Pacifism and the War - Page 4

Steeler · 05-31-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I just wanted to remind everyone of France's recent troubles,

Which is more relevant to the internal politics and social stresses of France than a global problem.

Quote:

... along with the uproar over the comic depiction of the Prophet of Islam.

Which originated in social stresses in Denmark before being exploited by populist zealot religious leaders in distant parts of the globe.

All of which goes to show that the world is full of poor, desperate, angry, hateful people. It was ever thus. To suggest that the wider problem is categorically and objectively Muslim is, well, bigotry.

**CingularDuality** · 05-31-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Which is more relevant to the internal politics and social stresses of France than a global problem.

Which originated in social stresses in Denmark before being exploited by populist zealot religious leaders in distant parts of the globe.

All of which goes to show that the world is full of poor, desperate, angry, hateful people. It was ever thus. To suggest that the wider problem is categorically and objectively Muslim is, well, bigotry.

Is it bigotry? Look at all of the conflicts the USA has been involved in for the past century. How many of them involved the US defending Muslims? And yet, somehow, the US has been painted internationally as some sort of Muslim-hating nation. Let's look at all of the world's violence for the past, oh, twenty or thirty years. Interesting that Muslims are involved in most of them, no?

It would be nice to say that there isn't a fascist Muslim movement in this world, but it would also be ignorant and/or naive to say such a thing. I'm not saying that all Muslims are endorsing it, heck, I bet most aren't even aware it exists, but that doesn't mean that they're not furthering the goals of this movement, unwittingly.

Diceman · 05-31-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Let's look at all of the world's violence for the past, oh, twenty or thirty years. Interesting that Muslims are involved in most of them, no?

You can sub just about any human demographic you want it there, and it remains true:
...interesting that Christians are involved...
...interesting that Americans are involved...
...interesting that Russians are involved...
...interesting that Capitalists are involved...
...interesting that Communists are involved...
...interesting that males are involved...
...interesting that people between the ages of 20-25 are involved...

and so on. I'm not sure it actually is all that interesting.

**leejo** · 05-31-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

Please elaborate.

Is it your position that opposition to the war in Iraq, regardless of motive, is equivalent to pacifism?
Is it your position that pacifism is equivalent to facism (or whatever form of government your enemy purports to have)?
If so, is your underlying rationale this statement: Failing to assist party A is the same thing as materially assisting party B?

It is not my position that any opposition to the war in Iraq is equivalent to pacifism, but it is my position that far more of the opposition to the war in Iraq IS pacifism than the opponents would care to admin.

It is my position that pacifism practiced in a free society during a conflict with a totalitarian society or regime supports that free society's enemy. In fact, the USSR funnelled money to support pacifist organizations during the cold war, as did the North Vietnamese during that conflict. I also think it's no surprise that pacifists wind up hanging out with the enemy - the American human shields who deployed themselves to Iraq prior to this conflict. Most don't get that close to the edge, but many support their pacifism more than they support their nation, I think.

And yes, many times in life failing to support party A is the same thing as materially assisting party B. But are we really talking about that? Pacifists and many mere opportunistic liberals aren't so much failing to support party A as actively seeking to undermine party A at every opportunity. If President Bush announced today that we're pulling out by September I doubt seriously that Cindy Sheehan would be singing priase, nor Hillary Clinton, nor many people here.

**CingularDuality** · 05-31-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

You can sub just about any human demographic you want it there, and it remains true:<snippage>
and so on. I'm not sure it actually is all that interesting.

Nice try. I guess I didn't put the obvious into writing. I was referring to conflicts where religion is a major influence. You're just being silly now and you know it.

Diceman · 05-31-2006, 02:26 PM

Actually, I didn't know that you were speaking of religious wars. In my defence, you did mention "all of the world's violence." I'm not being silly, and I'm mildly perturbed that you dismissed what I had to say because of a miscommunication.

Anyways, back on track: I think it is better to look at a complete sample when considering the merits of the claim that Muslims are violent. To try to illustrate my point, it would be easy for me to claim that Americans are a violent people; after all, just look at the wars that have occured in the past 20-30 years in the Americas - America has been involved in almost all of them. The only difference between your distinction and mine is you limit wars by religion, and I limit them by geography. But both are arbitrary limitations, made to argue a specific end, which I don't believe continues to hold when you expand the sample size to include all conflict.

Because, if a group of people is, by their nature, violent then they should be popping up in all sorts of conflicts, regardless of motivation, shouldn't they be?

Diceman · 05-31-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

It is not my position that any opposition to the war in Iraq is equivalent to pacifism, but it is my position that far more of the opposition to the war in Iraq IS pacifism than the opponents would care to admin.

Fair enough. I disagree, but I also think it's all opinion from here on in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

It is my position that pacifism practiced in a free society during a conflict with a totalitarian society or regime supports that free society's enemy. In fact, the USSR funnelled money to support pacifist organizations during the cold war, as did the North Vietnamese during that conflict. I also think it's no surprise that pacifists wind up hanging out with the enemy - the American human shields who deployed themselves to Iraq prior to this conflict. Most don't get that close to the edge, but many support their pacifism more than they support their nation, I think.

What about those who are not pacifist - that is, they believe in the goodness of this war - but they don't actually do anything different from peace time. Specifically, they don't vote differently, they don't shop differently, they don't contribute more money than previously to charitable organizations, and the only contribute to those charities that they tended to contribute to before the war. What I'm getting at is this: is there a difference between a pacifist (not the human shield kind, just a normal citizen who thinks war is always wrong) and a nationalist (not the volunteering and contributing kind, just a normal citizen who thinks that his country acts, at least in this instance, with moral force to complement physical force), when the behaviours between the two are indistinguishable? To be clear, in my hypothetical situation, the only difference is attitude towards the war. What is your take on this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

And yes, many times in life failing to support party A is the same thing as materially assisting party B. But are we really talking about that? Pacifists and many mere opportunistic liberals aren't so much failing to support party A as actively seeking to undermine party A at every opportunity. If President Bush announced today that we're pulling out by September I doubt seriously that Cindy Sheehan would be singing priase, nor Hillary Clinton, nor many people here.

I think you are talking not so much about pacifists here, but about subversives wearing pacifist clothing (I'm not calling anyone in particular a subversive - that's a different debate). Would you really apply the same criticism to a "perfect" pacifist - one who decided to go live on a mountain on meditate on the serenity of stuff, and s/he actually did spend the remainder of his or her life there, never to get involved in public debate again?

That, to me, is in every way failing to assist party A, but could not be in any way shape or form seen as supporting party B.

Mateo · 05-31-2006, 02:48 PM

I have a question: aren't Christians, Muslims, heck, even Buddhists (especially Buddhists) pacifists by their respective creeds? If so, then how does one reconcile the incongruity between their actions (war) and their beliefs (peace)?

In the Religious sense, Orwells argument, while technically correct (if you are hindering our efforts then you aid the enemy), is actually wrong: a pacifist cannot be said to be aiding the enemy if they are actually answering to a higher calling.

I know there are just as many passages in the Bible and Koran for and against conflict, so what makes one position right, and the other wrong? Or is it simply easier to demonize those who chose not to overlook their convictions?

Steeler · 05-31-2006, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

I have a question: aren't Christians, Muslims, heck, even Buddhists (especially Buddhists) pacifists by their respective creeds? If so, then how does one reconcile the incongruity between their actions (war) and their beliefs (peace)?

Mateo wins.

**leejo** · 05-31-2006, 03:08 PM

Well I think we need to clarify what we mean by pacifists. If someone merely votes against the sitting administration and carries on with their lives quietly not supporting a war effort, I certainly don't begrudge them their right to think what they please about any subject. I doubt seriously that Orwell would either.

I'm thinking of the groups who find it necessary to protest, to generate and sustain negative public opinion about a conflict during the conflict. These people absolutely support the enemy and hinder the ally. This is the group I'm speaking of.

I find it very hard to imagine George Orwell wishing to shout down constructive, intelligent discussion about tactical and strategic decisions. I wouldn't wish to do that either. The challenge is, of course, to have those discussions absent partisan behavior. There are several professional sites I visit to find such commentary. I haven't seem much apolitical discussion here nor in the news.

IMO that mix of political aggression and a message of tactical and strategic withdrawal hurts us and helps the enemy.

**H-Hour** · 05-31-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

Would you really apply the same criticism to a "perfect" pacifist - one who decided to go live on a mountain on meditate on the serenity of stuff, and s/he actually did spend the remainder of his or her life there, never to get involved in public debate again?

This is far from what almost any pacifist would call a "perfect" pacifist. In fact, this is an irresponsible pacifist and nothing near a reasonable characterization of your average pacifist (using the real definition of pacifist, not Leejo's concept of the functional pacifist).

**leejo** · 05-31-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

I have a question: aren't Christians, Muslims, heck, even Buddhists (especially Buddhists) pacifists by their respective creeds? If so, then how does one reconcile the incongruity between their actions (war) and their beliefs (peace)?

In the Religious sense, Orwells argument, while technically correct (if you are hindering our efforts then you aid the enemy), is actually wrong: a pacifist cannot be said to be aiding the enemy if they are actually answering to a higher calling.

I know there are just as many passages in the Bible and Koran for and against conflict, so what makes one position right, and the other wrong? Or is it simply easier to demonize those who chose not to overlook their convictions?

The way to reconcile the behavior and the beliefs is that the latter is an ideal we seek while the former represents the reality of the world we inhabit. I can't answer it any better than that. I seek peace and do not wish violence on the innocent but I also don't see a practical alternative to war in certain situations.

I disagree with your assessment of Orwell's argument. While a pacifist may not be *motivated* by their desire to aid the enemy, they may aid the enemy nonetheless.

I don't think the issue is whether or not the Bible or the Koran is the more or less violent document, the issue is the behavior of the people who those documents unify. Personally I believe that religions seem to go thought a violent, expansionist process at about the age of Islam. When were the Crusades? How old is Islam? Just a pet idea so nothing for anyone to get their panties in a wad over.

So anyway, I don't think there's anything racist or bigoted in noticing that a LOT of muslims have been behaving violently over the last 30 years. And pointing this out doesn't mean one is "demonizing" Muslims. When black men were being lynched in the South, folks didn't run out hunting for Indians, Chinese, or little girls for fear of hurting the tender white man's feelings. They made their best judgement of the set of likely suspects and went into action to fix the problem (eventually, sort of). Same diff here: if little Chinese ladies start blowing stuff up, we'll have to pay special attention to little Chinese ladies and beg the little Chinese ladies who aren't nuts to bear with us for a tad.

**leejo** · 05-31-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H-Hour

This is far from what almost any pacifist would call a "perfect" pacifist. In fact, this is an irresponsible pacifist and nothing near a reasonable characterization of your average pacifist (using the real definition of pacifist, not Leejo's concept of the functional pacifist).

# Someone who believes that violence of any kind is unjustifiable and that one should not participate in war.
130.88.60.55/phmcustom/glossary.htm

# person who opposes the practice of war.
www.hsp.org/default.aspx

# someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes
# pacifist(a): opposed to war
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Pacifist may mean: *an advocate of pacifism.*an Atari ST emulator for DOS. Other emulators like gemulator use additional hardware to emulate the Atari system, and aren't therefore emulation in the traditional sense. Each Atari emulator needs the operating system originally used on the emulated systems. In this case a version of the TOS is needed, via a ROM. With a proper setup, Pacifist can run most Atari software. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifist

OK so I'm not sure which real definition you're talking about H. I'd say that the pacifist becomes a problem when the opposition part kicks in, and add that it depends on the nature of the opposition. If a cardinal speaks against war or states that he is opposed to Iraq just as he is opposed to all war as a means of settling disputes, I can dig that. He's being honest and direct and is making it clear that he is a pacifist.

There is another type of pacifist who does not emphasize opposition to ALL war but instead focuses on criticism of the current government and the current conflict. These "pacifists" aren't taking a stand FOR pacifism so much as they are opposing current policy. This aids the enemy but doesn't support peace, I think.

Mateo · 05-31-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I disagree with your assessment of Orwell's argument. While a pacifist may not be *motivated* by their desire to aid the enemy, they may aid the enemy nonetheless.

Up in Boston, we still have alot of Quakers. They are pacifists by creed. Any conflict, to them, (as I understand it) is an act against God.

So by following their convictions, and not sinning, they provide aid to the enemy? Even if they do nothing?

I think you were correct in your original position: those who actively participate in protests give succor to the enemy.

[edited because lee is too damn quick]

**leejo** · 05-31-2006, 03:37 PM

Yeah, Screw them Quakers!

It's too bad that Orwell is dead, for several reasons. It would be nice for him to clarify a few of his remarks. For example, it's hard for me to imagine a bunch of Quakers provoking his essay. IMO this type of pacifist is sincere. While I may agree with many parts of their philosophy, I can respectfully disagree with them on certain policy decisions and they can respectfully disagree with me. I don't see the Quakers actively undermining their government so much as actively promoting their philosophy.

There is another type of pacifist who I can easily see getting Orwell's goat. H-Hour, for example.

05-31-2006, 02:26 PM	#51 (permalink)
Diceman Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Yellowknife, NT Age: 30 Posts: 986	Re: Pacifism and the War Actually, I didn't know that you were speaking of religious wars. In my defence, you did mention "all of the world's violence." I'm not being silly, and I'm mildly perturbed that you dismissed what I had to say because of a miscommunication. Anyways, back on track: I think it is better to look at a complete sample when considering the merits of the claim that Muslims are violent. To try to illustrate my point, it would be easy for me to claim that Americans are a violent people; after all, just look at the wars that have occured in the past 20-30 years in the Americas - America has been involved in almost all of them. The only difference between your distinction and mine is you limit wars by religion, and I limit them by geography. But both are arbitrary limitations, made to argue a specific end, which I don't believe continues to hold when you expand the sample size to include all conflict. Because, if a group of people is, by their nature, violent then they should be popping up in all sorts of conflicts, regardless of motivation, shouldn't they be? __________________ [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1] [ma-c2][taw-c1] Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette: Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due. Treat others as you would have them treat you

05-31-2006, 02:48 PM	#53 (permalink)
Mateo Join Date: Aug 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 6,483	Re: Pacifism and the War I have a question: aren't Christians, Muslims, heck, even Buddhists (especially Buddhists) pacifists by their respective creeds? If so, then how does one reconcile the incongruity between their actions (war) and their beliefs (peace)? In the Religious sense, Orwells argument, while technically correct (if you are hindering our efforts then you aid the enemy), is actually wrong: a pacifist cannot be said to be aiding the enemy if they are actually answering to a higher calling. I know there are just as many passages in the Bible and Koran for and against conflict, so what makes one position right, and the other wrong? Or is it simply easier to demonize those who chose not to overlook their convictions?

05-31-2006, 03:08 PM	#55 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Pacifism and the War Well I think we need to clarify what we mean by pacifists. If someone merely votes against the sitting administration and carries on with their lives quietly not supporting a war effort, I certainly don't begrudge them their right to think what they please about any subject. I doubt seriously that Orwell would either. I'm thinking of the groups who find it necessary to protest, to generate and sustain negative public opinion about a conflict during the conflict. These people absolutely support the enemy and hinder the ally. This is the group I'm speaking of. I find it very hard to imagine George Orwell wishing to shout down constructive, intelligent discussion about tactical and strategic decisions. I wouldn't wish to do that either. The challenge is, of course, to have those discussions absent partisan behavior. There are several professional sites I visit to find such commentary. I haven't seem much apolitical discussion here nor in the news. IMO that mix of political aggression and a message of tactical and strategic withdrawal hurts us and helps the enemy.

05-31-2006, 03:37 PM	#60 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Pacifism and the War Yeah, Screw them Quakers! It's too bad that Orwell is dead, for several reasons. It would be nice for him to clarify a few of his remarks. For example, it's hard for me to imagine a bunch of Quakers provoking his essay. IMO this type of pacifist is sincere. While I may agree with many parts of their philosophy, I can respectfully disagree with them on certain policy decisions and they can respectfully disagree with me. I don't see the Quakers actively undermining their government so much as actively promoting their philosophy. There is another type of pacifist who I can easily see getting Orwell's goat. H-Hour, for example.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links