Poll: Military action against Pakistan?
- Thread starter GracieRuth
- Start date
- MBTI
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 4w5
I hope this is true. I have a feeling humanity will be extinct (of our own doing) before this happens though.
invisible
On Holiday
- MBTI
- none
anything's possible!
Feelings
Banned
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- -
I think war is generally understood to be BAD now. However, sometimes the only way to fight force is with force.
invisible
On Holiday
- MBTI
- none
if war were understood to be generally bad, people wouldn't want to do it so much, and you wouldn't be offering up this tautological platitude on the inevitability and usefulness of violence as sophisticated philosophy. fighting is not a conflict resolution process, it is by definition conflict. it is a deliberate amplification of what is originally perceived to be the problem, and which perpetuates the small-minded illusions of difference on which it depends and is founded.
Feelings
Banned
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- -
I don't think your characterization of my position is fair, and your explanation does little to clarify why you feel that my arguments are tautological platitude.
To clarify, I don't think anybody WANTS war. While it may not be apparent to you, sometimes strategically, an attack is made for defensive or preemptive reasons. And, you can sit there and talk nicely to someone all day long, but if they're going to use violence against you regardless, you have no choice but to respond with force.
While your argument is valid, that sometimes violence is used unnecessarily, it does not refute my argument.
invisible
On Holiday
- MBTI
- none
the argument presented consists in 1. "we have to fight in order to fight". this is tautology, it provides no justification of any principle, just a repetition of the same self-evident idea. the other part of the argument is "there is no choice but to respond to force using force". this is a platitude, and blatantly untrue - there might be any other number of choices regarding what to do in order to address any given conflict situation.
attack is not defense, it is attack. to say that an attack is defensive is simply linguistic war propaganda, a way of distorting the reality of what is happening. it is no such thing as defense - it is an aggressive, violent action, an "attack". defense is in actuality something different - perhaps, the sheilding, or repulsion of attacks received. if i just came up with these two other choices, responding to violence with violence can't be the only choice. there have to be others - it can't be that simple.
i think the distinction you are drawing between wanting war and making war is artificial. if someone makes war, then obviously they intend to make war - they want to do it. saying "we don't want to make war" at the same time as making war - what is that, but mouthing empty words, a display of irresponsibility for actions? or perhaps one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing?
Feelings
Banned
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- -
I never said that. What specifically did I say that you interpreted as alluding to that?
Your selective quoting leads me to believe you didn't read what I wrote carefully. I said "you can sit there and talk nicely to someone all day long, but if they're going to use violence against you regardless, you have no choice but to respond with force." The notion of having "no choice" but to use force, is conditional upon someone else using violence against you, and them doing so REGARDLESS of diplomatic efforts to defuse the conflict. The notion of having "no choice" is conditional upon exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. It's conditional on DIPLOMACY NOT WORKING and someone else USING VIOLENCE.
The notion of attack as defense CAN be misleading, but that doesn't mean it ALWAYS is.
This is incorrect. If you know with a high degree of certainty that somebody is going to attack you, and that hitting them first will weaken or prevent their attack, your attack is clearly done for defensive purposes.
It isn't. It's only this simple because you're reading extremely selectively.
Someone says "I don't want to go to work today", but they go to work anyways. Clearly they were lying?
- MBTI
- Meh
- Enneagram
- Meh
Oh some people definitely do, especially those with something to gain ($$$$$$$) The goal is to make war profitable to these individuals. The idea is to have a winless war so that the war never ends. Terrorism is a perfect example of this. You cannot declare war on terrorism, or even terrorists, not in the conventional sense. The War on Terror has no achievable end, but as long as people keep thinking that we can wipe out terrorism (and that somehow these wars keep us safe) we'll keep fighting in winless wars for the profit of others.
GracieRuth
Permanent Fixture
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 7
There is always the chance that barbarians will ride over the hills to take your land, to kill you, to take your sons for slaves, and daughters to rape. If you do not defend your village, you have acted immorally, as one of your prime responsibilities is to protect the innocent. Pacifism is innately immoral, because it devalues life by saying it is not worth protecting. Pacifism is evil because it disarms good so that it cannot fight evil -- pacifism is basically the classic enabler of evil.
- MBTI
- Meh
- Enneagram
- Meh
There's a big difference between defense and aggression.
Feelings
Banned
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- -
I will concur that the phrase "War on Terror" does have a rhetorical ring to it. Traditionally, war is declared versus a country. I suppose it can be said that terrorists are a group of people, and that war is declared against that group of people. But, you could pretty much say that about anything that is opposed. "War on ____________", the term 'war' being used to justify more extreme acts. And it works too. I read somewhere about subliminal programming. An experiment was done, asking people for their opinions on what punishment was appropriate for certain crimes. When pictures of war, or words such as "patriot" were flashed across the screen, people opted for stronger punishments.
So who is war profitable for? Military suppliers, obviously (tanks and guns etc. etc.), but who else?
I do also have to add that just because war is profitable to some, and the phrase "War on Terror" has rhetorical insinuations, does NOT in and of itself show that military action is not justified.
Feelings
Banned
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- -
Slow down there, Gracie Ruth. A lotta strong statements on Pacifism. Let's Wiki it: "Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organisation of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others."
Sounds like the term "Pacifism" is a broad term that covers an array of views, all of which oppose violence, but the opposition varies in extent and circumstance. Obviously you're referring to the absolute non-violence version of Pacifism. I think that this form of Pacifism certainly has its contradictory conundrums, as sometimes non-violence enables perhaps worse violence. I think that is a widely accepted criticism of absolute non-violence, at least that's my impression reading through this wiki article on Pacifism
I do not agree with absolute non-violence either. However, I think it's overreaching to call absolute non-violence "evil", or to say that it devalues life as not worth protecting. I think that the idea is that violence is so abhorrent that one would be willing to submit themselves and others to violence instead of responding with violence. It's about the principle of the matter, and sending a message. Of course there are other moral principles that contradict with this, but that's the idea.
just me
Well-known member
- MBTI
- infj
quoted from OTL: "I do not agree with absolute non-violence either. However, I think it's overreaching to call absolute non-violence "evil", or to say that it devalues life as not worth protecting. I think that the idea is that violence is so abhorrent that one would be willing to submit themselves and others to violence instead of responding with violence. It's about the principle of the matter, and sending a message. Of course there are other moral principles that contradict with this, but that's the idea." unquote
You did agree non-violence in its extreme form is not good, I think. I agree, also.
Self-preservation for one's group of people, however large or small it might be, is most often in the hands of those with authority. Said authority could be rulers, elected officials, parents, leaders; it could even be majority. Life of those one might be responsible for should be of the utmost concern. Self-preservation by means of some form of force is something I do not personally view as "violence".
The Mongolians used to leave piles of human heads in towns they raped, pillaged, and burned. Not standing up to that sort of violence would, in my opinion, be evil toward those looking up to one for leadership. I can agree in extreme circumstances it could be understood as devaluing life. Even running away all the time is unfair to one's people and the generations to follow. In extreme circumstances, I do not find standing one's ground and fighting for what one has as being violent. The aggressors might think it as violence if I were calling the shots, but that is another subject. If I may use your same quote, it is kind of like sending a message.
Assad is threatening to attack civilian populations in at least three countries right now if anyone tries to mess with his ways of controlling the people. A pre-emptive attack against a man, not a country, that is threatening using missiles against cities filled with civilians seems like violence to some people. I think general understanding of pacifists would even call them anti-war for any reason, though that may not be the wiki definition.
I close my eyes and see a dead tree in a large group of trees. I think of it as a much better sight than all the trees being dead. The trees are important; some people have been known to strap themselves to them trying to protect them. When one stops trying to protect human life from one's own "forest", it becomes many things.
You did agree non-violence in its extreme form is not good, I think. I agree, also.
Self-preservation for one's group of people, however large or small it might be, is most often in the hands of those with authority. Said authority could be rulers, elected officials, parents, leaders; it could even be majority. Life of those one might be responsible for should be of the utmost concern. Self-preservation by means of some form of force is something I do not personally view as "violence".
The Mongolians used to leave piles of human heads in towns they raped, pillaged, and burned. Not standing up to that sort of violence would, in my opinion, be evil toward those looking up to one for leadership. I can agree in extreme circumstances it could be understood as devaluing life. Even running away all the time is unfair to one's people and the generations to follow. In extreme circumstances, I do not find standing one's ground and fighting for what one has as being violent. The aggressors might think it as violence if I were calling the shots, but that is another subject. If I may use your same quote, it is kind of like sending a message.
Assad is threatening to attack civilian populations in at least three countries right now if anyone tries to mess with his ways of controlling the people. A pre-emptive attack against a man, not a country, that is threatening using missiles against cities filled with civilians seems like violence to some people. I think general understanding of pacifists would even call them anti-war for any reason, though that may not be the wiki definition.
I close my eyes and see a dead tree in a large group of trees. I think of it as a much better sight than all the trees being dead. The trees are important; some people have been known to strap themselves to them trying to protect them. When one stops trying to protect human life from one's own "forest", it becomes many things.
Last edited:
subwayrider
Into the White
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 4w5
I vote no. What I would like is for the U.S. to introvert and start taking care of their own.
It's funny because, historically (before WWII), the US has been strongly isolationist. Now, it seems, we meddle in everyone's affairs.
subwayrider
Into the White
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 4w5
I can't really see it turning out any differently, though I would like to. Isn't it the very nature of life for it to feed on so-called lesser forms of life, thus exterminating it? It is nature's order. Big fish eats the little one; shark eats the big fish; human hunts the shark; rich country of humans exploits one not as powerful, and this is how we live.
GracieRuth
Permanent Fixture
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 7
Thank you!
OTL: I may be prone to seeing "pacifism" as the extreme "no violence ever" point of view because THAT is what got pushed on me as a kid. I also have a brother who is a highly active anarchist pacifist who I see causing all sorts of mayhem. The church my family attended (Evangelical Quaker) actually had a stained glass window with a representation of a Pioneer family praying while an Indian is preparing to kill them with his tomohawk. This was actually presented as the moral ideal, but all I could think was, "Why doesn't the Daddy do something to save his children?"
While I have the microphone, I also wanted to chip and say that Bush called it the "War on Terrorism" because he was afraid if he properly labeled it the "War on fascist imperialistic islamic extremists" that people would freak out and start discriminating against all muslims.
Last edited:
just me
Well-known member
- MBTI
- infj
quote "While I have the microphone, I also wanted to chip and say that Bush called it the "War on Terrorism" because he was afraid if he properly labeled it the "War on fascist imperialistic islamic extremists" that people would freak out and start discriminating against all muslims." unquote
Is that what you think? He pulled no punches naming the terrorist-sponsoring nations of the world.
That stained-glass window needs changing.
Is that what you think? He pulled no punches naming the terrorist-sponsoring nations of the world.
That stained-glass window needs changing.
Last edited:
