PDA

View Full Version : Pacifism


Porpoise101
September 30th, 2016, 04:40 PM
Why are you, or why aren't you a pacifist?

I am not a true pacifist, as I believe that a lasting and just peace can only come through a Final War. But nowadays with nuclear weapons and destructive bombs, war is not just destructive and deadly. It's impractical and not useful. Back in olden times war could be useful to capture wealthy and strategic territory. But nowadays, you will destroy that territory before one actually conquers it.

Additionally, I view war as a terrible tool that usually results in hatred. The outcomes of war are almost always unjust and it aggravates tensions. Not only that, but it decreases prosperity and it is expensive.

candorgen
September 30th, 2016, 09:07 PM
By the conventional meaning of war, I'm a pacifist. I'm not for seeing strategic murder of many people (most of them not intending to participate) as a viable option for accessing resources that others are also intending to access, nor is it a viable way to sort out differences in worldviews, and so on.


As for my take on this, I see war to be a state of mutually agreed conflict between an ordered group of people. Each group participating in this conflict is intending to achieve a situation that is better than the one they are currently in, and this is attempted by strategically gaining leverage over the other groups through directly/indirectly damaging them in certain critical ways (usually through killing members of those groups, destroying resources they depend on, etc).

War is actually not for terminating your enemies; rather it is for critically damaging them in such a way that you expect them to align with your intended state of affairs. Random massacres are not an act of war. You need your opponents in war, their existence benefits you in that you can attempt to manipulate them. You don't terminate your enemies unless their indefinite absence will benefit you more than if you still have them around doing stuff you want.

Sport is war with extra rules that serve to greatly limit its effect on humanity. I'm glad that sport functions to vent off many trends in human nature that seek conflict to act on aggressive impulses, as an example. (That sport is over-emphasised to me is another topic.)


I'm mostly a pacifist in this meaning of war, as I am not for taking a perspective which sees humanity through an 'us and them' attitude, usually holding double-standards for benevolent humanity through praising your own, while disliking certain others to a level of wanting to use them as tools for what you want. The us-them distinction has the strong trend of dividing the human realm and reducing diversity and complexity in it, rather than the opposite (which supporters of war think they are doing).

I suppose conventional war is my meaning of war that includes the intended direct killing of people. War does not necessitate the intentional direct killing of people though. This is why I view war to be probably as abundant as it ever was - it's just that most of it has changed form into things such as aggressive economic competition, computer viruses and antiviruses, and political debates.

I cannot be a universal pacifist in this sense, and most people cannot be.

Uniquemind
October 1st, 2016, 06:40 AM
I'm not a pacifist either, regrettably so.

Flapjack
October 5th, 2016, 12:37 PM
I am a pacifist and believe that violence perpetuates violence.

phuckphace
October 5th, 2016, 01:52 PM
Additionally, I view war as a terrible tool that usually results in hatred.

I think war is tension and hatred taken to its logical conclusion, more or less, so in other words it's a product, not a cause.

The outcomes of war are almost always unjust and it aggravates tensions. Not only that, but it decreases prosperity and it is expensive.

indeed. I think the Greeks had it down when they noted that Fear and Dread follow War very closely. I for one am very glad that I'm not a serf who runs a high chance of being locked outside the city gates as the Scythian army approaches and the vultures start flocking in expectation of a snack.

I desperately want to be a pacifist given the horrors and immense suffering that war inflicts on the populace, however I don't think it's always a practical option in many circumstances. I suppose you could class me as a "defensive pacifist", basically meaning that war should be avoided at all costs with the exception of wars fought in defense against an enemy who declared war and/or attacked first. in the case of the US this would have to be a direct invasion of our territory by foreign combatants, which I think is very unlikely given our status as a superpower, having nuclear weapons, and the very high rates of civilian firearm ownership.

the use of modern nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-armed enemy, specifically the largest-yield thermonuclear type, I think is impossible to not classify as genocidal given the total destruction they can inflict.

mattsmith48
October 6th, 2016, 12:52 AM
Humans are by nature very territorial and violent thats why wars use to be fought to gain territory. I might not agree with those wars but I understand why they happen. Today even if in some places we still fight over territory, most wars today are useless and could easily have been avoided. I would like to think that we will eventually evolve past that but we have to not kill off our entire species with war before it happens.

Rickk
October 6th, 2016, 07:59 AM
Im definitely a pacifist, but humans need to evolve to reach the non-violence state.

EuRo
October 6th, 2016, 11:01 PM
I'm not a pacifist at all. In a "perfect" world, war wouldn't exist; our world is imperfect, war is essential and war will never stop. Violence and fighting is a natural attribute of life and living creatures, and it will never cease. There's no real reason to try to end something that you can't stop.

Flapjack
October 7th, 2016, 11:33 AM
I'm not a pacifist at all. In a "perfect" world, war wouldn't exist; our world is imperfect, war is essential and war will never stop. Violence and fighting is a natural attribute of life and living creatures, and it will never cease. There's no real reason to try to end something that you can't stop.
This makes zero sense? People trying to prevent wars and come to non-violent solutions have stopped so many wars....

Voice_Of_Unreason
October 7th, 2016, 12:02 PM
This Bible verse basically sums up my view on this issue.
Ecclesiastes 3:8 "A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace."

Euro's statements made sense to me, he may have taken it to bit extremes, but the logic behind it is valid. Humans are naturally jealous and violent. You can fix some problems through peace, but peace can only go so far. Let's take the American Civil War for example. Both sides had legit motives on their side, the South for independence, and the North for preserving the Union. There was no real way peace could have been settled without one side basically giving everything up. A peaceful solution would have more than likely resulted in South independence, and while that would have saved thousands of lives, when you look back through history, the Civil War actually helped the nation considerably, and without the war the US would arguably not be the world power it is today.

phuckphace
October 7th, 2016, 01:04 PM
lol the Confederate "Don't Step on My Cheap Labor Bro" States of America, basically the 21-century CEO's wet dream

retards wanted to keep importing slaves and breeding them until they outnumbered us 100:1, and if they'd been allowed to continue the South today would look like South Africa and be a no-go zone walled off like the Korean DMZ. they had an eerily similar attitude to the CEOs of today with their willingness to max out the cheap imported labor without regard for the demographic upheaval that would necessarily result.

being a white person and unironically pining for the rise of the South is like being a white person who unironically heils Hitler despite Hitler being the most prolific mass murderer of white people in history. not exactly the hill you want to die on given the facts

candorgen
October 7th, 2016, 08:28 PM
This makes zero sense? People trying to prevent wars and come to non-violent solutions have stopped so many wars....

The presence of people actively going against war doesn't eliminate the presence of people who support and/or act in war (perhaps unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint).

Voice_Of_Unreason
October 7th, 2016, 10:58 PM
lol the Confederate "Don't Step on My Cheap Labor Bro" States of America, basically the 21-century CEO's wet dream

retards wanted to keep importing slaves and breeding them until they outnumbered us 100:1, and if they'd been allowed to continue the South today would look like South Africa and be a no-go zone walled off like the Korean DMZ. they had an eerily similar attitude to the CEOs of today with their willingness to max out the cheap imported labor without regard for the demographic upheaval that would necessarily result.
You do realize the Confederacy never imported slaves? Nor was slavery the defining cause of the conflict. Also, the "Don't tread on me" quote you seem to be referring to was Revolutionary War, not the Civil War.

I wasn't picking sides or defining causes in my post, I was simply stating that peace either way would have resulted in more negative results than engaging in war.

mattsmith48
October 8th, 2016, 08:41 AM
You do realize the Confederacy never imported slaves? Nor was slavery the defining cause of the conflict. Also, the "Don't tread on me" quote you seem to be referring to was Revolutionary War, not the Civil War.

I wasn't picking sides or defining causes in my post, I was simply stating that peace either way would have resulted in more negative results than engaging in war.

The american civil war was about the south wanting to keep their slaves everyone knows that

Flapjack
October 8th, 2016, 09:26 AM
You do realize the Confederacy never imported slaves?
Oh gosh it's all okay then!! I am sure Hitler never personally killed a Jew so he must have been a chill dude?
Nor was slavery the defining cause of the conflict.
This is actually true. The Union went to war in order to keep the southern states. Lincoln believed that slavery was wrong although he does not believe he had the legal right to forbit slavery in the south, saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Abolitionism grew in the Union army as soldiers saw slaves flocking to them for freedom, contradicting myths that slavery was the appropriate position for African-Americans, Loewen said. But it wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 which left slavery intact in border states that hadn't seceded that ending Confederate slavery became an official Union aim.
So no slavery wasn't the cause but the confederates was pro-slavery, they did rebel against the American government and so I am surprised how people claiming to be 'pro America' support racist American rebels.

Voice_Of_Unreason
October 8th, 2016, 03:39 PM
Oh gosh it's all okay then!! I am sure Hitler never personally killed a Jew so he must have been a chill dude?
That analogy makes no sense whatsoever. It is a fact the Confederacy never sailed slave ships or engaged in the international slave trade. I don't see how your Hitler analogy relates in anyway to that.
This is actually true. The Union went to war in order to keep the southern states. Lincoln believed that slavery was wrong although he does not believe he had the legal right to forbit slavery in the south, saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Lincoln also believed that black people were naturally lesser than white people, and that he wanted to deport all black people back to Africa. It is also interesting that when he decided that he had the power to end slavery(which he probably constitutionally didn't), that he only freed the Confederate slaves, not the slaves in the numerous Union slave states.

So no slavery wasn't the cause but the confederates was pro-slavery, they did rebel against the American government and so I am surprised how people claiming to be 'pro America' support racist American rebels.
Let me think, one side had a leading general that owned slaves throughout the war, and a president who wanted to get rid of all black people. The other side had one leading general who released all his slaves and saw slavery as evil, and another leading general who broke the law to help black people.

Let's get back on topic shall we? I enjoyed this little discussion but we are on a rabbit trail.

Porpoise101
October 9th, 2016, 01:44 PM
I don't think violent conflict is inherent to humanity. Sure, we have certain base desires which can conflict with others. But we also have ways to communicate our needs and ways to resolve it peacefully.

Also, I would say that the Civil War was caused by rich Southern elites wanting to keep the traditional economic system in place (ie free agricultural labor from slaves), while the Northerners saw it as a threat to wage workers in the North. If the Southern politicians and elites weren't as corrupt as they were, the war could have been avoided.

Zenos
October 9th, 2016, 03:50 PM
I am a pacifist and believe that violence perpetuates violence.

Actually there are times when you have to use violence to stop violence

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 03:56 PM
Actually there are times when you have to use violence to stop violence
Yeah when there is a crazy shooter shooting up a high school but bombing the crap out of everything in the middle east is throwing fuel over a fire. Violence does perpetuate violence but of course there are cases where it is unavoidable.

Porpoise101
October 9th, 2016, 03:59 PM
Actually there are times when you have to use violence to stop violence
...
well wouldn't it be better if there was no violence to begin with?

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 04:02 PM
...
well wouldn't it be better if there was no violence to begin with?
Obviously but to be fair I do see his point, when Hitler marched into France, there wasn't much the French could do to try and resolve the conflict other than fight.

Vlerchan
October 9th, 2016, 04:07 PM
I could never be a pure pacifist, the state begets civilisation and is neccisarily built on it.

I am open to the use of violence in pursuit of geopolitical goals, and see the threat of such as a necessary element of any competent geostrategy, but would lean towards it generally doing more harm than good.

[...] when Hitler marched into France, there wasn't much the French could do to try and resolve the conflict other than fight.
Notably, the French surrendered.

Porpoise101
October 9th, 2016, 04:32 PM
I like to take the Buddha's advice on this issue. To make peace, we must adopt a livlihood that promotes life. That means no more weapon-smiths. No more soldiers. No more weapon scientists.

It's a good thing in theory and in real life. We have improved war by banning WOMDs. We can keep pushing for dis armament internationally.

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 04:51 PM
Notably, the French surrendered.
Because they had no chance of winning at that point, I am sure you agree that if there is decent chance of winning a war, it is worth fighting when the alternative is Nazi occupation.

I am a pacifist so don't mistake this for me being a warmonger.

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 04:53 PM
I like to take the Buddha's advice on this issue. To make peace, we must adopt a livlihood that promotes life. That means no more weapon-smiths. No more soldiers. No more weapon scientists.

It's a good thing in theory and in real life. We have improved war by banning WOMDs. We can keep pushing for dis armament internationally.
I think Buddha has a lot of good advice but unfortunately we don't live in a world where a country could realistically dismiss their army without another country taking advantage of them.

Vlerchan
October 9th, 2016, 04:53 PM
Because they had no chance of winning at that point, I am sure you agree that if there is decent chance of winning a war, it is worth fighting when the alternative is Nazi occupation.
Sure. Though, an actual pacifist would view it as being immoral (you're not a pacifist, you're just a dove [like me]).

Flapjack
October 9th, 2016, 05:03 PM
Sure. Though, an actual pacifist would view it as being immoral (you're not a pacifist, you're just a dove [like me]).
I give up on labelling myself xD I have had warmongers calling me a crazy pacifist and now you telling me I am not xD I do agree though a true pacifist would view it as immoral.

Porpoise101
October 9th, 2016, 07:32 PM
I think Buddha has a lot of good advice but unfortunately we don't live in a world where a country could realistically dismiss their army without another country taking advantage of them.
Of course, but during the Cold War we slowly made progress with nuclear disarmament and banning biological and chemical weapons. Making such a change will take time, but we should keep pressuring our leaders to demilitarize.

Of course, such deals need to be enforceable. With what has happened in Syria (and is happening in Aleppo right now), the UN has shown that it needs some restructuring. The Security Council especially needs reform as it isn't representative and it gives power to disreputable nations. If that is achieved, there will be no tolerance for rule-breakers and they will be isolated as such.

Zenos
October 11th, 2016, 12:54 PM
...
well wouldn't it be better if there was no violence to begin with?

Yeh,but it'll not happen anytime soon,and i don't know about u but if someone jumps on me for no reason i'm fighting back becuase I value my life.

Child Of Fire
October 11th, 2016, 08:01 PM
I'm not a pacifist because you can't reason with people anymore. You're not going to get what you want by explaining to people why you should have it. You're not going to settle arguments that require reasoning by using reasoning. This generation has grown too "above" that, it seems. It doesn't take much to notice that. If you're ever in a heated debate with someone and you manage to force them to operate on a basis of logic, they crumble. But nobody operates like that anymore, so you have to use force.

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 07:12 AM
I'm not a pacifist because you can't reason with people anymore. You're not going to get what you want by explaining to people why you should have it.
Have you ever considered that you might be wrong, or unreasoned yourself?

I think that's something quite important that those with an inclination towards the use of violence should consider.

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 11:08 AM
Have you ever considered that you might be wrong, or unreasoned yourself?

I think that's something quite important that those with an inclination towards the use of violence should consider.

Nope. Pretty sure I'm right.

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 11:12 AM
Nope. Pretty sure I'm right.
The bolded implies some recognition of doubt.

In such a case, where you are only 'pretty sure', do you think there's grounds to engage in acts that are both irreversible and uncompensatable?

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 11:16 AM
The bolded implies some recognition of doubt.

In such a case, where you are only 'pretty sure', do you think there's grounds to engage in acts that are both irreversible and uncompensatable?

Yea. If you can't put someone in their proper place with words, you gotta do it somehow. People won't respect you until they know you can hand their ass to them. Otherwise the respect is weakly defined and they are more likely to get in your way again. Fear is the best motivator.

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 11:23 AM
Yea. If you can't put someone in their proper place with words, you gotta do it somehow. People won't respect you until they know you can hand their ass to them. Otherwise the respect is weakly defined and they are more likely to get in your way again. Fear is the best motivator.
This isn't about right and wrong but rather about extracting the respect you deserve - insofar as their is some doubt about your correctness and, thus, you are open to the idea you are wrong but desire to be recognized as right irrespective of that.

Am I correct?

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 11:35 AM
This isn't about right and wrong but rather about extracting the respect you deserve - insofar as their is some doubt about your correctness and, thus, you are open to the idea you are wrong but desire to be recognized as right irrespective of that.

Am I correct?

More like I know I'm right, the other person knows I'm right but they employ petty argument tactics such as insulting grammar, showing me a picture of myself insulting how I look, or changing the subject in order to divert the conversation to something entirely different. Of course you can tell them to focus on the situation at hand but that rarely works. Therefore, you make them submit to you.

You imply that I am entitled to respect. Not the case. Respect shouldn't be given. The idea of respect being earned is horsecrap. The only way to get respect is to take it.

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 11:51 AM
More like I know I'm right[.]
You said earlier that you were 'pretty sure' which, to me, seems a farcry from certain knowledge in events involving life and death. Which is why I make the point I am making, that this is more about extracting the respect that you want, rather than being in the right or being in the wrong.

... but they employ petty argument tactics such as insulting grammar, showing me a picture of myself insulting how I look, or changing the subject in order to divert the conversation to something entirely different. Of course you can tell them to focus on the situation at hand but that rarely works.
Fortunately I am engaged in no such things, but I agree some people are idiots.

You imply that I am entitled to respect.
No, I implied that you believe that you are entitled to the complete respect of your opinions. Though, I do personally believe that you are entitled to some base respect and dignity as another human-being - which, to me, encapsulates allowing you to hold opinions irrespective of my feelings about them (i.e. have moral autonomy).

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 11:58 AM
You said earlier that you were 'pretty sure' which, to me, seems a farcry from certain knowledge in events involving life and death. Which is why I make the point I am making, that this is more about extracting the respect that you want, rather than being in the right or being in the wrong.


Fortunately I am engaged in no such things, but I agree some people are idiots.


No, I implied that you believe that you are entitled to the complete respect of your opinions. Though, I do personally believe that you are entitled to some base respect and dignity as another human-being - which, to me, encapsulates allowing you to hold opinions irrespective of my feelings about them (i.e. have moral autonomy).

The phrase "pretty sure" can also be used to mean absolutely sure, which I'm baffled that you didn't know.

No, you are not engaged is such things, which I appreciate.

I suppose I misspoke. No, I do not believe I am entitled to respect of my opinions. Only that, in most cases, respect for your opinions can only be gained through what society refers to as "being an asshole."

Flapjack
October 12th, 2016, 12:17 PM
I'm not a pacifist because you can't reason with people anymore. You're not going to get what you want by explaining to people why you should have it. You're not going to settle arguments that require reasoning by using reasoning. This generation has grown too "above" that, it seems. It doesn't take much to notice that. If you're ever in a heated debate with someone and you manage to force them to operate on a basis of logic, they crumble. But nobody operates like that anymore, so you have to use force.
OMG XD You can't use force to get people to accept your views, that is bullying. The victims won't really believe your views, they'll just tell you they do so you stop. Not to mention the obvious ethical problems.

Child Of Fire
October 12th, 2016, 12:18 PM
OMG XD You can't use force to get people to accept your views, that is bullying. The victims won't really believe your views, they'll just tell you they do so you stop. Not to mention the obvious ethical problems.

Okay, I guess it's bullying. Whatever. Long as they shut up and don't challenge me again.

Flapjack
October 12th, 2016, 12:22 PM
Okay, I guess it's bullying. Whatever. Long as they shut up and don't challenge me again.
you have to be trolling? XD when someone challenges your opinion you try to use force to force them into agreeing xD You are gonna have a reality shock in the real world buddy!

Vlerchan
October 12th, 2016, 12:23 PM
The phrase "pretty sure" can also be used to mean absolutely sure, which I'm baffled that you didn't know.
We can't assign a percentage of certainty to it, but it isn't close to 100%. Perhaps 60-85% certain is close to what it means for most native speakers. The more emphatic the statement (stress and pitch and volume are involved, because this is primarily spoken English, but in written English it might be underlined or in bold font or in capital letters for emphasis), the more certain the speaker/writer is. I'm quite sure probably means about 90-100% certain, however.

http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/1174/what-does-im-pretty-sure-mean

In Ireland it certainly does not mean absolutely sure.

Nonetheless, if you mean it as to see you are absolutely sure, then that's a fine answer to the question I asked. But personally I avoid such confidence - both of us are probably wrong about a collection of things. That's the reason I don't feel that using force to settle differences in opinions is a moral opinion - and it isn't when analysed under any mainstream ethical perspective (utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue-ethics).

Only that, in most cases, respect for your opinions can only be gained through what society refers to as "being an asshole."
I can't be sure about your experiences but that certainly doesn't match mine.

mattsmith48
October 12th, 2016, 12:25 PM
Okay, I guess it's bullying. Whatever. Long as they shut up and don't challenge me again.

Using bullying and violence to make other people accept your view that sounds kinda like what ISIS and other terrorist groups do I though you hated those guys

Porpoise101
October 12th, 2016, 09:12 PM
I'm not a pacifist because you can't reason with people anymore.
We have been in a position to reason with others more than any point in the history of mankind. If we can't reason today, we definitely never reasoned back then.

candorgen
October 13th, 2016, 03:37 PM
...
well wouldn't it be better if there was no violence to begin with?

Sure, but that can't happen as there was violence 'to begin with'.

I feel that violence is an excessive form of inherent human psychology, which would explains its prevalence. It doesn't mean it can't be removed though, far from it (even sport is a good contender here).


I like to take the Buddha's advice on this issue. To make peace, we must adopt a livlihood that promotes life. That means no more weapon-smiths. No more soldiers. No more weapon scientists.

It's a good thing in theory and in real life. We have improved war by banning WOMDs. We can keep pushing for dis armament internationally.

I'm good with 'all sides' of humanity cooperating without violence directly at each other, but what happens if one of these sides breaks this?

Refusing to enter the game of war with the opponent-to-be by not responding to their violence with your own violence is an option, granted. However, there's only so far that this could do without the opponent's e.g. strategy/weaponry being simply too powerful/threatening to not defend with similar stuff back at them.


Of course, but during the Cold War we slowly made progress with nuclear disarmament and banning biological and chemical weapons. Making such a change will take time, but we should keep pressuring our leaders to demilitarize.

I don't feel like the Cold War is a good example though, taking that there were a few events where nuclear war was literally avoided by a few minutes (through mostly miscommunication, but still).


I'm not a pacifist because you can't reason with people anymore. You're not going to get what you want by explaining to people why you should have it. You're not going to settle arguments that require reasoning by using reasoning. This generation has grown too "above" that, it seems. It doesn't take much to notice that. If you're ever in a heated debate with someone and you manage to force them to operate on a basis of logic, they crumble. But nobody operates like that anymore, so you have to use force.

With all due respect this sort of reasoning makes a big factor in what motivates war, by how your enemies 'just don't see things the way they are'.


Nope. Pretty sure I'm right.

That adds to my above response.


Yea. If you can't put someone in their proper place with words, you gotta do it somehow. People won't respect you until they know you can hand their ass to them. Otherwise the respect is weakly defined and they are more likely to get in your way again. Fear is the best motivator.

The POV (point of view / perspective) of people holding your tenets of action may as well have no genuine (intellectual/rational) value at all.

The POVs would have value if one engages with the opponents' POVs through rational argument, rather than threatening the opponents' very existence instead.

Your POV may as well be incidental if you only want to interact through aggressive existential threat and propaganda.

How does aggression/propaganda work as a compromise if rational argument doesn't? It's a degenerative plan B, if I may say so.



You imply that I am entitled to respect. Not the case. Respect shouldn't be given. The idea of respect being earned is horsecrap. The only way to get respect is to take it.

Where is this respect being 'taken' from? It's not out there floating 'in reserve' for you like a commodity in the subconscious minds of your to-be-opponents.


We have been in a position to reason with others more than any point in the history of mankind. If we can't reason today, we definitely never reasoned back then.

Yes!

Porpoise101
October 13th, 2016, 04:06 PM
Sure, but that can't happen as there was violence 'to begin with'.

I feel that violence is an excessive form of inherent human psychology, which would explains its prevalence. It doesn't mean it can't be removed though, far from it (even sport is a good contender here).

Fair enough. Anger and conflict are parts of the human experience.

I'm good with 'all sides' of humanity cooperating without violence directly at each other, but what happens if one of these sides breaks this?

Refusing to enter the game of war with the opponent-to-be by not responding to their violence with your own violence is an option, granted. However, there's only so far that this could do without the opponent's e.g. strategy/weaponry being simply too powerful/threatening to not defend with similar stuff back at them.

Have you heard of moral warfare? This provides the pacifist's answer to this issue.

I don't feel like the Cold War is a good example though, taking that there were a few events where nuclear war was literally avoided by a few minutes (through mostly miscommunication, but still.)

I should have clarified. Towards the end of the Cold War (post-Reagan), we were making progress with demilitarization and peace seemed imminent.

candorgen
October 13th, 2016, 04:15 PM
Fair enough. Anger and conflict are parts of the human experience.

How we direct them is what I'm after, more than seeking to stop them directing at anything.


Have you heard of moral warfare? This provides the pacifist's answer to this issue.

I have yes, which I still consider war as it is within the definitions I've suggested.

I get your point though, if you're going for being a pacifist by seeking to maximise (in the present and future) a lack of war or violence. Could I splice concepts to say that you're a consequentialist pacifist?


I should have clarified. Towards the end of the Cold War (post-Reagan), we were making progress with demilitarization and peace seemed imminent.

Alright. That I understand.

Microcosm
October 16th, 2016, 03:17 PM
I am a pacifist. I believe that the logical conclusion of tension can be diplomacy and open conversation, as well as democracy. That, of course, is the ideal, and I believe humanity will take many years to fully develop as a diplomatic race.

The Byrd
October 17th, 2016, 04:56 PM
This Bible verse basically sums up my view on this issue.
Ecclesiastes 3:8 "A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace."

Euro's statements made sense to me, he may have taken it to bit extremes, but the logic behind it is valid. Humans are naturally jealous and violent. You can fix some problems through peace, but peace can only go so far. Let's take the American Civil War for example. Both sides had legit motives on their side, the South for independence, and the North for preserving the Union. There was no real way peace could have been settled without one side basically giving everything up. A peaceful solution would have more than likely resulted in South independence, and while that would have saved thousands of lives, when you look back through history, the Civil War actually helped the nation considerably, and without the war the US would arguably not be the world power it is today.

xVOJla2vYx8