Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality
Pacifism is also about the usage of violence. It is perfectly normal to use violence as a means to protect yourself. The big difference is that "they" don't believe they have to kill anybody that opposes them. Anybody who has seen war from close by will do anything not to see this again. This is a solid ground for starting your pacifist career.
You are right on this account for the full 100%! And yes, this could be a stand, which is taken out of the absolute desire to avoid war. I see Chamberlain more as a tragic figure in our history then as some lacky of the nazi's. He was duped while trying to do the "right" thing: the prevention of total war.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Ted said:
Time spent in a war zone has in no way moderated my 'hawkish' feelings ... does that mean I am in favor of war ... NO D*MNED WAY ... I would do everything in my power to stop a war ... however ... there are times when there is no alternative BUT to go to war.
The pacifist would lie down in front of the tank, and allow the tank to run them down without an ounce of resistance on their part. At least the protester in China's Tiananmen Square moved back in forth in front of the tank with his hands and arms in front of him to offer resistance to the tank if it hadn't stopped - not that it would have done him any good.
I would expend every ounce of my being to protect those I love ... the day has NOT arrived when the lamb can lie down with the lion ... until that day arrives, the lamb that tries to lie down with the lion will end up being the lion's meal.
I have no desire to be the lion's meal...........
I just think you and I have different vieuws about the definition "pacifist". I see myself as moderatly pacifist but I wouldn't call myself a lamb.
Burglars with murder on their mind aren't given a free be, I'd give it my best shot at making him wear the toe-tag, but there is a wide variaty of possibilities. And in many instances I would refrain from the use of force (let alone deadly force).
And it is a choice whether you go to war or not. Picking up arms when your homeland is invade is nothing but normal. Entering another land because you think yours is at risk.... well then you choose war without trying all the other possibilities. I am not a fan of offensive wars, maybe that is the problem.
Burglars with murder on their mind aren't given a free be, I'd give it my best shot at making him wear the toe-tag, but there is a wide variaty of possibilities. And in many instances I would refrain from the use of force (let alone deadly force).
And it is a choice whether you go to war or not. Picking up arms when your homeland is invade is nothing but normal. Entering another land because you think yours is at risk.... well then you choose war without trying all the other possibilities. I am not a fan of offensive wars, maybe that is the problem.
Marinerhodes
Active member
We have all heard the saying "Sometimes the best defense is a good offense".
This holds true in many cases. But this is also where people start diverging from shared opinions. This is where you start getting your "Hawks" and "Doves" mentalities.
This holds true in many cases. But this is also where people start diverging from shared opinions. This is where you start getting your "Hawks" and "Doves" mentalities.
Well put Marinerhodes... and to make matters worse: sometimes the Hawks are right and sometimes the Doves. That is why I am such a fan of pragmatism. Every situation needs it's own analysis. Unfortunatly not everybody wants to wait for the proper analysis and rush into trouble: sometimes justified and sometimes not.
Marinerhodes
Active member
Ted said:
True, I preach to my Marines that there is always a reason things are done. You need to look for the reason before you jump to conclusions and start griping about it.
On the other hand if a guy slaps me in the face - realistically or metaphorically speaking - then I am all about kicking his butt regardless of the reason(s).
Marinerhodes said:
You bet the gloves come off once they start hitting you! I think direct agression is the best excuse you have to start punching back.... As I said: pacificism in my book doesn't mean bending over when somebody starts bullying you. It is about thinking what needs to be done and to postpone agression as a last resort only. Unless your plan gets screwed by the opponent.
Lord Londonderry
Banned
I agree with you Ted. It makes me wonder how some of these tough talking guys on this topic would handle a situation where an angry shot was fired in their direction. Probably fill their pants.
When the fightings over someone has to sort out the political mess. Pacifists (as well as others) have a huge and important role to play here.
When the fightings over someone has to sort out the political mess. Pacifists (as well as others) have a huge and important role to play here.
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
Missileer said:
You can "fight evil" without violence, as they've done in India against the British.
I think it's irrelevant to call pacifism "immoral", but I do agree that unconditional pacifism is naive and could lead to poor results. You need to be able to tell when it's better to break out the loud speaker and when the gun is a better choice.
Have you ever spent time in a war zone as a civilian whose family, friends and possessions are being blown away? It is from those kind of environments that pacifist movements can arise, like they did after WW2 in Germany and Japan (with a little propaganda and manipulation from the allies of course).Chief Bones said:
Last edited by a moderator: