Oh, I might accept that you are a pacifist now. People change.
It’s your claim that you were non-violent in the military that I find hard to accept.
Personally non-violent. I have explained what I mean by this more than once in this thread, so I don’t know what it is you don’t(or won’t) understand.
Let’s try it a different way. You like James Bond movies, IIRC. Of course Bond kills a lot of people with those fancy gadgets.
Would you say that the boys in Q-branch are practising non-violence?
I don’t have any problems telling the difference between fantasy and reality.
Do you?
edited to add: 'The boys in Q-Branch" are actors playing roles, and I’m reasonably certain all the weapons used are props.
This is a quote from David Rakoff:
“For most of my life, I would have automatically said that I would opt for conscientious objector status, and in general, I still would. But the spirit of the question [a question on a citizenship application about whether or not applicants would ever bear arms for the United States] is would I ever, and there are instances where I might. If immediate intervention would have circumvented the genocide in Rwanda or stopped the Janjaweed in Darfur, would I choose pacifism? Of course not. Scott Simon, the reporter for National Public Radio and a committed lifelong Quaker, has written that it took looking into mass graves in former Yugoslavia to convince him that force is sometimes the only option to deter our species’ murderous impulses."
How do you feel about these statements/opinions? If you would not have supported the use of force in Rwanda or Darfur, how do you justify all the extra innocent dead?
Please don’t think this is another “gotcha,” I am genuinely curious.
love
yams!!
Edited to add: The quote is from this book, which is highly enjoyable: Don’t Get Too Comfortable: The Indignities of Coach Class, The Torments of Low Thread Count, The Never-Ending Quest for Artisanal Olive Oil, and Other First World Problems, by David Rakoff
You’ve stated several times that you cannot use violence against another person. Could you explain why, and also provide some level of insight or introspection on why you give that answer?
I’ve discussed these kinds of questions with religious pacifists (primarily Mennonites), and the general answer seems to be that 1) It is unlikely that I will be in this situation, 2) God will protect us according to his will and grant us the strength to do what is right, and 3) We can never be sure what we are going to do in a situation until we come to it, so let’s not worry about it.
The Nickel Mines, PA school shooting had some powerful professions of pacifism in it - two girls asked the gunman to shoot them first, apparently intending to protect the others by giving them more time.
Ah, but in your OP you admitted you get queasy looking at a road killed squirrel.
Yeah, I’d say that’s a match.
Queasy at the site of a dead animal but still enjoys a good burger. IIRC you are not really against violence for any reason, but you are just against ‘your’ doing violence for any reason. It has a smell of slave morality.
It’s like a psychological block of some sort. I don’t even recall balling my fists in rage in any time of my life and, believe me, I had a home life that would certainly make most react with violent rage. Perhaps it’s akin to a severe stutter: Would you berate someone if they couldn’t stop stuttering, even if it would save the life of their child? Perhaps, with proper psychological help and/or the right drugs I can overcome this problem.
Should I?
I’ve seen people die, and pulled a strange woman from a car crash and had her die in my arms. What I felt every time was a deep sense of loss and sadness.
But you wouldn’t raise a gun to save her if someone were coming at her with a knife?
See post #129.
And all the other times I’ve explained the situation.
What is your problem? Any answers I give don’t count unless you are the one asking the questions?
First, that totally sucks. Kids shouldn’t have to grow up in such situations.
Second, I grew up in Berkeley, where there’s a lot of die-hard pacifists who have a moral, philosophical, political, and almost religious position on pacifism: they think the use of violence is wrong, and they’d rather give up their life in an injustice because of a general belief that their suffering (if it ever came to that) is a more powerful (and good) form of resistance that will eventually trample out badness in the world.
But your pacifism doesn’t seem to be a chosen position like that kind of pacifism, which is why I’m quite curious. Do you know other pacifists? Do you think their brand of pacifism is different from yours, and what do you think about that?
I’m just a guy with some opinions, but my thoughts are this: if your life, in general, is making you happy, and there’s more or less this one notable quirk about you, I’d say, why bother?
But if you are struggling with other things (like how you relate to loved ones, problems with your self-esteem, etc), then I would say it’s worth it to try something new to have a more fulfilling life.
I developed from not being able to subject others to direct violence, to finding workarounds that seem to suit me just fine, to seeing violence as less of a solution and more of a problem the more I looked at the bigger picture. I think I lead a happy life, and my loved ones love me just the way I am(quirks and all), so I am not leaning at this moment towards removing this block and becoming what most call “normal”.
I get it. Nobody should look to you to save them from a violent aggressor, even if you were armed well enough to handle the situation.
It’s your problem were talking about, apparently akin to stuttering, that you wanted to pass off as some high moral philosophy.
Why do you say you are pro second amendment?
I think you’ve made your “point”, over and over and over again. I’m done explaining things to you that have already been explained.
edited to add: if you have any more aspersions to add, or if you wish to elaborate on the ones you think you’ve already made, there’s always the BBQ Pit.
No. That is noble as hell. That is the noblest shit I ever heard in my life. That has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing here, though.
If someone is doing harm to someone you are in charge of protecting, you need to lay something heavy across their damn head to stop them. That is a fact that is wholly and entirely separate from two selfless girls sacrificing themselves to a gunman to spare others’ lives. The person who hesitates to knock out a maniac who is choking their kid is NOT ON THE SAME PLANET with the person who tells a gunmen to shoot them first. I just have to say that outright, because you post can be read as if there is some connection between those two scenarios.