Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pacifism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 12:25:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So why choose Pacifism over retaliation-but-not-initiationism?

Because violence begets violence begets violence.

Violent retaliation will not achieve the ends you seek. It only stirs-up more hatred and will act to justify the initiators violence in their own minds.

To choose not to stoop down to their level and strike back does something amazing. It changes your attacker. It will give birth to emotions of mercy and compassion within them.

"So what then", you say, "just take it?". No. Pacifism is not weak, but a mightier force than any army, by onethousand-fold. Violence is not required in-order to resist. In-fact, it has proven to be one of the least effective forms of resistance imaginable by increasing the problem. Pacifism does not mean non-resistance. There are many tools to use in replace of violence which are more effective. You may appeal to their emotion by not striking back or even further by returning the blow with kindness. You may appeal to their reason by negotiation. And you may simply refuse to cooperate with oppression, through courage and through perseverance, like the way of Gandhi.

Everything I see in the current perverse established doctrine of so called solution making by violent exchange I can sum up in this one phrase that shows itself to ring-true everyday:
Violence is suicide.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 1:06:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
FREEDO, I never knew much about pacifism, but threw those words of wisdom I have discovered myself.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 1:12:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:08:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I still believe that violence is necessary for self-defense in many cases so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist.

I prefer defensive moves. If someone were to try and hit me, the best move is to block, second best is to get out of the way (and hope they hit something hard and painful) and worst is to attack back.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 1:23:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:20:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:19:35 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
This thread is lol.

Debate me on pacifism?

Sure.

Write up your case. I'm in 3 debates, but they shouldn't take too long.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 1:26:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:23:25 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:20:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:19:35 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
This thread is lol.

Debate me on pacifism?

Sure.

Write up your case. I'm in 3 debates, but they shouldn't take too long.

I'll write it up tomorrow. I'm tired.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 1:29:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:28:25 AM, juvanya wrote:
wtf is this hippy crap

The true way of life. Ya know without violence, hate assualts etc. No war.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:03:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 12:25:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
So why choose Pacifism over retaliation-but-not-initiationism?
Pacifism is, in theory, an ideal concept that rather promotes non-violence instead of any form of violence. However, in practice, this concept is more violent than self-defense with use of violence. It is abhorrent and in my opinion, does not and should not belong to the current century. Pacifism brings no peace. If innocent people are being massacred by terrorists, then what kind of peace will pacifism bring if the terrorists get to live while the innocent, peaceful people will remain alive? I ask, how can the concept of peace even apply to humankind if there is no use of it? Should all peaceful people die and let the violent ones live? Then where will pacifism be? In the grave. In the deep grave. If you think that this concept is any good, you are entirely wrong. It is good in theory - no violence. But in practice, as long as we do not have 100% of humankind being pacifists, this concept is the most monstrous form of sacrifice.

Because violence begets violence begets violence.
Violence is not necessarily bad. There are certain situations where violence is the most useful thing for a person. I appreciate life and if an animal tries to kill me, I have every right and will to defend myself with use of as much violence as possible. If a person also did the same, I still have the same right. Life is sacred and instead of choosing to abandon it because you believe in an outdated, nonsensical concept, you should rather choose to defend yourself and save your own innocent life over the life of a murderer. Also, what if someone attacked you and was about to kill you, but you used violence to defend, but did not kill him. He can still recover. Is this still "violence leads to violence -- ad infinitum" or is it that violence leads to peace? Surely, there would be little peace for you if the man either cut your limbs off or did some other beastly things. What about pacifism? It would simply let you be a fool and die because you have a horrible view of self-defense and violence. There is good and bad violence. Things are made in pairs. Bad violence is minus and good violence is plus. If you want to beat bad violence, then do it with a plus, not with nothing. You need reaction, not cowardice.

Violent retaliation will not achieve the ends you seek. It only stirs-up more hatred and will act to justify the initiators violence in their own minds.
That is a very narrow view of physical retaliation. It is actually so narrow that astrology makes more sense. Do you know why? You are not looking at the long-term effect, rather the short-term effect of physical retaliation. You assume that if an army enters a city and starts bombing it with full might, then not attacking it back to stop the bombings is the best choice. May I ask, when has this ever been successful? Should the Soviet Dictatorship maybe have let Nazism take over 9 time zones and harass innocent people double as much as it did? Or, as - thank God - happened, should the fellow Soviet Union have struck back to defend innocent people and prevent more violence, harassment of innocent people, oppression, and other such grotesque actions that - I am fairy confident in saying - would make you wish to end your life and escape to the anarchy of Mars, which, unfortunately, would not be possible back in the 1940's? I think not.

Not that Soviet Union was not a dictatorship after all, but it certainly was better than Nazi Germany and did not have teratoid plots against many nations. Today, they are democratic. I doubt that would be the case if they were pacifists then. I think they would be cannibals.

To choose not to stoop down to their level and strike back does something amazing. It changes your attacker. It will give birth to emotions of mercy and compassion within them.
That is an egregious statement. It is so revolting that I hope no politician of a well-off country ever thinks of it. This atrocious statement has no sense of logic whatsoever. The human instinct to dominate through violence was never and will never be defeated by a good word. When a human is regimented by his instinct to dominate by any means necessary, the good word will be of no avail to him. The only thing that will be merciful to him and you is to strike back the way he strikes you. It is not to continue violence, it is not to harm him, but to prevent further harm, further violence. There is no bad intention when you wish to end violent domination. You assume that not attacking back at a psychopath who fires guns at people is the best option. For your interest, it is not, and I have a very hard time figuring out who told you that. I, for a fact, think that you should work further on your receptions of the various concepts that are effective on the brain, but heinous when applied to the rest of the world. Sometimes violence is the best solution to a problem, and if you disagree, you should think fairly much about it.

"So what then", you say, "just take it?". No. Pacifism is not weak, but a mightier force than any army, by onethousand-fold.
Indeed it is. Not for you, but for your enemy. Pacifism is, as you said, mightier than any army. If your town has 1,000 pacifist inhabitants, and an army of 50 people arrive to kill them, then the army of pacifism will make the army of 50 people count as if they were an army of 100,000 people. They would eventually slaughter all of you with no problem whatsoever, only because they got help from the mightiest army, namely the army of pacifism. As a matter of fact, even one person entering a town to kill pacifists will be like a few hundreds or thousands of such persons entering the town, honestly speaking because the fellow mighty army of pacifism will stand at his right and left side.

Violence is not required in-order to resist.
That is correct. You are unmistaken there because violence is not required in order to resist. You can run away from a violent person, you can talk to him, you can do many things. However, if he is out of his mind and locks you in a room to spill your blood and boil it, then your little words of wisdom will hardly affect him. In fact, that could even further enrage him. You need to realize that violence is not always good, but neither is it always bad. It is the nature of life to survive throughout violence. You, being an atheist, should have no issue with this whatsoever.

In-fact, it has proven to be one of the least effective forms of resistance imaginable by increasing the problem.
When has such a gross statement been authentic and proven, and who proved it? Did some Buddhists and Jainists do it? Unfortunately, they have not left behind this illogical and must I say, very effete concept a few hundred years ago, or a millenia. Whoever, in fact, did try to prove what you said has ignored many of the basic criteria for well-intended self-defense. You posit that if there is no way to talk to someone to change his violent intentions or do anything else, it remains wrong to make use of physical retaliation. I have a very strong objection to this, and if you believe that non-violent resistance is the solution here, you are very mislead by the concept. If, however, you believe that violence is acceptable in this situation, then it would most surely make you a non-pacifist.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:24:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 12:25:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
To choose not to stoop down to their level and strike back does something amazing. It changes your attacker. It will give birth to emotions of mercy and compassion within them.

That can be true.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:25:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 12:25:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Pacifism does not mean non-resistance.
It means non-necessary-resistance-(in extreme cases). I gave you fair examples of when pacifism is nothing but self-sacrifice for no good. It is not self-defense when a person is confronted by two choices: life through fight or death through cowardice.

There are many tools to use in replace of violence which are more effective.
Indeed there are. Some cases are too extreme to successfully avoid violence. If your country is about to be invaded by another one, do you think the best solution is to let it happen and talk sweet words? Indeed not, my friend.

You may appeal to their emotion by not striking back or even further by returning the blow with kindness.
I am from a good nation that we call Bosnia & Herzegovina. If it were not for heroes who were not cowards (hereby pacifists), my country would have be taken over by an enemy who slaughtered thousands of innocents, committed genocide, and any such monstrous things. Have you heard of Srebrenica? If you knew one single thing about it, you would be sure that not one person used violence (not even the cowards of UN) to defend against the enemy militants. In fact, they talked nicely, were filled with hope, were very kind, and what ultimately happened? The males over 10 years were slaughtered, buried, and can it get worse? Do you think that it would not be better to have saved them and let them live happily with their families today, instead of now being in the grave and have their families live with grief for the rest of their lives? If you think that the best choice was to let them die through "kindness," then I ask you to never visit Srebrenica if you ever wish to do it because that is such a colossal insult that is enraging the victims over there. If you and your dear pacifism stand for non-physical retaliation only, then let it stick to you and do not spread it amongst people who need it more than anything else.

And why on earth are you pro-abortion?

You may appeal to their reason by negotiation. And you may simply refuse to cooperate with oppression, through courage and through perseverance, like the way of Gandhi.
Ghandi was in no way confronted with ultimate violence. He had the choice of different path toward peace. It is a totally different situation than one like I mentioned above.

Everything I see in the current perverse established doctrine of so called solution making by violent exchange I can sum up in this one phrase that shows itself to ring-true everyday:
The most abhorrent, heinous, perversive, deluded, nonsensical, beastly, monstrous, colossally insulting, gigantically oppressive form of defense is none other but pacifism, and that concept should perhaps belong to outdated dictionaries as a word that should apply today. It should not. It never should. Self-defense is needed and it is not always physical at all, but as a last resort it is very useful and better than pacifism a billion times.

Violence is suicide.
Violence is not suicide, but suicide is violence. And what a gruesome closing comment you made. If there is any form of self-defense in the world that is, in its entirety, equivalent to suicide, that is none other but pacifism.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:33:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 12:25:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
To choose not to stoop down to their level and strike back does something amazing. It changes your attacker. It will give birth to emotions of mercy and compassion within them.

Yeah...this will totally work.

You may appeal to their emotion by not striking back or even further by returning the blow with kindness. You may appeal to their reason by negotiation. And you may simply refuse to cooperate with oppression, through courage and through perseverance, like the way of Gandhi.

The problem with your idealistic viewpoint here is that for it to work it requires the oppressor to sympathize with the oppressed and stop. An unrealistic scenario in most situations.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:35:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 3:33:01 AM, Korashk wrote:
The problem with your idealistic viewpoint here is that for it to work it requires the oppressor to sympathize with the oppressed and stop. An unrealistic scenario in most situations.
Correct. As if a rapist does not know that a victim of his will not be sad and bow to him to be left alone.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 6:38:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So why choose Pacifism over retaliation-but-not-initiationism?

Because violence begets violence begets violence.

Violent retaliation will not achieve the ends you seek. It only stirs-up more hatred and will act to justify the initiators violence in their own minds.:

Total pacifism is to acquiesce to tyranny. Through their cowardice, pacifists are co-conspirators of violence by virtue of their inaction, and are complicit in the expansion of crime and violence, not the abrogation of it. Peace is a two-way street. Those who allow innocents to be brutalized are no better. By sitting by and not doing anything IS tacit approval of the violence.

"So what then", you say, "just take it?". No. Pacifism is not weak, but a mightier force than any army, by onethousand-fold. Violence is not required in-order to resist. In-fact, it has proven to be one of the least effective forms of resistance imaginable by increasing the problem. Pacifism does not mean non-resistance. There are many tools to use in replace of violence which are more effective. You may appeal to their emotion by not striking back or even further by returning the blow with kindness. You may appeal to their reason by negotiation.:

No one is questioning whether violence and anger are better virtues than peace. Diplomacy is of a higher virtue, but peace is reciprocal. And I really would love to see how deep your convictions run when put to the test. Remember, being a pacifist doesn't merely mean you turning the other cheek when those strike you. It also entails sitting idly by while 10 men gang rape a 10-year old girl. It means sitting idly by and watching the 83-year old woman being brutalized for her purse. It means sitting idly by and watching a destructive and oppressive force take over a peaceful nation. That's what it means. And if that is what you stand for then you stand for nothing at all... which means, you will fall.

And you may simply refuse to cooperate with oppression, through courage and through perseverance, like the way of Gandhi.:

You're using Gandhi as a model?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 6:48:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 3:03:52 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2010 12:25:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
So why choose Pacifism over retaliation-but-not-initiationism?
Pacifism is, in theory, an ideal concept that rather promotes non-violence instead of any form of violence. However, in practice, this concept is more violent than self-defense with use of violence. It is abhorrent and in my opinion, does not and should not belong to the current century. Pacifism brings no peace. If innocent people are being massacred by terrorists, then what kind of peace will pacifism bring if the terrorists get to live while the innocent, peaceful people will remain alive?:

Well said, Mirza. In THEORY pacifism is a virtuous thing, and one should always attempt peace. But peace is RECIPROCAL. If this concept of pacifism doesn't appease wife-beaters who kick the crap out of their wives everyday for 25 years, at what point will they inexplicably stop their violence? This is basic psychology 101. Bullies continue bullying up until somebody stands up to them. A lot of them simply have no respect for you because of the pacifist mentality.

I think Freedo is very naive about this subject, and instead of actually looking at this with a sense of realism, he clings to a fantasy of the mind.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 8:46:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I suppose using violence as a last resort doesn't count as pacifism.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:53:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:12:50 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:08:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I still believe that violence is necessary for self-defense in many cases so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist.

I prefer defensive moves. If someone were to try and hit me, the best move is to block, second best is to get out of the way (and hope they hit something hard and painful) and worst is to attack back.

How the f*ck can a country dodge a missile attack?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:55:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 3:53:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:12:50 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:08:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I still believe that violence is necessary for self-defense in many cases so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist.

I prefer defensive moves. If someone were to try and hit me, the best move is to block, second best is to get out of the way (and hope they hit something hard and painful) and worst is to attack back.

How the f*ck can a country dodge a missile attack?

I think she was referring more to personal self-defense.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 4:02:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 3:55:55 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:53:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:12:50 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:08:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I still believe that violence is necessary for self-defense in many cases so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist.

I prefer defensive moves. If someone were to try and hit me, the best move is to block, second best is to get out of the way (and hope they hit something hard and painful) and worst is to attack back.

How the f*ck can a country dodge a missile attack?

I think she was referring more to personal self-defense.

And when you have 5 people surrounding you? Regardless a country can't practice Pacifism and stay as a country for very long.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 4:05:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 4:02:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:55:55 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:53:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:12:50 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:08:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I still believe that violence is necessary for self-defense in many cases so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist.

I prefer defensive moves. If someone were to try and hit me, the best move is to block, second best is to get out of the way (and hope they hit something hard and painful) and worst is to attack back.

How the f*ck can a country dodge a missile attack?

I think she was referring more to personal self-defense.

And when you have 5 people surrounding you? Regardless a country can't practice Pacifism and stay as a country for very long.

Yea, which is why me, and most other sane people can't be pacifists. However, I only support war in self-defense.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 4:15:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 4:05:21 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 4:02:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:55:55 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:53:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:12:50 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:08:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I still believe that violence is necessary for self-defense in many cases so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist.

I prefer defensive moves. If someone were to try and hit me, the best move is to block, second best is to get out of the way (and hope they hit something hard and painful) and worst is to attack back.

How the f*ck can a country dodge a missile attack?

I think she was referring more to personal self-defense.

And when you have 5 people surrounding you? Regardless a country can't practice Pacifism and stay as a country for very long.

Yea, which is why me, and most other sane people can't be pacifists. However, I only support war in self-defense.

That in itself is still a stupid stance

Let's take 1938 as an example.

Germany is being aggressive with Europe. France, Poland, Britain and the Czechs are against this aggression. Now, it's pretty obvious what happens here. All these countries except Britain are invaded and Britain is pummelled to within an inch of its life. Under your philosophy Britain only defend German attacks on Britain, France only defends against German attacks on France, etc.

However, it is in these 4 nations interests to join together to stop German aggression against one state. When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, should Poland, France and Brain have responded with war, not only would they have been justified, but they would have stopped Germany in its tracks.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 4:17:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 4:15:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 4:05:21 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 4:02:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:55:55 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:53:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:12:50 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:08:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I still believe that violence is necessary for self-defense in many cases so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist.

I prefer defensive moves. If someone were to try and hit me, the best move is to block, second best is to get out of the way (and hope they hit something hard and painful) and worst is to attack back.

How the f*ck can a country dodge a missile attack?

I think she was referring more to personal self-defense.

And when you have 5 people surrounding you? Regardless a country can't practice Pacifism and stay as a country for very long.

Yea, which is why me, and most other sane people can't be pacifists. However, I only support war in self-defense.

That in itself is still a stupid stance

Let's take 1938 as an example.

Germany is being aggressive with Europe. France, Poland, Britain and the Czechs are against this aggression. Now, it's pretty obvious what happens here. All these countries except Britain are invaded and Britain is pummelled to within an inch of its life. Under your philosophy Britain only defend German attacks on Britain, France only defends against German attacks on France, etc.

However, it is in these 4 nations interests to join together to stop German aggression against one state. When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, should Poland, France and Brain have responded with war, not only would they have been justified, but they would have stopped Germany in its tracks.

No, allies support each other, even then that's still self-defense. I never said each country was on it's own. To use another example, Israel fights in self-defense and it has other nations backing it up and it's still self-defense.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 4:23:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 4:17:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 4:15:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 4:05:21 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 4:02:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:55:55 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:53:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:12:50 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:08:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I still believe that violence is necessary for self-defense in many cases so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist.

I prefer defensive moves. If someone were to try and hit me, the best move is to block, second best is to get out of the way (and hope they hit something hard and painful) and worst is to attack back.

How the f*ck can a country dodge a missile attack?

I think she was referring more to personal self-defense.

And when you have 5 people surrounding you? Regardless a country can't practice Pacifism and stay as a country for very long.

Yea, which is why me, and most other sane people can't be pacifists. However, I only support war in self-defense.

That in itself is still a stupid stance

Let's take 1938 as an example.

Germany is being aggressive with Europe. France, Poland, Britain and the Czechs are against this aggression. Now, it's pretty obvious what happens here. All these countries except Britain are invaded and Britain is pummelled to within an inch of its life. Under your philosophy Britain only defend German attacks on Britain, France only defends against German attacks on France, etc.

However, it is in these 4 nations interests to join together to stop German aggression against one state. When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, should Poland, France and Brain have responded with war, not only would they have been justified, but they would have stopped Germany in its tracks.

No, allies support each other, even then that's still self-defense. I never said each country was on it's own. To use another example, Israel fights in self-defense and it has other nations backing it up and it's still self-defense.

Your philosophy is "Attack only in self-defence". How am I acting in MY self-defence if I see my friend get punched and proceed to assault his attacker? Likewise regardless of pacts, treaties, and agreements, if one nation can only act in self-defence, so long as its borders aren't encroached they cannot retaliate as in my example.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 4:44:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:26:27 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:23:25 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:20:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:19:35 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:

Debate me on pacifism.

Sure.

Write up your case. I'm in 3 debates, but they shouldn't take too long.

I'll write it up tomorrow. I'm tired.

*ahem*
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 7:05:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 12:25:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
So why choose Pacifism over retaliation-but-not-initiationism?

Because violence begets violence begets violence.

Violent retaliation will not achieve the ends you seek. It only stirs-up more hatred and will act to justify the initiators violence in their own minds.

To choose not to stoop down to their level and strike back does something amazing. It changes your attacker. It will give birth to emotions of mercy and compassion within them.

"So what then", you say, "just take it?". No. Pacifism is not weak, but a mightier force than any army, by onethousand-fold. Violence is not required in-order to resist. In-fact, it has proven to be one of the least effective forms of resistance imaginable by increasing the problem. Pacifism does not mean non-resistance. There are many tools to use in replace of violence which are more effective. You may appeal to their emotion by not striking back or even further by returning the blow with kindness. You may appeal to their reason by negotiation. And you may simply refuse to cooperate with oppression, through courage and through perseverance, like the way of Gandhi.

Everything I see in the current perverse established doctrine of so called solution making by violent exchange I can sum up in this one phrase that shows itself to ring-true everyday:
Violence is suicide.

I personally believe that pacifism of the mind/soul is the key. Some of the worst "violence" that can occur is against yourself when you can't forgive someone.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 8:35:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 4:15:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 4:05:21 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 4:02:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:55:55 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/10/2010 3:53:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:12:50 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:08:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I still believe that violence is necessary for self-defense in many cases so I wouldn't call myself a pacifist.

I prefer defensive moves. If someone were to try and hit me, the best move is to block, second best is to get out of the way (and hope they hit something hard and painful) and worst is to attack back.

How the f*ck can a country dodge a missile attack?

I think she was referring more to personal self-defense.

And when you have 5 people surrounding you? Regardless a country can't practice Pacifism and stay as a country for very long.

Yea, which is why me, and most other sane people can't be pacifists. However, I only support war in self-defense.

That in itself is still a stupid stance

Let's take 1938 as an example.

Germany is being aggressive with Europe. France, Poland, Britain and the Czechs are against this aggression. Now, it's pretty obvious what happens here. All these countries except Britain are invaded and Britain is pummelled to within an inch of its life. Under your philosophy Britain only defend German attacks on Britain, France only defends against German attacks on France, etc.

However, it is in these 4 nations interests to join together to stop German aggression against one state. When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, should Poland, France and Brain have responded with war, not only would they have been justified, but they would have stopped Germany in its tracks.

And when one bully threatens and beats four friends <I'll just say me and 3 other friends of like mindedness> the four rise up together and fight back together.
If someone was trying to kill my friend I'd intervene. I would do whatever possible to not significantly damage the agresser. Just defend the friend. and if attacks are transfered to me <ideal> I will fight back, because I saved my friend they would then have an amount of time to get back together and join in. That does not include invading, raping, and torture. Just defense.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 8:51:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:29:32 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:28:25 AM, juvanya wrote:
wtf is this hippy crap

The true way of life. Ya know without violence, hate assualts etc. No war.

Weren't you just telling me the other day about you kicking someone in the groin?

If violence weren't effective, states would not exist.

"Because violence begets violence begets violence."
No, it does not. Human existence is not infinite in the past, so we know that violence arises without it, and a dead man can commit no violence, so we know that violence exists which does not beget violence, since violence frequently results in killing someone.

Of course, retaliation doesn't solve the problem forever in a single act. Pacifism does sometimes because you are dead unless you free ride on the violence of others (which removes the "solution). But that solution is worse than the problem. Far preferable to be constantly vigilant but LIVE.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.