Ask the pacifist

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
221

Yes, I knew about Rankin’s 1917 vote. I didn’t mention it because she wasn’t such an outlying case at the time–6 Senators and 50 Reps voted against the 1917 declaration of war. Robert LaFollette was perhaps the most prominent anti-war politician at the time, and he was reviled for it in many quarters, but he kept his Senate seat until his death in 1925. (Rankin lost her seat in 1918 mostly because of redistricting.)

In my earlier post on Anscombe, I should clarify that when I say she’s influenced my thoughts, I don’t mean to imply that she’s made me pro- or anti-pacifist. Indeed, the moral limitations she places on warfare are stringent enough to make her almost a de facto pacifist, no matter how much she disliked the term.

222

I like what Rankin said when she was the lone vote against entering WWII after the Pearl Harbor raid, tying two of her passions into one statement:
“As a woman I can’t go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else.”

223

FTR, I’ve tried very hard to avoid being overly snarky or accusatory. I didn’t intend squeamish to be an insult and clarified when I first said it that I believe it describes me as well (and probably most people to one degree or another). My nitpicking about the meaning of pacifism was intended to direct the conversation towards what your philosophy actually is, and I’ve tried asking questions intended to bring that out, but your replies have been short, dismissive, and opaque. When I’ve tried to point out differences between what you say about yourself and historical pacifist philosophy, I’d hoped you might give some illumination on how you understand those differences, but you haven’t. I’ve asked directly and sincerely what it is you hoped to discuss, as have others, and you’ve ignored the question.

You haven’t. You’ve asserted it, but you haven’t made any attempt at all to explain how it did. That’s something I’d be interested in hearing, but when people have probed, you’ve just repeated your earlier assertions and gotten defensive and accusatory like you did here.

I know this is MPSIMS, not GD, but I’ve seen you handle philosophical challenges without resorting to these evasions. Usually you’re the one calling others out for them! Just spell out what you believe about pacifism and why, and let us grill you on it instead of making us think up questions based on our (obviously incorrect) expectations of a self-described pacifist and then shooting them down.

224

Fenris, I don’t see where you are going with this.

???:confused: Er. Where or how did I do that?

So we agree so far, right?

Cite? More seriously, that’s a rather contentious claim to be stated as a matter of fact.

Well I was staying focused on one particular claim, which frankly you haven’t addressed in a convincing fashion. Czarcasm’s stance falls short of pacifism. My stance falls short of Czarcasm’s, but I would think that wishing for a less violent world wouldn’t be especially controversial. My path to that goal (which, let’s face it, isn’t particularly ambitious) involves hard work, diplomacy and strengthened multilateral linkages. The alternative is to drop freedom bombs whenever in doubt and frankly I don’t think that framework has been a particularly cost effective one, never mind effective in terms of human life and welfare.

Oh, and remember that Chamberlain rearmed after Munich, declared war on Hitler after lines were crossed and before holocaust commenced. Ultimatum occurred within 24 hours of the Polish invasion. France also stood against Hitler. No other power did in 1939, including the US.

Oh2, recall that the Soviet Union collapsed due to a lack of internal confidence, not MX missiles, neutron bombs or B1 Bombers. I’d say Chernobyl and their pathetic response to the Armenian earthquake persuaded Politburo reformers that the Soviet Union was unreformable. The only thing US armaments did was to encourage the postponing of liberally inclined politicians like Gorbachev in favor of conservative seat warmers like Chernenko.

Oh3, I concede my brush size is a little wide.

Alan Smithee: I don’t find Czarcasm’s stance to be opaque. It isn’t philosophical pacifism: maybe it’s pacifism-curious. He’s just not inclined to use violence on a personal level. That’s a pretty straightforward stance to take in a country with a well developed rule of law and extensive litigation.

Maybe. But I’m guessing that latent violent capabilities would surface. Or that you would adapt in some way. I could be wrong: surely there are some people in the world that are hardwired the way you think you are wired.

225

[quote=“TokyoBayer, post:218, topic:671006”]

Let’s add one more. I haven’t said it yet, but it’s a reply to this:

Agreed. I sure appreciated czarcasm totally ignoring my post where I, as someone who had NOT asked him any questions (baited or no), confirmed that others felt the same as his “antagonists” did. Sorry you didn’t want to hear it, but ignoring it doesn’t change how you’ve presented yourself in this thread.

226

Let me give it a shot.
I, apparently not having the means to personally attack others, developed the slick-talking, friend-making, bully-avoiding skills necessary for me to make it out of a small northern Idaho town school system sans black eyes and broken arms. The job opportunities being what there were at the time(unicornish in quantity), one of my few options was to enter the military, but I had to figure out a way to do this and yet not be a soldier. I joined the U.S. Air Force and became a crew chief for the B-52D, which wasn’t really in the habit of making bombing runs in the late 70s. Still, it did have the potential to harm others, so I got out of that duty by starting a drama group that toured the bases in southern California. The base commander supported our group wholeheartedly…but that may be because we recruited his son and made sure he had his fair share of stage time. The U.S.A.F. was what influenced me to join the Women’s Rights movement, btw. I noticed that many of the females that had taken the same classes as I had were pulled from the flightlines one by one to become secretaries for various officers, and I knew the chances of advancement for a secretary who sat outside the office of a Lt. Colonel were pretty much nil.
Anyway, After I left the U.S.A.F. I got involved in various groups and various protests involving various causes, and I started thinking harder about my personal situation. Was my inability to do violence towards others a good thing for me? My thoughts were that, overall, I had come out ahead in life, by personally decreasing violence towards me and a few others, and by trying harder than most would to make friends.
Working off of that conclusion, I looked back on my life to see if, applying that conclusion, I could have done things better, and I determined that I could have. Not having invented a time machine, I couldn’t do much about the support I gave the military, as little as it was, but maybe I could make up for it, starting now. To this day I have not made use of any part of the GI Bill, and I refuse to go to a veterans hospital. I have no objections to others using those benefits, but I would feel like a hypocrite if I used them. I protest when I can, write letters when i think they may do so me good, and every single Saturday and Sunday I volunteer at a local food pantry. How do I feel about going to war? There have always been good reasons to go to war, there are good reasons to go to wars today, and there will be good reasons to go to war tomorrow. There will always be good reasons to go to war…and there will be good reasons to fight back against those who have good reasons to go to war with you. I once heard Donovan sing “Universal Soldier”, and while the song may be a bit simplistic, it strikes a chord with me. Offense and defense not only feed off one another, but at times the only difference between the two are the people using them to goad people on.
Real life intrudes yet again-perhaps more later.

227

He doesn’t fight or argue with me:(, and I love a good fight:p. He also has to keep me from punching somebody’s lights out if I get really angry because I will hurt somebody. I have in the past and I can do it in the future.
If I had wanted to marry a man who was a fighter I would have married someone like my father, a WWII Marine Corps vet, alcoholic, chain smoker, and a mean or happy drunk, depending on how much he drank.:eek:

228

I rather take issue with this. As far as I can see, there is really only ever one reason to start a war. They always put forth their excuses, but it all boils down to one thing. Asking/compelling the nation’s finest, most fit young men to go out and die in pursuit of wealth is about the most vile thing imaginable. And the outcome is decided on the basis of who can gin up better strategy or better weapons or both, not somehow on who has the more worthy cause.

229

Misunderstanding here-my fault. When I said that there are always good reasons to go to war I meant that those who go to war absolutely believe that their reasons to do are good, and they have no problem justifying their actions to others that believe as they do.

230

Thank you, My Beloved.

231

Let’s pretend you are a colonist living in 1776 Boston. Are you for the Crown, or are for independence? Are you willing to fight in the war?

232
  1. How would I know what side I was on? What’s my profession? What’s my politics? Has being under the Crown hurt me in any way?
  2. I can’t fight.
233

So you believe nothing is worth fighting for?

234

I am going to ask this as politely as I can: Is there a chance you didn’t read through this thread before asking your questions?

235

I don’t mean to be an ass, but are young soldiers really the nation’s “finest?”

236

I’ve read every word of this hot mess and I’d be interested in your answer.

237

I can’t fight. This has been explained numerous times in this thread, the possible reasons for this problem has been discussed in this thread, and how this has shaped my morals/ethics has been discussed in this thread.

238

Has wussie been called out yet? I havn’t accused anyone of being a wuss in years and I’ve forgotten just how satisfyingly stupid it sounds. :smiley:

Czarcasm, perhaps you are a wussie! :eek:

My inner idiot is now satisfied. :smiley:

239

Of course you can fight. You may not do it well, but you can make the choice to defend yourself or a loved one if you or they are attacked. Or you can stand there and do nothing and let yourself or them die. It’s a choice.

240

If a man will not knock a deuce out for attacking his baby, I think it is safe to say that there is nothing he will fight for. We can infer.