Pacifism and other 'sissy' things

I don't think I do. I mean, I certainly don't think life is something that should be protected at all costs. But I hate struggles. Struggles are just an unfortunate fact of trying to stay alive and comfortable. At times, in struggles against other people, violence may become necessary. But in the end, it's impractical to wipe out everyone else, so in the long run people have to get along. I support maintaining peace when possible, and using violence when necessary, and I don't support martyrdom.

I think that if there's any sort of "attraction" to the drama of war, it's something we've developed the capacity for as an adaptation in order to cope with the necessity for violence. A necessary evil is easier to stomach when you can delude yourself into thinking it's good. But then, if most of humanity is capable of that delusion, then eventually you end up with people mistaking unnecessary violence for necessary or "good" violence and coming up with gobbledygook excuses to indulge their obsolete aggressive instincts.

Thread Hop.

Nothing wrong with pacifism. It's not a realistic position, when taken as a fast and hard philosophy, though...

edited 6th Sep '11 6:03:14 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

I see nonviolence as a large set of strategies, each of which can work in certain circumstances, be defeated in others, be played well and played badly. Violence is a different set of strategies.

Pacifism, on the other hand, seems a lot like the denial of a lot of strategies, namely the violent ones, in the hope that it unlocks and strengthens a bunch more in the nonviolence group.

If you're skilful and smart you may well manage it. If you're not, or if you consider pacifism an immutable, absolute, permanent and unchallengeable credo I think you're giving yourself too many weaknesses.

In response to the thread question: those weaknesses will always be exploitable, so you should always be prepared for the need to use violence, even if that means never being utterly, perfectly peaceful.

edited 6th Sep '11 3:22:07 PM by betaalpha

I suppose i could be considered a pacifist, as far as "prefering non-violent solutions" goes. I will resort to violence only in defence of myself or others.

Of course, this is just as much practical as idealistic, because I'm so physically weak I wouldn't win any fights that I started anyway.

edited 6th Sep '11 7:38:49 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

I am a pacifist.

Does it mean war is always wrong?

No.

But I believe in disarmament and in diplomacy rather than on military action. Military action being always a choice of last resort or of urgency.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

My thoughts on pacifism are best summed up in a line Scrye once said:

"Pacifism requires that other people share your philosophy. My philosophy prepares for when they DON'T."

If you've disarmed, how are you going to be capable of taking military action when it is needed?

edited 6th Sep '11 6:35:00 PM by edje

If everyone is disarmed, how does anybody carry out military actions?

Not everybody is disarmed, that's how...

I am now known as Flyboy.

You'd make a killing as a mercenary in that kind of world.

Switzerland is doing awefully well this days isnt it....

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Switzerland isn't pacifist.

I am now known as Flyboy.

^ Neutral, but not pacifist.

@Breadloaf

How are you going to disarm those who do not want to disarm, unless you use military action yourself?

It's a bunch of catch-22's, and the reason why it doesn't work.

EDIT: As for Switzerland, they are far from pacifist. A nation based in the mountains where there are assault rifles in every home and every citizen has military training? It's designed to become a guerilla warfare hellhole if anyone ever tried to invade. That's their emergency insurance policy, most militaries know this.

Their main insurance policy that has served them best is their neutral banking system, as every country capable of invading them has a piece of that pie, and is thus attacking some of their own interests(and the interests of other, very powerful people) if they attack Switzerland.

Not everybody can use the unique model that Switzerland has, but it suits them well.

edited 6th Sep '11 8:09:38 PM by Barkey

That's a bingo!

Switzerland could hand most non-First World countries their ass on silver platters—literally, since as I understand it their loaded to the high heavens. They're also ultra-badass. There's a reason the people who guard the goddamned Pope are called the Swiss Guard...

I am now known as Flyboy.

They are horribly inexperienced at actual battle. All the theory and training in the world means nothing if you don't have battlefield experience to back it up. (No battle plan survives contact with the enemy after all.) Switzerland hasn't been engaged in battle in many centuries. In the experience department, they're rustier than a 1920s Ford Model A sitting in an open-air scrapyard.

Most non-First World nations couldn't fight their way out of a brown paper bag, though, so

Edit: case-in-point - the Libyan Army's failtastic attempts to literally hit the broadside of British battleships. Well... destroyers (I think), but, same difference...

edited 6th Sep '11 8:13:59 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Pacifism is overly idealistic, since it assumes everyone else is going to play as nice as you, which is not the case. The world is not made of sunshine and rainbows; sometimes, a gun or an army is exactly what is needed to solve the problem at hand. The idea that countries will ever put an end to war is ludicrous. As long as there are two powerful forces with irreconcilable, conflicting interests, war will arise. As long as ideological justifications can be made for war, it will always continue. As long as practical, pragmatic reasons remain for waging war, war will be waged.

Expecting pacifism to solve problems is like expecting the police not to carry weapons and relying on criminals to be nice and come quietly. When that does not happen, you need to be able to enforce your values, otherwise they are nothing more than meaningless rhetoric.

@Tom: Beng inexperienced doesn't mean they're useless. The Canadian Corps weren't professional troops but kicked German ass.

edited 6th Sep '11 8:45:58 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

^ It does however mean their results will be much worse than a similar nation in a similar situation with experience. For example, a British tank company and a Swiss tank company. Who do you think is going to be the more effective in real battle? The more experienced Brits or the Swiss?

Considering the Brits hardly have too much experience recently anyways, dead even. Iraq and Afghanistan are insurgency wars, other then the first 3 weeks of Iraq.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Pretty much any hypothetical war you could come up with at this point, nobody is likely to have any experience with it.

In any case, I was thread hopping but I presume the disarmament discussion was about nations reducing their general war making capacities in broad strokes like the SALT agreements. If you're talking about militant groups, the less arms trade/production, the less they have. I'm not asking everyone to suddenly huck their m-16s into a fire right this instant, I'm talking about a gradual global disarmament movement.

Let me ask you this, that militant group you're talking about you want disarmed... where did they get those guns in the first place?

@USAF: Libya isn't a first world country.

@Erock: The Brits had Challenders in Iarq, and the Canadians have some Leopards in Astan right now.

"They are horribly inexperienced at actual battle."

No more than twenty-year-olds deployed in Iraq.

Tropetown, pacifism assumes nothing of the sort. What it does assume is that peaceful resistance will halt an escalation of violence, not that the other side will instantly reconsider their ways and surrender their weapons.

"Expecting pacifism to solve problems is like expecting the police not to carry weapons and relying on criminals to be nice and come quietly."

I understand the British police do not normally carry guns, and it works fine for them.

edited 6th Sep '11 10:18:51 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

The British police will still carry other weapons on them, or if not, the police department will still have access to weaponry in case a situation gets out of hand.

The assumption here is that the other side will not escalate: if they cannot break them through ordinary means, they will turn increasingly more brutal in their methods. The only time that peaceful resistance will work is if the government cares about how it looks to the world in that situation; in a government where this is not the case, expecting that nonviolence will automatically result in non escalation is, quite frankly, naive.

edited 6th Sep '11 10:30:42 PM by tropetown