I’m not going to respond to your reinterpretation of my answer.
To elaborate, I think that pacification is a long-range goal that can’t really be achieved by short-ranged simplistic measures. That is why I would seek ways to lessen the tendency of nations to see war as a reasonable response to conflict. Disarming one side without first laying a solid path to peace would be like playing Jenga with a shovel.
I asked if you think the USA should disassemble its military. You clearly didn’t say yes. Seems you think that as things are now, our country should maintain its ability to shoot other people and blow them up, right? Of course you didn’t use those exact words but that’s what your answer means, right? It seem you think we should only lessen our military over time, but only if other countries agree to do the same. As such I can only conclude that with the worlds current threat level, you think our military is necessary. Why is that?
Please feel free to clarify if I have misinterpreted your statements or position in any way.
I suppose it could, but it would likely go as well for us as it did for the Moriori.
I think most people think that.
And would be like suicide should the other side change their mind regarding peace.
Let me put it to you in the simplistic black-and-white terms you seem to prefer: Magic solutions don’t work. “What if a peaceful people were given guns and suddenly wanted to fight?” “What if you could suddenly disarm the U.S. military?” What if you knew that if you called the cops they would kill the intruder?"
When you are ready to have a reasonable discussion involving real world problems and realistic solutions, I’ll be here.
Right, pacifism doesn’t work.
Great, so as I said before, you don’t think the USA should disassemble it’s military. As a pacifist who can do no violence to others it seems you do still value the ability of others to do violence on your behalf.
Philosophically, how can you justify that? Or is your stance more emotionally based rather than philosophical?
I bet you have never said that.
I bet you have never said that.
Probably not.
I mentioned you could read more about it in “Guns Germs and Steel” back in post #330 and that it corroborated the wiki story, and others have mentioned it since.
Don’t want to?
In international contexts, pacifism shipwrecks on the shores of WWII. More deeply, punitive alternatives such as economic sanctions typically provide insufficient incentive for the targeted leaders, in practice.
On a personal basis, methinks it’s inappropriate for certain demographics. Women face threats of sexual assault, as do males in prison. To a lesser extent males under 18 face regular threats of violence, albeit typically not fatal threats. The LGBT community deals with bigoted attacks. Some professions require the practice of violence: they should be and are regulated.
But I think pacifism is viable for most US straight male adults with sufficient courage. Unlike the international context, social and legal sanction are pretty powerful, more powerful than fists. I don’t see what the big deal is leaving violence to regulated specialists. I don’t plan on giving myself open heart surgery either, though I wouldn’t turn it down if it was necessary. If my house is burning, I’ll call the fire department. I’m not going to become a raving firenut, collect an arsenal of fire hoses or demand access to hydrants, despite the fact that fire injuries occur every 30 minutes and deaths every couple of hours. The cost/benefit doesn’t make sense.
There’s the complication of third party assistance, but honestly grappling, head locks, cell phones and the use of voice should be sufficient in most cases.
Back to the international context. The US peace movement is lame in many ways: AFAIK they lack a rigorous think tank, which makes it difficult to take their arguments seriously. Which is a shame, as they could join hands with centrist foreign policy liberals and develop a checklist procedure for military action. Colon Powell had one, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be expanded or elaborated upon. With something like that in place, a serious debate could be joined. Now we have close to nothing.
You definitely have it right here. It does no good to show the violence-it’s pretty much all we know, and we’ve become used to it. Whatever violence that is pointed out will be dwarfed on the evening news every night. There has to be a way to point out and promote ways of peace without also bringing up the violence we would like it to replace. A gardening show shows you how to garden properly-it doesn’t waste your time showing you what happens when you do it wrong because that just muddles the message. Right now, the peace movement is focused on what is wrong instead of showing people how to do things right, and they are muddling the message. Is a peaceful resolution always possible? I don’t know-but I do know that they are possible, and that instances of it working should be promoted. If you just take away the weapon people won’t know what to do, and they will probably just go find another weapon. You have to give them a viable tool that looks like will do the job, and if you can convince them that it might do the job better, all the better.
I guess the problem is that regulated specialists aren’t always there when you need them.
I don’t feel I have the skills to give myself open heart surgery, and I bet zero.zero surgeons can pull that one off either, but I do think I can shoot a home invader.
If part of my house caught fire and I thought I could put it out with a garden hose or fire extinguisher I would do that, rather than just wait for the fire department to arrive.
True, fire hoses I think are good for only one thing.
They probably they are in most cases where the bad guy doesn’t have a weapon, or the bad guy is tougher than you, or there are 2 or more bad guys.
I interpret this as Kable’s most important reply:
Home invasion assault is rare, though it happens. (Burglary, in contrast, I characterize as common.) Millions of men in the US do fine without access to guns. Billions of men throughout the world do the same, under more restrictive gun control laws. And there’s the countervailing problem of accidental shootings, which are understated in the statistics for children by a factor of about two.
But let’s stay focused here. This isn’t the thread for gun ownership and optimal risk assessment. The topic here is the viability of pacifism: the evidence bar is quite a bit lower. And I argue that for most US males, the answer is overwhelming yes: it is a viable strategy. I concede my bias, but personally I haven’t had occasion to fight since reaching the age of 21. (Between the ages of 18-21, my elder brother may have challenged/harrassed me with an informal wrestling match: I can’t recall. Set that rather nonlethal context aside (as well as dojo sparring) and I simply haven’t had a need for violence as an adult, because I’ve dealt with muggings, arguments and assaults in an adult manner. Or at least I conceive of it as such.)
Hear, hear. There is work done on this - I understand the catch phrase is conflict resolution, but it is diffuse.
Maybe the concept of Satyagraha could be brushed off and reintroduced. There are a lot of people who aren’t fully aboard on pacifism (like, oh, pretty much everyone) but would have sympathy towards pushing nonviolent solutions with greater vigor. You can commit yourself to reach first for constructive resolution in most circumstances without necessarily committing yourself to nonviolence under all hypothetical situations.
[hijack] Um, really? 
Er - I’d do both at the same time. For one thing fire tends to produce smoke and fire trucks have big fans to deal with it. I once was confronted with a neighbor’s fire at about 2AM. I first called the fire department, then I dealt with the fire. My behavior was far from optimal due to the confusion of being woken up by someone I didn’t know too well, but I think I got the ordering part of the crisis correct. [/hijack]
I don’t think Gandhi would have supported most of the protesting for peace that goes on these days. When the medium controls the message you have to make sure that the message you want to get out will get out, and that means replacing the shouting rant with the reasoned and reasonable response, the large multicolored misspelled hand-drawn sign with an easy to understand Powerpoint, the iffy looking spokesperson with a Josephina Average that the people you are trying to reach can identify with and want to listen to. In other words, show some respect to those you would want to respect you. Be a peaceful person that isn’t an annoyance.
Sigh. In English, when someone says they would do A instead of JUST waiting for B, it usually means they will do A AND B.
The point he was making seemed obvious, though, and it seems like you are missing it on purpose. How bizarre…
By how many factors do you think defensive gun use is understated?
Right, just like between nations. It’s viable most of the time, until it isn’t. But hey, nobody’s stopping you from being a pacifist.
I thought the point you were making was that you would leave such work to regulated specialists. That we shouldn’t try to do such tasks ourselves?
That was your point, right?
No I did not miss it on purpose - I was really that clueless. I read it again and accept your interpretation. With relief, actually.
Kable - I don’t own firehoses. I will fight fires with the tools on hand. I don’t see the big deal in passing the buck to the pros, when they are needed. And you are being silly: nobody calls the cops every time they hear someone shout: they deal with the issue themselves.
And now I feel like I’m about to step in it again.
- How would I know?
- I am unaware of any stats on defensive gun use anyway.
- I do disapprove of the anecdotes consistently reported in the NRA: I don’t find them credible as they all seem to lean in the same direction. Furthermore, the anecdotes seem like they would be pitted with false positives. As an example another neighbor of mine once saw a potential intruder removing stuff from her windowsill at about 6AM, as he was preparing to enter the unit. She looked at him. He looked at her. She was unarmed, with early morning disorientation. The crook smiled, waved, and ran off.
If she was holding a gun, I guarantee you she could have been profiled in one of the NRA’s magazines. Yet we know that the criminal would have run off regardless.
4) This is a hijack.
I’m saying that most US men have little need to commit violence during adulthood. The do face threats, but they are in the form of alcohol, car crashes and a sedentary lifestyle.
And no, not just like nations: review post 408: the alternatives to violence in a personal context are strong. The alternatives to violence in an international context are much weaker. The only reason why peace is the norm in human history is that typically (not always) war works to the disadvantage of both sides. The exceptions to that rule involve expansionary powers.
What?
Google it. The lowest estimates are a lot higher than accidental gun deaths.
Unlike the anecdote you just finished giving?
I disapprove of anecdotes consistently reported by pacifists. I don’t find them credible as they all seem to lean the same direction.
I didn’t disagree with that. And most houses won’t burn to the ground, but I have a fire alarm anyway.
Always?
I find tit for tat tiresome, and can’t seem to work out the main point of the previous post.
I think your main point was that people should not try to do things for themselves, but rather leave them things to professionals, wherever they might be. I guess your one of those “don’t-do-you-it-yourselfers.”