Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

pacifist

CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 8:34:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Before I go any further, is there any point in which you would advocate violence?

Self preservation? The protection of someone else? etc?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:09:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 8:30:56 PM, davidhancock wrote:
i am a pacifist i want to hear you views on this idealogy:

Pacifism is the acceptance of bloodshed, not the abrogation of it. Peace is reciprocal. Just because you advocate peace doesn't mean that everyone does. And if you don't stand up to tyranny when it rears it's head, then sitting idly by assumes the acceptance of it and brutalization of innocents.

Peace is a wonderful objective, but it's a two-way street.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:50:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:47:41 AM, davidhancock wrote:
i believe that mans greatest gift was diplomacy and i do believe in self preservation to a point

seems fairly reasonable besides that last.
signature
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:52:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
When you say to a point, do you mean like... Running away?

Or are you willing to at least keep your attacker from causing any more harm.. Which doesn't necessarily involve killing.

Say you are married, would you protect your wife(Bad example, especially if she nags too much)

How about kids(Probably another bad example, they keep flushing stupid sh!t down the toilet)

er... um.... How about someone you love dearly?

...

I basically just want to know the extent of your pacifism, and when do you advocate violence.

Total pacifism.. You know, where you curl into a ball and cry when someone attacks you or your family is silly I think.

If you are a pacifist up until self defense.. um.. one, I don't know if you are still considered a pacifist.. but two, I would consider that more practical.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
davidhancock
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 10:10:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 10:02:00 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Pacifists are pvssies

thank you im dting of cancer how do you feel now
i believe that if your attacker (or family attacker) leaves then you have no right to persue also revenge is out of the question
we all derseve to die
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 10:14:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 10:10:47 AM, davidhancock wrote:
At 2/16/2011 10:02:00 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Pacifists are pvssies

thank you im dting of cancer how do you feel now
i believe that if your attacker (or family attacker) leaves then you have no right to persue also revenge is out of the question

I feel a) slightly bemused that you took me seriously, and b) confused how your logic follows.
I hope that you enjoy the remainder of your life, and I bear you no ill will.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 10:21:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 10:17:31 AM, davidhancock wrote:
Just kidding my logic is sound ask away (im not dying sorry)

Glad to hear it. (Though if you wish to keep it that way, avoid buses full of nuns)
What I meant was you haven't shown how you've reached your conclusion. I disagree in vague sense but might be persuauded if you can show why you believe;

"i believe that mans greatest gift was diplomacy and i do believe in self preservation to a point"
and
"i believe that if your attacker (or family attacker) leaves then you have no right to persue also revenge is out of the question"
davidhancock
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 10:25:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
ok the reason why I believe is because the US has been mitaristic since it began the wars that never happened were because of diplomacy mitilary might does nothing for us violence replicates violence peace generates peace in a sense any specific ? feel free to ask :)
we all derseve to die
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 10:34:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 10:25:58 AM, davidhancock wrote:
ok the reason why I believe is because the US has been mitaristic since it began the wars that never happened were because of diplomacy mitilary might does nothing for us violence replicates violence peace generates peace in a sense any specific ? feel free to ask :)

I do disagree with they way that the US has conducted their military affairs, but I do not condemn the use of force solely by their behaviour.
Even assuming that violence is always wrong on a macro scale (ie the idea that there are no just wars, an idea I disagree with), do you believe that violence in the pursuit of justice is wrong? Such as the police using violence to aprehend criminals, or using violence to defend yourself.
Returning to the idea of large scale violence always being wrong; as long as there are states they have the right to autonomy, that autonomy would almost certainly be violated if they did not have the means or the inclination to defend themselves.
If we assume everyone is a pacifist, then I accept the world would be a better place, but then the idea of pacifism would lose meaning anyway.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 10:37:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 8:30:56 PM, davidhancock wrote:
i am a pacifist i want to hear you views on this idealogy

it's right after silly.. and just next to worthless.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:51:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like pacifists. It's easier to steal their lunch money. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 2:40:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are many things I would be willing to die for.

There is nothing I would be willing to kill for.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 3:30:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
People seem to not really understand the point of pacifism. The way I understand it, it can be either a moral or a practical philosophy.

As moral, it would argue that everyone has intrinsic value and thus it would be immoral to commit violence against them. This could be based off of religious views a la Leo Tolstory or the Jainists where one's religion holds all violence to be immoral regardless of intent or consequence. Or it could be based off of more secular deonotological rights theories such as that of Robert LeFevre. The utilitarian critique of pacifism whereby bad people get away doesn't really say anything of this point as they're approaching the issue from a different angle i.e. utilitarianism vs. deontology.

On practical issues, pacifists have been able to get quite a bit done through non-violent methods such as civil resistance, economic boycott, changing public opinion, etc. It's simply wrong to think that violence is the only way to get something done. In fact, pacifists would argue that it's specifically that mentality that contributes to the widespread levels of violence in society. No one thinks that anything can be done without a gun or a fist and thus no one makes an attempt to hold to peaceful resolution practices.

While I'm not a pacifists in the sense that I reject all violence, I think it's still quite a worthwhile philosophy.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Websterremembered
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 12:40:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2011 8:30:56 PM, davidhancock wrote:
i am a pacifist i want to hear you views on this idealogy
Generally people would say they are such, however in practice self- preservation is a need whereas any philosophy is an aspect of ego. Moreover it is in the best interest of society to protect the expectation of benevolence.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 1:29:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 12:40:31 PM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 2/15/2011 8:30:56 PM, davidhancock wrote:
i am a pacifist i want to hear you views on this idealogy
Generally people would say they are such, however in practice self- preservation is a need whereas any philosophy is an aspect of ego. Moreover it is in the best interest of society to protect the expectation of benevolence.

Where is your support for the assumption that what is best for society is a moral obligation on its parts? Also, even if we generally have an instinct to self-preserve, that doesn't show why (A) this instinct cannot be suppressed (it's been shown numerous times by pacifists who have been killed and not responded violently) or that the only way to preserve one's like is by violence and (B) why this makes violence a moral option.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 1:33:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pacifism is inherently pro-fascism.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 1:38:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 1:33:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Pacifism is inherently pro-fascism.

I thought that was the fascists? And substantiation perhaps?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Websterremembered
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 1:46:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 1:29:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 12:40:31 PM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 2/15/2011 8:30:56 PM, davidhancock wrote:
i am a pacifist i want to hear you views on this idealogy
Generally people would say they are such, however in practice self- preservation is a need whereas any philosophy is an aspect of ego. Moreover it is in the best interest of society to protect the expectation of benevolence.

Where is your support for the assumption that what is best for society is a moral obligation on its parts? Also, even if we generally have an instinct to self-preserve, that doesn't show why (A) this instinct cannot be suppressed (it's been shown numerous times by pacifists who have been killed and not responded violently) or that the only way to preserve one's like is by violence and (B) why this makes violence a moral option.

I was referring to several concepts a) habits, to function in society patterns of normalcy are typically established ie the group would not allow a drunk at a wedding b)ego, people may be perfectly willing to kill one another, however it is prudent that a buffer be est to appeal to reason, morals/ ethics, or self preservation c) not just pacifism, love or hate, loyalty, a sense of duty, purpuse, all have been seen to superstate humanity's survival instinctual efforts to preserve their own life, even if such behavior is strongly an exception.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:08:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 1:46:11 PM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 6/24/2012 1:29:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:

Where is your support for the assumption that what is best for society is a moral obligation on its parts? Also, even if we generally have an instinct to self-preserve, that doesn't show why (A) this instinct cannot be suppressed (it's been shown numerous times by pacifists who have been killed and not responded violently) or that the only way to preserve one's like is by violence and (B) why this makes violence a moral option.

I was referring to several concepts a) habits, to function in society patterns of normalcy are typically established ie the group would not allow a drunk at a wedding b)ego, people may be perfectly willing to kill one another, however it is prudent that a buffer be est to appeal to reason, morals/ ethics, or self preservation c) not just pacifism, love or hate, loyalty, a sense of duty, purpuse, all have been seen to superstate humanity's survival instinctual efforts to preserve their own life, even if such behavior is strongly an exception.

(A) That may be true but that doesn't mean that one is morally obliged to abide by them or that they are the only way to defend one's self.
(B) I pretty much agree. It's just the actual going through with violence that has moral relevance.
(C) Wut.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:34:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 1:38:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 1:33:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Pacifism is inherently pro-fascism.

I thought that was the fascists? And substantiation perhaps?

It's on Orwell Quote.

By being a pacifist, according to him, you are giving fascism to ability to rise as a valid political theory without taking appropriate steps to combat it. Of course, I find it kind of ironic coming from him since he was a socialist.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:42:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:34:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/24/2012 1:38:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 1:33:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Pacifism is inherently pro-fascism.

I thought that was the fascists? And substantiation perhaps?

It's on Orwell Quote.

By being a pacifist, according to him, you are giving fascism to ability to rise as a valid political theory without taking appropriate steps to combat it. Of course, I find it kind of ironic coming from him since he was a socialist.

I don't really see how that follows. By that conception, anyone who doesn't kill every fascist outright is contributing to their rise to power. The quote fails to distinguish between morally and generally causing something. A rock falling down a hill generally caused his injury. Someone who pushed the rock has morally caused it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:55:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:42:19 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 5:34:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/24/2012 1:38:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 1:33:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Pacifism is inherently pro-fascism.

I thought that was the fascists? And substantiation perhaps?

It's on Orwell Quote.

By being a pacifist, according to him, you are giving fascism to ability to rise as a valid political theory without taking appropriate steps to combat it. Of course, I find it kind of ironic coming from him since he was a socialist.

I don't really see how that follows. By that conception, anyone who doesn't kill every fascist outright is contributing to their rise to power. The quote fails to distinguish between morally and generally causing something. A rock falling down a hill generally caused his injury. Someone who pushed the rock has morally caused it.

Orwell views pacifism as harmful to the war effort and ultimately causes unfavourable conditions to your side.

"Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."