WAR PIGS!!!!

Topspin said:
Your boyfriend proved it to you, I have a wife. No need for me to prove anything to a gaylord. sorry
Click to expand...

You are the one who feels the need to talk about how tough you are with martial arts and how people with guns are pussies.
 
Damocles said:
It really depends on what you mean when you say "doing nothing". When Jesus beat down the people in the Temple, was he "doing nothing"?

Quakers survive by relying on the civility of the nation in which they exist, and their soldiers. Tell me, how long do you think Gandhi would have survived against Genghis Khan? He also depended heavily on the civility of his opponent. The reality is pacifism only works if the opponent is worried about negative PR. There are times when "run" is the appropriate response, or "fight". All living things have a right to defend their lives and that of their families.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about pacifism as a last resort, but as a first resort. People are way too quick to take offense at what they perceive as insult or even threat. You give the example of Jesus and the money-changers, how about Jesus's instructions to turn the other cheek? Re: your comment about Genghis Khan, there were centuries between the two, centuries where the world became more civilized and less dog-eat-dog. Back in the 1600s people were burned at the stake for being witches, but culture has evolved beyond that today.

The comments here about pacifism seem to fall into all or nothing thinking. I don't see pacifism as standing by doing nothing while someone is being raped, that's absurd. But I do think that people are quick to take offense and resort to violence when a situation might be diffused in other ways.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm not talking about pacifism as a last resort, but as a first resort. People are way too quick to take offense at what they perceive as insult or even threat. You give the example of Jesus and the money-changers, how about Jesus's instructions to turn the other cheek? Re: your comment about Genghis Khan, there were centuries between the two, centuries where the world became more civilized and less dog-eat-dog. Back in the 1600s people were burned at the stake for being witches, but culture has evolved beyond that today.

The comments here about pacifism seem to fall into all or nothing thinking. I don't see pacifism as standing by doing nothing while someone is being raped, that's absurd. But I do think that people are quick to take offense and resort to violence when a situation might be diffused in other ways.
Click to expand...

That's not pacifism then. That's simply an aversion to violence.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm not talking about pacifism as a last resort, but as a first resort. People are way too quick to take offense at what they perceive as insult or even threat. You give the example of Jesus and the money-changers, how about Jesus's instructions to turn the other cheek? Re: your comment about Genghis Khan, there were centuries between the two, centuries where the world became more civilized and less dog-eat-dog. Back in the 1600s people were burned at the stake for being witches, but culture has evolved beyond that today.

The comments here about pacifism seem to fall into all or nothing thinking. I don't see pacifism as standing by doing nothing while someone is being raped, that's absurd. But I do think that people are quick to take offense and resort to violence when a situation might be diffused in other ways.
Click to expand...

Centuries do not matter, are you trying to say that barbarism no longer exists? The reality is, pacifism is appropriate in some circumstances, but the belief that it is the only response that is appropriate is not based in reality unless your goal is to die.
 
Damocles said:
Centuries do not matter, are you trying to say that barbarism no longer exists? The reality is, pacifism is appropriate in some circumstances, but the belief that it is the only response that is appropriate is not based in reality unless your goal is to die.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was the only response. Note this comment: " I don't see pacifism as standing by doing nothing while someone is being raped, that's absurd."

Of course barbarism exists but IMO to what degree is in the mind of the individual. I think it's barbaric for women to be stoned for purported adultery, yet the practice exists in some parts of the world. I also think the death penalty is barbaric yet it's legally sanctioned here.

I don't see pacifism in a negative light, but as something we should all strive for.
 
christiefan915 said:
I didn't say it was the only response. Note this comment: " I don't see pacifism as standing by doing nothing while someone is being raped, that's absurd."

Of course barbarism exists but IMO to what degree is in the mind of the individual. I think it's barbaric for women to be stoned for purported adultery, yet the practice exists in some parts of the world. I also think the death penalty is barbaric yet it's legally sanctioned here.

I don't see pacifism in a negative light, but as something we should all strive for.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top