Czarcasm, if it’s okay, I have several questions for you, if they’re not too personal.
- Elvis or the Beatles?
B. Jennifer or Bailey?
III. Star Trek or Star Wars?
4th. Temptations or the Four Tops?
Was Tolstoy as extreme a pacifist as Gandhi? Henry David Thoreau isn’t considered a pacifist, right?
ETA: Actually, this question breaks some new ground:
No.
No.
I can get very angry and frustrated at not being able to resolve a conflict, swearing and yelling ineffectively like any other human being, then walking away until I and/or those I am arguing with cool down. This gives me time to rethink my position and/or think of a better way to present my position and/or concede that that particular argument just isn’t worth pursuing at that time.
I didn’t have lunch money when I was in school. My name was on a list to get a free lunch, though, so if you want to try to intimidate school officials into giving you my lunch I would be more than happy to introduce you to them.
- The Beatles
B. Bailey Quarters
III. Star Trek
As you pointed out you are not an expert on pacifism. A discussion about the merits of pacifism is a good GD thread (and probably has been many times). You opened an “Ask the” thread. Its all about you. Of course the questions are going to be about how you react to certain situations.
In other words, what did you expect?
All fine examples of achieving goals and objectives through largely peaceful means. But aren’t they also examples where pacifism was the only rational option in the face of overwhelming opposing forces? In other words, had the playing field been more evenly matched, do you think Gandi and MLK would still have been the loudest voices in their respective strugles or might it have been others less inclined to pacifism?
That depends on what you consider the goal is, I suppose. If the goal is to win fast at any cost to human life, then I suppose the violent path is the way to go. On the other hand, if the goal is to win with the least cost to human lives, then pacifism may be the path to follow.
I don’t know if it’s so much about a speedy victory but whether a victory through aggression is even possible under certain circumstances. If not, non-aggression seems a much more rational means to an end.
Maybe it is appropriate in more situations than people think, once they realize that the quickest solution doesn’t always equate to being the best overall solution.
Referring back to post 319, it is hard to figure out if a violent solution might have worked out better in any situation where, in reality, a peaceful solution was used. Would less have died, or more? Would the victory be swift, or would it be long and bloody? If the battle is long, will it escalate and draw in others on both sides?
Agreed. So is pacifism always/ever the rational choice? Or is it just one of the two alternatives with the victors writing history?
I believe that, in time, pacifism can eventually be the only rational choice. Also, if the conflict is resolved in a peaceful manner, the history being written will be more acceptable to both sides, more than likely.
On a macro level, I can see how this is working. The world is generally less tolerant of despots and dictators. On a micro level, I’m not sure pacifism lends itself well to dealing with everyday bullies.
If there is, overall, less toleration for bullies, then the approval they seek will be harder to find. There are punishments that are not corporal in nature when it comes to bullies, and when fewer people look the way because “Nothing can be done about it because everybody does it”, bullying will lessen.
That should be “…look the other way…”
So what I gather from this thread is that pacifism works real well for czarcasm because he is powerless to do anything else. And that he thinks pacifism works great for everyone else so long as he ignores all the times when force did help and all the times where pacifism failed miserably.
To be fair, Kable, I think it’s obvious that Czarcasm started this thread as a place for friendly pacifist chitchat where he could maybe share some pacifist stories or tell a few anecdotes and jokes from the lighter side of pacifism. He certainly wasn’t expecting to have to explain or defend pacifism.
To be fair, I think I’ve tried to honestly answer any on-topic questions to the best of my ability, and the fact that sometimes the answer is “I don’t know” points out the fact that I am human. At times the initial answers may have been terse, but that was usually when I was at work-when the time to expand comes I try to elaborate, if the question requires elaboration.
I’m afraid I’m going to need a cite. 