WAR PIGS!!!!

Damocles said:
However, you are objecting to a remark that explains why pacifism does not always apply. Basically, you quoted my post that was explaining why pacifism cannot always apply, said to a person who has said it is the only thing that can morally apply, and tried to tell me that because my example was "centuries apart" that it was somehow less valid. The example was of a true barbarian. Do you think Ghandi would have stood a chance against a less civilized opponent than Britain was at that point? What if they were just expanding when Ghandi tried his stance? Would we even know his name?

We really don't know if there was some Ghandi standing there that was run through the first day of the British empires first steps into India, because if there was they simply died that day.

Anyway, you're basically saying the same thing I am, just pretending you aren't. At some point, force is a valid and moral response. All people, nations, groups, et al, have a right to defend their right to exist.
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that I object to the scorn you and others have heaped on pacifists, as shown in these comments:

"You won't change him. He's a pacifist. It's all good, it takes all kinds.Those who volunteered and died knew that people like wanderingbear exist and did it in part so that people like wanderingbear can remain secure in their philosophy without regard to the harsh reality they had to face. They stand between wanderingbear and reality, and he takes full advantage. Bless his peaceful soul."

"if someone brings violence to you in order to deny you your rights, what will you do?
He will rail against the men who protect him and call them murderers."

"And you think someone hasn't done that to me? I will do what Ive always done. Walk away.
would you walk away if a family member, spouse, etc....is being raped right in front of you and you could stop it with force?"

"Of course not.But I dont need to be violent myself to stop them.
what are you going to do? say stop please?"

you do know what rape is....right? they are using force (read violence) to rape your family member, and your proposal is to "stand in their way".....

"Pacifism is the easy route, for it requires that you simply do nothing."

"I want to know how Mr. High and Mighty Pacifist is going to stop someone who is raping his wife or daughter."

You and I aren't saying the same thing, because while I'm not objecting to the use of force in dire circumstances, I'm not making fun of pacifism either.
 
Tell me, Christie.

What part of this statement of mine was disrespectful or untrue?

"You won't change him. He's a pacifist. It's all good, it takes all kinds.Those who volunteered and died knew that people like wanderingbear exist and did it in part so that people like wanderingbear can remain secure in their philosophy without regard to the harsh reality they had to face. They stand between wanderingbear and reality, and he takes full advantage. Bless his peaceful soul."

I've literally "known" wanderingbear online for nearly a decade. I know that you won't change him, that he is a pacifist, and that my statement was made after he clearly stated that it is the only moral response, any other response for him is "murder".

I'm not trying to disrespect wanderingbear, I am explaining to somebody trying to explain a different view to wanderingbear, for him it simply doesn't exist and the world is black and white. You either do as he says or you're "evil" and a "murderer"... and with all that, I still seriously like the guy and want him to hang. However, he is quite literally equally dogmatic as any Christian who quotes Romans Chapter 10...
 
Damocles said:
Tell me, Christie.

What part of this statement of mine was disrespectful or untrue?

"You won't change him. He's a pacifist. It's all good, it takes all kinds.Those who volunteered and died knew that people like wanderingbear exist and did it in part so that people like wanderingbear can remain secure in their philosophy without regard to the harsh reality they had to face. They stand between wanderingbear and reality, and he takes full advantage. Bless his peaceful soul."

I've literally "known" wanderingbear online for nearly a decade. I know that you won't change him, that he is a pacifist, and that my statement was made after he clearly stated that it is the only moral response, any other response for him is "murder".

I'm not trying to disrespect wanderingbear, I am explaining to somebody trying to explain a different view to wanderingbear, for him it simply doesn't exist and the world is black and white. You either do as he says or you're "evil" and a "murderer"... and with all that, I still seriously like the guy and want him to hang. However, he is quite literally equally dogmatic as any Christian who quotes Romans Chapter 10...
Click to expand...

I must note that Chris has no problem with wanderingbears derision of non pacifists-you know that derision that sort of eggs on a derisive response in kind~
 
Ice Dancer said:
I must note that Chris has no problem with wanderingbears derision of non pacifists-you know that derision that sort of eggs on a derisive response in kind~
Click to expand...

That is true, he set the tone of the thread in the OP. I think most of the questions asked are fair though. What would somebody who is that pacifist do when their family was attacked, what level of personal must it be before he'll defend? It's one of the questions everybody asks to self-proclaimed pacifists.

wanderingbear is a true believer, he'll insist he'll never use force to stop them and that it will all work because he really just believes.
 
Damocles said:
Tell me, Christie.

What part of this statement of mine was disrespectful or untrue?

"You won't change him. He's a pacifist. It's all good, it takes all kinds.Those who volunteered and died knew that people like wanderingbear exist and did it in part so that people like wanderingbear can remain secure in their philosophy without regard to the harsh reality they had to face. They stand between wanderingbear and reality, and he takes full advantage. Bless his peaceful soul."

I've literally "known" wanderingbear online for nearly a decade. I know that you won't change him, that he is a pacifist, and that my statement was made after he clearly stated that it is the only moral response, any other response for him is "murder".

I'm not trying to disrespect wanderingbear, I am explaining to somebody trying to explain a different view to wanderingbear, for him it simply doesn't exist and the world is black and white. You either do as he says or you're "evil" and a "murderer"... and with all that, I still seriously like the guy and want him to hang. However, he is quite literally equally dogmatic as any Christian who quotes Romans Chapter 10...
Click to expand...

I said all the comments were scornful, not just yours. You've said many, many times that you use sarcasm a lot in your posts, and you're being sarcastic about pacifism, for example: Q: "if someone brings violence to you in order to deny you your rights, what will you do?
A: He will rail against the men who protect him and call them murderers."

What I'm taking away from most of the comments, and not just yours, is that pacifism is a viewpoint to be held in contempt and that in many cases the "eye for an eye" response is the best way to handle conflict.

I'm not trying to change wanderingbear or anyone, I'm just a little bemused that someone's peaceful beliefs brought on these responses.
 
Damocles said:
That is true, he set the tone of the thread in the OP. I think most of the questions asked are fair though. What would somebody who is that pacifist do when their family was attacked, what level of personal must it be before he'll defend? It's one of the questions everybody asks to self-proclaimed pacifists.

wanderingbear is a true believer, he'll insist he'll never use force to stop them and that it will all work because he really just believes.
Click to expand...

The original post said we glorify war, and that's true. People applauded Gulf War I, the Iraq War, the Afghan War, etc. when they started. People like me who protested these actions were called traitors who should be shot. You and I know this is true.

Worst-case scenarios aren't the norm. Frankly, I doubt anybody really knows how they'd respond to sudden violence. How many times do we read or hear of people in those situations and their comment is: "I froze when I saw the gun, etc..." Most people aren't hyper-alert in their day to day lives because we're just not programmed that way.
 
christiefan915 said:
I said all the comments were scornful, not just yours. You've said many, many times that you use sarcasm a lot in your posts, and you're being sarcastic about pacifism, for example: Q: "if someone brings violence to you in order to deny you your rights, what will you do?
A: He will rail against the men who protect him and call them murderers."

What I'm taking away from most of the comments, and not just yours, is that pacifism is a viewpoint to be held in contempt and that in many cases the "eye for an eye" response is the best way to handle conflict.

I'm not trying to change wanderingbear or anyone, I'm just a little bemused that someone's peaceful beliefs brought on these responses.
Click to expand...

Which he had done earlier in the thread. What I fail to comprehend is how you miss how the tone of the thread was set by wanderingbear himself who first announced how much those very people were murderers.

Nothing I said at all was untrue, or "mean" or anything. They were flat accurate statements about somebody I have known far longer than you.

You jumped on and started defending it without regard to what has gone before and the fact that the posts clearly do not show an intent to even anger wanderingbear, let alone worthy of your "Must... Defend.... All... Liberals...." attitude.

It was only when I pointed out that both you and I were saying the same thing that you started backpedaling on your defense. I'm good with that. But I was accurate.
 
I like Ninjitsu. They take it all... We fire guns, we fight with edged weapons, we did hand to hand, etc. I'll keep that, work it with the Tae Kwon Do, Haikido, and Gung Fu that I studied in the past and I'm happy. Of course, I need to get back to it, I'm getting lazy and fat.
 
Beware The Battle-Cattle said:
t

Teppu Jitsu is proven to win against every other martail art. Its English translation is 'art of the rifle' :)
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
I like Ninjitsu. They take it all... We fire guns, we fight with edged weapons, we did hand to hand, etc. I'll keep that, work it with the Tae Kwon Do, Haikido, and Gung Fu that I studied in the past and I'm happy. Of course, I need to get back to it, I'm getting lazy and fat.
Click to expand...
For hand to hand I prefer Sambo or Systema, MCMAP for improvised and non lethal, and Teppu Jitsu fo everything else.
 
Damocles said:
That is true, he set the tone of the thread in the OP. I think most of the questions asked are fair though. What would somebody who is that pacifist do when their family was attacked, what level of personal must it be before he'll defend? It's one of the questions everybody asks to self-proclaimed pacifists.

wanderingbear is a true believer, he'll insist he'll never use force to stop them and that it will all work because he really just believes.
Click to expand...

What you and ID fail to note is that the derision wasn't toward non-pacifists specifically but to "people who glorify war...". I know the difference.

It was other posters who turned it into a general rant against pacifist ideology.
 
christiefan915 said:
What you and ID fail to note is that the derision wasn't toward non-pacifists specifically but to "people who glorify war...". I know the difference.

It was other posters who turned it into a general rant against pacifist ideology.
Click to expand...

The derision was against those who died in service of this country. I tried several times to point his vitriol towards the politicians who sent them to war, but wanderingbear insisted on calling those who died in military service "murderers". So the fact that he caught some flack is not a surprise.
 
Fearful gunlovers seem obsessed with rape, for some reason.



102.gif
 
christiefan915 said:
I said all the comments were scornful, not just yours. You've said many, many times that you use sarcasm a lot in your posts, and you're being sarcastic about pacifism, for example: Q: "if someone brings violence to you in order to deny you your rights, what will you do?
A: He will rail against the men who protect him and call them murderers."

What I'm taking away from most of the comments, and not just yours, is that pacifism is a viewpoint to be held in contempt and that in many cases the "eye for an eye" response is the best way to handle conflict.

I'm not trying to change wanderingbear or anyone, I'm just a little bemused that someone's peaceful beliefs brought on these responses.
Click to expand...

First of all, Wanderingbare has been overtly trash-talking servicemembers, which is not very nice. As for pacifism, I believe it should be held in contempt, because one can easily imagine how many millions of lives it would have cost had we had a pacifist running this country during the 1940s, at any time during the Cold War, and probably even today. If I were president, I would do everything I could to avoid war and be a pacifistic admininstration, but at the end of the day, people would have to understand that they cannot nuke my cities with impunity.
 
Damocles said:
Which he had done earlier in the thread. What I fail to comprehend is how you miss how the tone of the thread was set by wanderingbear himself who first announced how much those very people were murderers.
Click to expand...

I haven't failed to miss anything. The first post specifically derides war lovers, not everybody.

Nothing I said at all was untrue, or "mean" or anything. They were flat accurate statements about somebody I have known far longer than you.

You jumped on and started defending it without regard to what has gone before and the fact that the posts clearly do not show an intent to even anger wanderingbear, let alone worthy of your "Must... Defend.... All... Liberals...." attitude.
Click to expand...

I wrote exactly seven posts before this and none of them had to do with defending liberals, because I was defending an ideology, not people. Furthermore, how can I know what has gone before when I haven't been here for 10 years?

It was only when I pointed out that both you and I were saying the same thing that you started backpedaling on your defense. I'm good with that. But I was accurate.
Click to expand...

And as I said in posts 44, 96, 99, 101, 103, 107 and 108 I'm defending an ideology I have some sympathy for. I think you want to have it two ways, halfheartedly defending pacifism but simultaneously criticizing someone who doesn't answer the family, rape, etc. questions to your satisfaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top