and costly. My bugbear is with stating that non-violence is always feasible, that it is the only option one should consider, or that being forced to engage in it is a sign of strategic failure or personality flaw.
I also see children as adults-in-training, inasmuch as they are developing the skills and attitudes they will require when older. Therefore, it really cheeses me off when they are indoctrinated into a lie. At what age and how do you rewire their brains to allow them to give themselves permission to defend themselves physically if required? Why create that mental barrier in the first place?
So there I was, arguing my point admittedly in a less-than-calm manner, when a bright spark posted this:
“You people seemed to get raped, jumped, and confronted in dark alleys a lot… if one can’t see a non-violent solution to a problem, doesn’t that make the thinker violent?”
Was this enough to convince the person arguing with me that there were options the Dalai Lama’s approach wouldn’t cover? Oh, no.
It’s really a level of creative thinking. That and awareness. Violent situations don’t just go from zero to one-hundred (yes, there are rare cases of extreme onset.) But outside of those, all the events leading up to that point should be indicators to the “aware.”