Good enough. Sorry if I pressed too hard.
Peace. 
No prob.
And Peace right back atcha.
I don’t know what Peter’ll answer, but as someone who’s remaining family only exists because Allied soldiers fought & killed in WWII and freed my family from the Camps, no. I don’t want the world to be “less violent”. I’d expect many descendents of slaves feel similarly. I wish that violence were used for better causes, but a “violence is always bad” philosophy strikes me as exceptionally child-like and poorly thought out given the reality of the world.
This, of course.
My take is that Czarcasm’s stated wiring would be a liability in 1800 (on average) and is an asset today (on average). I’ll furthermore opine that there are few temperaments that are sufficiently flexible so as to be optimal in all conceivable situations.
Oh I dunno. I’d say I would definitely wish for less violence in the world c. 1938 as it would pretty much preclude the invasion of Poland and subsequent genocidal behavior.
“Violence is always bad” does not follow from “Wanting the world to be less violent”. We’ve already established that Czarcasm is not a pacifist as typically conceived.
This is good.
Have you ever considered doing an “Ask the person who understands pacifism?” I don’t believe we’ve ever had a thread by someone who does.
Then you have proposed a fundamental change in human nature and we might as well discuss having Superman come in to stop wars and save kitty-cats stuck in trees or having us all evolve into super-intelligent beings of pure energy*
Less violence != no violence and Nazi atrocities are inevitable from the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. All we can do and stay within the bounds of human nature is propose that the good-guys be less violent and see where that leads us. Because Nazi Germany is never going to accept whatever philosophy Czarcasm’s espousing, but Neville Chamberlin or (FAR less likely) Alf Landon…might.
*Who, given human nature, would still fight: “You’re absorbing my share of sunlight!”/“I need it more. I’m brighter than you!” 
So far, we’ve got coward, pantywaist, weak-willed…and now “Neville Chamberlain”(that IS who you were referring to when you wrote “Chamberlin”, Fenris?). Anyone else want to chime in on this properly conducted and well-mannered thread?
Forgot to add squeamish, screaming for help and moral failing.
I should have started this thread in The BBQ Pit. :rolleyes:
Ladies and gentlemen of the Dope, I give you the perfect example of the SDMB Didactic Post. Wherein someone (hopefully) understands the issue but tries to divert attention from it by nitpicking minor grammar and spelling errors as though they were relevant to the argument. (Or, I suppose, who just really…don’t understand, in which case, it’s better to just not engage.)
Or, perhaps, given your limited understanding of the subject matter (Thinking dead squirrels are icky and being unable to make a fist != principled pacifist) and your unwillingness to actually engage people in discussion, perhaps a private blog would be more to your liking.
I explained how such a beginning eventually lead to an overall pacifistic outlook on life more than once in this thread, but if those two little things you mentioned above are all you were able to understand after 200 posts, then maybe this thread is just to much for you to grasp. I have engaged people in conversation that wished to actually converse instead of accuse, but you’re not here for the conversation, are you? Now, if you want to have a pissing contest, go start one in the proper forum, please-I’m done responding to your little spurts in this thread.
Yeah, I’d have a hard time coping in the 1800s-probably wouldn’t survive.
They say it takes all kinds. Well, people elsewhere say it-not so much in this thread, I guess.
Pretty much my thought, also.
I’m not that far off from your run-of-the-mill pacifist, really. I just took a wildly different path to get there, and the path keeps going on and on.
It’s funny how you keep starting pissing contests and then try to junior mod people into going to another forum when they respond to what you spew.
The Neville Chamberlain comment, had you read it for comprehension instead of becoming fixated on the fact that I missed a single vowel, was simply saying that Neville and even Alf Landon would be more likely to adopt the…um…“philosophy” you’re espousing than, say, Hitler.
Feel free to find a way to say that me claiming that “Hitler wouldn’t like your philosophy” is an insult if it feeds your martyr complex if you choose, but you’re just proving that a private blog really is more your speed.
Has anyone missed the irony that a thread on the subject of pacifism has drifted toward becoming a cat-fight?
No, but I’m not worried. Czarcazm has never so much as bared his claws, let alone balled up his paw in anger.
O.k.-that was cute.
Let’s add one more. I haven’t said it yet, but it’s a reply to this:
[quote]
So, let’s include passive aggressive. It’s OK, you can say what you want to. It’s not like you would be physically hitting me.
Several people have brought this up, but serious, what did you expect when you started this thread? Pacifism is a controversial philosophy, at best, and anyone who espouses it on this board is going to be questioned about it.
From well before anyone was giving you any shit, all your replies have been short, dismissive, and not completely lacking in any apparent introspection. The best explanations of the merits and pitfalls of pacifism have come from other posters.
I just wonder what you were expecting.
Czarcasm, do you have any thoughts about Jeannette Rankin and her opposition to the US declaring war in 1941? Do you admire, dislike, feel ambivalent about her?
Another person who has influenced my thoughts on pacifism is G.E.M. Anscombe, whom I mentioned some months ago in a thread about dropping the A-bombs on Japan in 1945. She wrote a pamphlet opposing Britain’s declaration of war in 1939 and also opposed Oxford granting an honorary degree to Harry Truman in 1956. In the article she wrote on the latter subject, she actually rejected pacifism because she noted a) that so few people take it seriously that they’re actually driven to become more pro-war, and b) some killing is morally just, and not all killing is murder (which is always unjust, regardless of the consequences–her ethics were fiercely deontological).
Do you have any thoughts on Anscombe (if you’ve read her…)?
No thoughts on Anscombe-sorry.
Jeannette Rankin is an interesting case. From beginning to end there wasn’t a hint of hypocrisy(you know she had previously voted against entering WW1, right?). From her not insignificant work with the Suffrage Movement to her connection to miner’s rights issues to her studying with Gandhi to her many lectures on pacifism, she was everything I wished I could be. I will always admire her.
edited to add: C.S. Lewis changed parts of his book Miracles after debating with G.E.M. Anscombe? Wow! Will definitely read more on her.