Violence is never necessary. I’m a pacifist (and no, mswas, it’s got jack to do with not killing for food)., and there’s nothing that would make me kill another human being.
I am most certainly not a pacifist. I find pacifism to be a silly opinion held by silly, well-fed rich people.
Why not explain to poor oppressed people that war is always bad and they need to suffer peacefully?
It worked for Ghandi.
Wow, that’s bizarre. As far as I know, all the soldiers I served with were doing it to serve their country, travel, earn some money and a college bill, learn a trade, support their families, learn to discipline themselves, and so on. You make them all sound bloodthirsty and well, like the evil, amoral monsters that posters like Der Trihs hope get killed.
Ghandi was not a pacifist. He rejected pacifism. Instead he struggled against injustice. He provoked violence. If nonviolent looked like a loosing game, he most likely would have tried something else.
Gandhi was also leading a nation of half a billion people against the rule of a crumbling empire with little stomach for violence. He’s the exception, not the rule.
And yet your standard of living is bought in blood with your tax money. I would love to hear your feelings on pacifism here on Arpanet.
Do you own property? What would you do if a bunch of crackheads decided to move into your house and turn it into a crackhouse. How would you deal with that, pacifistically of course.
Don’t mind Schwartz. In my military experience only REMFs said things like he said. And nobody pays attention to REMFs.
What’s an REMF?
'Cause I’m minding. I’m minding a lot. I really respected him before this, but the notion that he’d prefer tens of thousands of people die to him flipping burgers has me more than a bit discombobulated.
I guess my naivety is being stripped away, because I really only thought sociopaths thought like that, and that, like oncologists and child abuse social workers, most soldiers prayed for industry wide unemployment, at least in theory. That thought is what kept me from agreeing with Der Thris on the immorality and evilness of individuals in the armed forces.
This is completely incorrect. Collective land ownership existed long before agriculture. Hunting and gathering tribes are more than willing to obliterate each other in shockingly cruel ways to claim each other’s resources. Tterritoriality, in fact, long predates humankind, much less agriculture. In fact, agriculture, if anything, reduced territoriality, as humans could now survive best in close proximity working the land indepdnantly, and required less land to survive.
A rear-echelon motherfucker. Someone who dwells well behind where the fighting is occurring.
I wonder if SSG Schwartz expressed himself the way he meant to. He’s a recruiter, right? I’m imagining a scene like this:
Prospective Recruit: “I’m pretty handy with a rifle, been shooting since I was born, and I’ve been captain of every team I’ve been on: soccer, football, baseball, you name it. I want to serve my country and earn some money for college. I have to admit, I’d rather we weren’t at war in Iraq and I sure hope we don’t bomb Iran.”
SSG Schwartz: “Get out of my office.”
It is important to remember that most rear echelon soldiers are just as valuable and respected by front line troops. It takes a special kind of asshole to qualify for the label REMF. REMF is not applied to all rear echelon troops, just the special ones.
But Ghandi taught people, not to suffer peacefully, but to resist nonviolently.
Which, IMHO, falls under the definition of pacifist. Note that the definition includes what it’s not (war or violence) but not exactly what it is. But I think nonviolent resistance is exactly it. I think that Gandhi was indeed a pacifist, although he himself protested he was not.
Ehh?
If this is a reference to the military origins of the WWW, that’s a bizarre non sequitur. I didn’t build the darn thing.
Yes
I’d call the police.
I know where this is going - violence at one remove is still violence, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. I’m afraid I don’t care. My ethos doesn’t say I magically wish there was no violence, just that I, personally and directly, will not practice it against my fellow man. That’s hypocritical in your view, since I’m willing to have others practice it on my behalf. I don’t care, as long as it’s not me.
Paul in Saudi - I’ve been an oppressed person, didn’t change my methods. Resisting nonviolently is still pacifist.
By that logic, Hitler was a pacifist.
Passive resistance has only worked twice in history. Both times it was directed against a democracy. Anyone who tried it against a tyranny was annihilated. Big surprise.
Mea culpa.
Napoleon, then. I don’t think he ever killed anyone, personally. If not, then Lincoln, FDR, LBG or GWB.