Pacifism and the War - Page 5

Diceman · 05-31-2006, 03:46 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).

Well, it is an extreme characterization, but I wanted to draw a picture of a hypothetical person who dedicated his whole life to the avoidance of conflict. I'm not about to argue that real-world pacifists are all sitting on mountains or some other equally indefensible position - but I do think it is instructive to begin studying a situation with hypotheticals, and then apply the conclusions that have been drawn against reality. Hypotheticals allow for very specific tests to be made, which are hardly ever possible in the real world.

In short, it's not meant to be in reference to an actual person or action, just to clarify the details of who this criticism does and does not apply to.

Steeler · 05-31-2006, 04:03 PM

So we are gradually whittling down the topic to isolate who the "problem" people are: protestors and dissidents. Be they pacifists or partisans, this is very old ground.

**H-Hour** · 05-31-2006, 04:24 PM

But Diceman, if seen through the eyes of those who have made a strong life decision to be "pacifist", your characterization is not "extreme" or a reasonable "hypothetical" person. The goal of a "pacifist" is not to extract themselves from the world, which is the clear goal of your "hypothetical" person (whether or not a pacifist makes themselves irrelevant is another discussion, outside of whether or not it is their goal). The goal is to engage the world in a way that absolutely refrains from participating in or practicing violence or the structures of violence.

And Leejo, I separated the actual definition of pacifism (which you have given examples of) from your concept of the functional pacifist, because you said: "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." I contend that this is not actually a pacifist. This is simply someone who disagrees with a specific act of violence. Even your definitions make the distinction:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leejo

# 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

Each of these definitions clearly indicates that a pacifist is opposed to violence across the board, not selective policies of violence.

And for the record, I do not consider myself a pacifist. And I have given long and hard consideration to whether or not I believe in pacifism.

**leejo** · 05-31-2006, 04:34 PM

I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress.

Yeah H I think we're on the same page. I think we got wrapped up in some semantics based on Orwell's essay and definition of "pacifist". By his 4-step list of harmful activities, I suspect that his gripe was not with pacifists exactly but "anti-war protestors" who didn't merely advocate non-violence.

Diceman · 05-31-2006, 04:47 PM

This is really beside the point that I'm wanting to make, but I still don't think that this hypothetical person fails to live up to the standard of a pacifism. A pacifist is someone who believes that disagreements should not be resolved by violence, yes? What better way to avoid settling disputes by violence than to avoid disputes altogether? And what better way to do that than to go live in isolation on a mountain? Eject that hypothetical person into space, if it will isolate them better! The hypothetical is not supposed to capture all the complexities that an acutal pacifist faces and incorporates - it is only suppose to capture (but capture well) one aspect of being a pacifist.

For the record, I heartily believe that ejecting oneself into space, for the purposes of isolation, is a silly choice to make - be it Ghandi or Genghis.

**H-Hour** · 05-31-2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

The hypothetical is not supposed to capture all the complexities that an acutal pacifist faces and incorporates - it is only suppose to capture (but capture well) one aspect of being a pacifist.

True, your hypothetical lives up to the minimum definition of a pacifist. And I understand hypotheticals can help to begin studying a situation. But if your hypothetical creates an absolutely backwards characterization, it will only serve to throw off the study.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

Well, it is an extreme characterization, but I wanted to draw a picture of a hypothetical person who dedicated his whole life to the avoidance of conflict.

But I contend that "the avoidance of conflict" is not a tenet of pacifism. Two of Leejo's definitions specifically use the word "oppose" as a part of pacifism. Opposition is not avoidance. The only definition that references avoidance is Leejo's first definition, which says "should not participate in war." But this is more of a popularly-held opinion of what pacifism is, as opposed to what dedicated pacifists believe and act on.

I simply wish to point out that this is a poor hypothetical to use (not to mention another example of the stereotype that being a pacifist - or even a "liberal" - means that you're aloof from the real world).

Diceman · 05-31-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H-Hour

I simply wish to point out that this is a poor hypothetical to use (not to mention another example of the stereotype that being a pacifist - or even a "liberal" - means that you're aloof from the real world).

Noted.

**IRS_Agent** · 05-31-2006, 11:12 PM

So what's more valuble your "objective" support to terrorists (meaning disagreeing with the people fighting them) or your fiscal support of the war on terror through taxes? I think as long as you're paying your taxes to this country you have not even come close to supporting terrorists. Maybe in Orwell's thinking you can be morally supporting terrorists (which I totally disagree with) by not supporting the war, but your living in this country, paying taxes, and contributing to our economy, is completely supporting the war on terror. We may be devided on the war in our thinking, but we all support the war. Now if you boycotted American products, stopped paying your taxes, and protested the war... then you might be helping terrorists by not helping the US.

Just my thoughts.

I am in 8th grade so go easy on me

.

PS- I know it's funny that I am seriously mentioning taxes.

Kerostasis · 06-01-2006, 01:03 AM

Lets try to get some clarification here on when exactly pacifism helps the enemy, using lots of hypotheticals:

Situation 1: Party A fights Party B. Man C stands by and watches, helping neither.

Analysis 1: Is Man C aiding B by not helping A? By the same logic, isn't he aiding A by not helping B? Its hard to claim C is helping anyone with his pacifism here. The closest you could come is maybe if C sees one party winning, and knows that with his help the other party could be winning instead, then you could say he's sort of tacitly helping the leading party. But even thats only if he's actually paying attention and watching, as opposed to merely being nearby. All in all, its very situational to claim that pacifism "helps" anyone in this configuration.

Situation 2: Party A fights Party B. Man A, who is part of Party A, refuses to help his party.

Analysis 2: Here we're getting a little closer to Orwell's complaint. Notice how he mentioned that fascist countries stifled their own pacifists while promoting british pacifists. Here Man A can be accused of aiding B simply by not helping party A, specifically because he is part of party A, and is not standing up for his group. If he was part of party B, then he would be aiding party A by being pacifist. However, either way, the level of support given to the enemy is minor--man A simply reduces the strength of party A to what it would have been, had man A never joined in the first place. Furthermore, even if man A doesn't actually go out and fight, if he's still contributing in other ways (such as promoting the economy of party A with his labor, or really any type of non-combat support), then he's not really aiding party B. (This covers the Quakers

)

Situation 3: Party A fights Party B. Man A, who is part of Party A, not only refuses to help his party, but then attempts to convince all the other members of party A that they should also refuse to help their party.

Analysis 3: Now we're cooking with gas! The best chance man A has now is simply to fail, in which case he has hurt party A only by removing his own benefits from it. The greater his success, the more he cripples the ability of party A to sustain its conflict with party B. Now man A can truly be said to be aiding the enemy through his "pacifism", if thats what you want to call it. If you like, you can make the argument that party B deserves to be helped more than party A, and so its a good thing to be helping the enemy. But you can no longer make the argument that you are not helping the enemy, only "promoting peace".

**CingularDuality** · 06-01-2006, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

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?

Yes, they should, and that goes back to my statement about French riots and political cartoons...

Diceman · 06-01-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Yes, they should, and that goes back to my statement about French riots and political cartoons...

Two bits of evidence which I don't think show anything more than I could extrapolate from another equally limited set of evidence, created with the intention of casting a pall on another group. I think these examples are evidence of a proclivity to violence, only if one already believed the thesis before the evidence - in the same vein that people usually find what they are looking for (conspiracy, patterns, proof of aliens, proof of God, etc).

**leejo** · 06-01-2006, 12:34 PM

Diceman are you contending that there is no international problem with radical islam?

Diceman · 06-01-2006, 12:54 PM

In a word: no. But I feel compelled to note that I think it is far more complex than most characterizations would allow for. I feel that fabricated terms like "islamofascism" serve to only obfuscate the actual reality of things - because they are 1) emotionally weighted and 2) without definition. When words like this form one's lexicon, it's hard to reach any conclusion but "Muslims are frothing-at-the-mouth violent". Importantly, I am not saying that anyone to the right of me is some simple minded NewSpeaker either; I think the conversations had here show that there are merits on both sides of the table. But we are all susceptible to logical fallacies and, as always, our own bias. Cing's evidence is simply one instance where I disagree with him that the cited evidence makes his case.

**leejo** · 06-01-2006, 12:56 PM

OK so what do you think IS going on internationally with radical islamic groups?

Diceman · 06-01-2006, 02:00 PM

The following is all, and only, opinion. Please bear that in mind as you read.

I think there are groups that hate America, but not for the freedom found there. I think they hate America for historical reasons - in the sense that what goes around, comes around. This doesn't have to do with any particular sitting president, but a history of one-sidedness, to the point of monstrosity, in dealings with these countries; especially during the Cold War, where the US and the USSR fought almost the entirety of the conflict by proxy. Regional tensions were exacerbated elsewhere in the world, because it was seen as a way in which to weaken the influence of the Soviet Union.

Before I go on, let me make a couple of related points:

The Soviets were just as (if not more) guilty of vicious self-interest as the Americans. Many lives were sacrificed on both sides.
The countries in which these games and brinkmanship played out were not innocent victims in the whole mess. At certain times, involvement at the highest levels ignited and fueled these regional conflicts. But that doesn't mean that there weren't innocent people that died.
Regarding the guilt or innocence of the dead, it should be remembered that I am talking about escalating cycles of revenge - the dead have a tendancy to be revered post-mortem by the living. It matters little what one did in life, especially if they were killed by an enemy.
I am not saying America was right or wrong in what it did. Every engagement and conflict has had its participants who fully believed in what they were doing - the inherent goodness of their side. "Good" and "Evil" lose relevancy as descriptive concepts as the sides become abstracted and a nation is a very abstract thing, IMO.

So there's a survey of my view of history and how we got to be where we are today. Let me talk a bit about how I believe the enemies of America see themselves. First, they see themselves, and every Muslim, as soldiers for God. They believe that America is a terrorist state, which seeks to subjugate their lives, their dignity and God for its own ends, and they must, as one of God's soldiers, fight to the death in resisting this evil. This doesn't mean they want to die - it means they would rather die than let America "win". They will use anything they can to incite the populations around them (like the cartoons) - to further polarize the world across religious lines, because it serves their ends. Claims that Osama has an "I voted for Kerry" sticker on his auto-rickshaw aside, I think Bush played into their hands - because he assisted in that polarization, with a vengeance.

But, as Bush spends more time in the Oval Office, he is losing (what I see to be) his idealism. The fiasco in Iraq serves to advertise to all that the military cannot be used to solve the world's problems. This is something Sun Tzu knew more than 2000 years ago. As Bush tones down the rhetoric, he will become much harder to predict (by opponents local and distant, political and strategic alike), and thus move with greater ease as he seeks to eliminate actual enemies of America, rather than painting lands with broad brushes. As an aside, political cunning involves webs of personal loyalties - and these are unreliable. Bush's attempts to make a better world (and I really do believe that he is trying to make the world better) will be his undoing.

Let me close by talking about what I think the best way to remove enemies of America is: Render them impotent. People , no matter their race, colour or creed, are drawn to Power, and powerful individuals. Chalk it up to what Nietzsche called the "Will to Power". By secretly blocking and frustrating individuals (not groups, governments or nations) while (publicly when appropriate) enabling others who are friendlier to America's cause, America can take steps to reduce the animosity. It must be secret, because if others see America's obstructionist interventions, it will enrage the people and empower the leader that America was trying to neutralize to begin with.

As I see it, this is the geopolitical equivalent of demanding that cops "shoot the guy in the leg". What can I say? No one said that world peace was gonna be easy. I don't think that the way forward can be found with anything less - and with nukes at our disposal, I believe that we must find a way forward.

The preceding text has been pure opinion. Please bear that in mind as flames are composed.

Note: Edits are underlined. You may want to check this post for edits before replying to it. Edits will be made to clarify, not materially change, the intented meaning.

05-31-2006, 04:03 PM	#62 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Pacifism and the War So we are gradually whittling down the topic to isolate who the "problem" people are: protestors and dissidents. Be they pacifists or partisans, this is very old ground. __________________

05-31-2006, 04:34 PM	#64 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Pacifism and the War I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. Yeah H I think we're on the same page. I think we got wrapped up in some semantics based on Orwell's essay and definition of "pacifist". By his 4-step list of harmful activities, I suspect that his gripe was not with pacifists exactly but "anti-war protestors" who didn't merely advocate non-violence.

05-31-2006, 04:47 PM	#65 (permalink)
Diceman Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Yellowknife, NT Age: 30 Posts: 986	Re: Pacifism and the War This is really beside the point that I'm wanting to make, but I still don't think that this hypothetical person fails to live up to the standard of a pacifism. A pacifist is someone who believes that disagreements should not be resolved by violence, yes? What better way to avoid settling disputes by violence than to avoid disputes altogether? And what better way to do that than to go live in isolation on a mountain? Eject that hypothetical person into space, if it will isolate them better! The hypothetical is not supposed to capture all the complexities that an acutal pacifist faces and incorporates - it is only suppose to capture (but capture well) one aspect of being a pacifist. For the record, I heartily believe that ejecting oneself into space, for the purposes of isolation, is a silly choice to make - be it Ghandi or Genghis. __________________ [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, 11:12 PM	#68 (permalink)
IRS_Agent Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Wisconsin Age: 17 Posts: 416	Re: Pacifism and the War So what's more valuble your "objective" support to terrorists (meaning disagreeing with the people fighting them) or your fiscal support of the war on terror through taxes? I think as long as you're paying your taxes to this country you have not even come close to supporting terrorists. Maybe in Orwell's thinking you can be morally supporting terrorists (which I totally disagree with) by not supporting the war, but your living in this country, paying taxes, and contributing to our economy, is completely supporting the war on terror. We may be devided on the war in our thinking, but we all support the war. Now if you boycotted American products, stopped paying your taxes, and protested the war... then you might be helping terrorists by not helping the US. Just my thoughts. I am in 8th grade so go easy on me . PS- I know it's funny that I am seriously mentioning taxes. __________________ The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving. I #83 of 213 things you cannot do in the army. 83. Must not start any SITREP (Situation Report) with "I recently had an experience I just had to write you about...."

06-01-2006, 12:34 PM	#72 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Pacifism and the War Diceman are you contending that there is no international problem with radical islam?

06-01-2006, 12:54 PM	#73 (permalink)
Diceman Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Yellowknife, NT Age: 30 Posts: 986	Re: Pacifism and the War In a word: no. But I feel compelled to note that I think it is far more complex than most characterizations would allow for. I feel that fabricated terms like "islamofascism" serve to only obfuscate the actual reality of things - because they are 1) emotionally weighted and 2) without definition. When words like this form one's lexicon, it's hard to reach any conclusion but "Muslims are frothing-at-the-mouth violent". Importantly, I am not saying that anyone to the right of me is some simple minded NewSpeaker either; I think the conversations had here show that there are merits on both sides of the table. But we are all susceptible to logical fallacies and, as always, our own bias. Cing's evidence is simply one instance where I disagree with him that the cited evidence makes his case. __________________ [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

06-01-2006, 12:56 PM	#74 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Pacifism and the War OK so what do you think IS going on internationally with radical islamic groups?

06-01-2006, 02:00 PM	#75 (permalink)
Diceman Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Yellowknife, NT Age: 30 Posts: 986	Re: Pacifism and the War The following is all, and only, opinion. Please bear that in mind as you read. I think there are groups that hate America, but not for the freedom found there. I think they hate America for historical reasons - in the sense that what goes around, comes around. This doesn't have to do with any particular sitting president, but a history of one-sidedness, to the point of monstrosity, in dealings with these countries; especially during the Cold War, where the US and the USSR fought almost the entirety of the conflict by proxy. Regional tensions were exacerbated elsewhere in the world, because it was seen as a way in which to weaken the influence of the Soviet Union. Before I go on, let me make a couple of related points: The Soviets were just as (if not more) guilty of vicious self-interest as the Americans. Many lives were sacrificed on both sides. The countries in which these games and brinkmanship played out were not innocent victims in the whole mess. At certain times, involvement at the highest levels ignited and fueled these regional conflicts. But that doesn't mean that there weren't innocent people that died. Regarding the guilt or innocence of the dead, it should be remembered that I am talking about escalating cycles of revenge - the dead have a tendancy to be revered post-mortem by the living. It matters little what one did in life, especially if they were killed by an enemy. I am not saying America was right or wrong in what it did. Every engagement and conflict has had its participants who fully believed in what they were doing - the inherent goodness of their side. "Good" and "Evil" lose relevancy as descriptive concepts as the sides become abstracted and a nation is a very abstract thing, IMO. So there's a survey of my view of history and how we got to be where we are today. Let me talk a bit about how I believe the enemies of America see themselves. First, they see themselves, and every Muslim, as soldiers for God. They believe that America is a terrorist state, which seeks to subjugate their lives, their dignity and God for its own ends, and they must, as one of God's soldiers, fight to the death in resisting this evil. This doesn't mean they want to die - it means they would rather die than let America "win". They will use anything they can to incite the populations around them (like the cartoons) - to further polarize the world across religious lines, because it serves their ends. Claims that Osama has an "I voted for Kerry" sticker on his auto-rickshaw aside, I think Bush played into their hands - because he assisted in that polarization, with a vengeance. But, as Bush spends more time in the Oval Office, he is losing (what I see to be) his idealism. The fiasco in Iraq serves to advertise to all that the military cannot be used to solve the world's problems. This is something Sun Tzu knew more than 2000 years ago. As Bush tones down the rhetoric, he will become much harder to predict (by opponents local and distant, political and strategic alike), and thus move with greater ease as he seeks to eliminate actual enemies of America, rather than painting lands with broad brushes. As an aside, political cunning involves webs of personal loyalties - and these are unreliable. Bush's attempts to make a better world (and I really do believe that he is trying to make the world better) will be his undoing. Let me close by talking about what I think the best way to remove enemies of America is: Render them impotent. People , no matter their race, colour or creed, are drawn to Power, and powerful individuals. Chalk it up to what Nietzsche called the "Will to Power". By secretly blocking and frustrating individuals (not groups, governments or nations) while (publicly when appropriate) enabling others who are friendlier to America's cause, America can take steps to reduce the animosity. It must be secret, because if others see America's obstructionist interventions, it will enrage the people and empower the leader that America was trying to neutralize to begin with. As I see it, this is the geopolitical equivalent of demanding that cops "shoot the guy in the leg". What can I say? No one said that world peace was gonna be easy. I don't think that the way forward can be found with anything less - and with nukes at our disposal, I believe that we must find a way forward. The preceding text has been pure opinion. Please bear that in mind as flames are composed. Note: Edits are underlined. You may want to check this post for edits before replying to it. Edits will be made to clarify, not materially change, the intented meaning. __________________ [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 Last edited by Diceman; 06-01-2006 at 06:10 PM.

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

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links