02-26-2003, 10:34 PM
Hi,
Pacifists are not "more than willing" to let people fight and die in wars.
Really? Do a web search on "pacifist" and "conscientious objector". While not all conscientious objectors seem to be pacifists, nearly all pacifists seem to be conscientious objector. So, it seems the generality holds. Or did you not leave out the word "other" (as in "let *other* people") by accident. Because the reality has always been that the war the pacifists were trying to stop *did* come. And someone always had to fight in that war. And it usually wasn't the pacifists. They were either in a neutral country sipping aperitifs or back at headquarters fighting with a typewriter.
Given the slightest recourse, a pacifist is obliged to prevent war by any reasonable means.
Who gets to define "reasonable"? The extremist who sees everything he doesn't believe in as evil or the rational person who realizes that sometimes hard things must be done to achieve good objectives. How many extra deaths does it take to satisfy the pacifist?
that doesn't exactly leave a lot of room for maneuvering when two sets of people decide to punch holes in each other, or experiment with making people combust.
Right. And this is your deep analysis as to why wars happen? Because two groups of people wake up one morning and decide to fight? I expect more from you than that.
And, of course, how would you reconcile the thread topic with the idea that pacifists would rather other people take the bullets, when this is about people who are deliberately moving from safety to danger just to make a point?
I don't think this is at all the case. I think they believe that they can stop, or at least postpone the war. I believe they think that if the war comes, they'll be able to stay in places that are not going to be targeted. And I do, indeed, believe they are stupid. Stupid for not realizing that their lives mean no more than those of the Iraqi civilians already there. Stupidly arrogant for thinking, "We're Europeans. The USA will kill Iraqis, but we're too good to be harmed". Stupidly ignorant for thinking Saddam will not use them, as he has used his own people, as a shield for military installations. Stupidly confident in the fable of the "pin point" accuracy of modern weapons. Stupidly naive to think that if they survive the war, they will not face some form of punishment. Yes, I do indeed think they are stupid. Especially since there is no reason to target the Iraqi population, neither strategic nor tactical. So, all they are doing is putting their lives at risk and giving Saddam more shields to prevent something that the invading army is not trying to do in the first place. Yes, stupid. Very stupid.
But I think you're talking about cowards, not pacifists.
No. While I do think that many cowards are "pacifists", I do not think all pacifists are cowards. Many, when the time to prevent war was passed, picked the side they could support and supported it as best they could within their moral strictures.
--Pete
Pacifists are not "more than willing" to let people fight and die in wars.
Really? Do a web search on "pacifist" and "conscientious objector". While not all conscientious objectors seem to be pacifists, nearly all pacifists seem to be conscientious objector. So, it seems the generality holds. Or did you not leave out the word "other" (as in "let *other* people") by accident. Because the reality has always been that the war the pacifists were trying to stop *did* come. And someone always had to fight in that war. And it usually wasn't the pacifists. They were either in a neutral country sipping aperitifs or back at headquarters fighting with a typewriter.
Given the slightest recourse, a pacifist is obliged to prevent war by any reasonable means.
Who gets to define "reasonable"? The extremist who sees everything he doesn't believe in as evil or the rational person who realizes that sometimes hard things must be done to achieve good objectives. How many extra deaths does it take to satisfy the pacifist?
that doesn't exactly leave a lot of room for maneuvering when two sets of people decide to punch holes in each other, or experiment with making people combust.
Right. And this is your deep analysis as to why wars happen? Because two groups of people wake up one morning and decide to fight? I expect more from you than that.
And, of course, how would you reconcile the thread topic with the idea that pacifists would rather other people take the bullets, when this is about people who are deliberately moving from safety to danger just to make a point?
I don't think this is at all the case. I think they believe that they can stop, or at least postpone the war. I believe they think that if the war comes, they'll be able to stay in places that are not going to be targeted. And I do, indeed, believe they are stupid. Stupid for not realizing that their lives mean no more than those of the Iraqi civilians already there. Stupidly arrogant for thinking, "We're Europeans. The USA will kill Iraqis, but we're too good to be harmed". Stupidly ignorant for thinking Saddam will not use them, as he has used his own people, as a shield for military installations. Stupidly confident in the fable of the "pin point" accuracy of modern weapons. Stupidly naive to think that if they survive the war, they will not face some form of punishment. Yes, I do indeed think they are stupid. Especially since there is no reason to target the Iraqi population, neither strategic nor tactical. So, all they are doing is putting their lives at risk and giving Saddam more shields to prevent something that the invading army is not trying to do in the first place. Yes, stupid. Very stupid.
But I think you're talking about cowards, not pacifists.
No. While I do think that many cowards are "pacifists", I do not think all pacifists are cowards. Many, when the time to prevent war was passed, picked the side they could support and supported it as best they could within their moral strictures.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?