NationStates Jolt Archive

Who wants peace more the pascifist that wants peace so bad that they will surrender to anyone or the one who sits behind his weapons in peace ready to defend his country, family, friends, religon, his way of life?

Wants peace more? I do not really think that either is more desirous of peace than than the other. Is more likely to get peace? For that I'll go with the armed defender.

Doesn't matter, I would say. It would depend on how it acts against the rest of the world.

Just a general question because most people seem to believe that freedom does not come with a price.

Freedom is never GIVEN to anyone....an unarmed people will never have freedom either...or peace. Someone will always come along and hit them over the head and take their stuff. It has been that way since people seperated into different groups.

beats me

as a nation, being prepared for war works best. making sure you have a strong military AND friends in the world, good relations with your close neighbors

but

having individual pacifists who are willing to lose everything in the cause of peace is a powerful reminder of the value of peace. they can shame us out of our worst militaristic tendencies, thus helping the global cause of peace.

Freedom is never GIVEN to anyone....an unarmed people will never have freedom either...or peace. Someone will always come along and hit them over the head and take their stuff. It has been that way since people seperated into different groups.
Such a pessimistic view. While I don't forsee it happening in the near future, I certainly hope that one day peace through pacifism will be possible.

Such a pessimistic view. While I don't forsee it happening in the near future, I certainly hope that one day peace through pacifism will be possible.

Really? Well, thats the way of human beings...there will always be someone who wants what someone else has and will try and take it if they can. So unless EVERY human being suddenly becomes a pacifist, I suggest your dream will be just that.

Really? Well, thats the way of human beings...there will always be someone who wants what someone else has and will try and take it if they can. So unless EVERY human being suddenly becomes a pacifist, I suggest your dream will be just that.Who said anything about suddenly changing the nature of man? While I agree that man is not at the point now where pacifism is viable, I do not believe that the nature of man is so set in stone that it will never be viable. Always is a long time, compare the difference in the life of men only 100,000 years ago with the life men today, the nature of man has changed in the past and there is no reason to believe it cannot in the future.

Who wants peace more the pascifist that wants peace so bad that they will surrender to anyone or the one who sits behind his weapons in peace ready to defend his country, family, friends, religon, his way of life?

You misunderstand the entire nature of pacifism.

Being a pacifist does not mean you roll over and play dead the second someone threatens you. It means that we have rejected violence as a means to rationally solve problems. There are other ways to fight than with arms and pacifism looks to those and nonviolent resistance.

So it's not a question of "who wants peace more" and that's a very perjorative attitude in the first place. The question is how do you feel is the best way to go about getting it. For me, the idea that you can have peace through war is contradictory, both in rational and religious terms.

What's so good about his 'country, family, friends, religon, his way of life' and so bad about the other guys. What if it's the same way of life. What if he hates his family. What if his religion forces him not to fight, wouldn't he be attacking his religion by 'defending''. What if he is wrong.

I believe there is a time to be passive, and a time to be aggressive.

The world needs balance. The pacifist and the soldier are both important.

Really? Well, thats the way of human beings...there will always be someone who wants what someone else has and will try and take it if they can. So unless EVERY human being suddenly becomes a pacifist, I suggest your dream will be just that.

And I suggest that is true because you let it be. You accept that this is the best humanity has to offer and are content with it while not expecting more. This is a mistake.

If we're going to claim to be advanced, claim to be more than particularly clever animals with lots of shiny toys, then we must act better than those animals. We must demand more of ourselves.

To simply say, "Well, that's the way it is, better get used to it," is to deny the very thing that separates humanity from other species: our ability to envisage a better future and then work towards that. Simply assuming status quo is the best of all possible worlds not only allows these types of actions to occur, but it is as good as condoning them.

And I suggest that is true because you let it be. You accept that this is the best humanity has to offer and are content with it while not expecting more. This is a mistake.

If we're going to claim to be advanced, claim to be more than particularly clever animals with lots of shiny toys, then we must act better than those animals. We must demand more of ourselves.

To simply say, "Well, that's the way it is, better get used to it," is to deny the very thing that separates humanity from other species: our ability to envisage a better future and then work towards that. Simply assuming status quo is the best of all possible worlds not only allows these types of actions to occur, but it is as good as condoning them.
better said than I could manage.

you mispelled question!

hey i noticed that too. ha ha. anybody watch gundam wing? that series totally deals with the whole pacifism thing. i found it quite enlightening. :gundge: and whats the deal with this emoticon? is he shaking fairy dust out of a bag or is he shooting a laser gun??? someone help.

hey i noticed that too. ha ha. anybody watch gundam wing? that series totally deals with the whole pacifism thing. i found it quite enlightening. :gundge: and whats the deal with this emoticon? is he shaking fairy dust out of a bag or is he shooting a laser gun??? someone help.

I always sort of assumed he was casting magic or throwing toxic waste on something.

If global problems of hunger, disease, and ignorance were solved so that people didn't have to compete for resources, war would quickly become a thing of the past. Who would attack their neighebor if they have everything they need? In the sort term we might end up with Holy wars, but with education this would becomea thing of the past as well. Until then however, it is necessary to defend oneself.

:gundge: -- I always thought he was shooting the Biorifle from Unreal Tournament

i think that in instances that peacful activism has been used as opposed to military force the outcome has been better. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi are just 2 examples of that. plus there's the old saying actions speak louder than words. and i think if you are trying to get world peace then it is better to start yourself than to use unpeaceful means to get to peace. then you will have regrets about your use of force.

You misunderstand the entire nature of pacifism.

Being a pacifist does not mean you roll over and play dead the second someone threatens you. It means that we have rejected violence as a means to rationally solve problems. There are other ways to fight than with arms and pacifism looks to those and nonviolent resistance.

So it's not a question of "who wants peace more" and that's a very perjorative attitude in the first place. The question is how do you feel is the best way to go about getting it. For me, the idea that you can have peace through war is contradictory, both in rational and religious terms.


Yes both I remember a part from Metallicas song Don't Tread on Me
To secure peace is to prepare for war. Or Karl Von Clauswitz, "War is an extension of politics by other means". An lastly a quote from Machevelli, "War can not be stopped only postponed to the benefit of others."

Who wants peace more the pascifist that wants peace so bad that they will surrender to anyone or the one who sits behind his weapons in peace ready to defend his country, family, friends, religon, his way of life?

Misrepresentation here: a pacifist will not just surrender to anyone - they will refuse to acknowledge their authority if the only reason they give for it is by threat of force. Did Gandhi 'surrender' to the British?

Yes both I remember a part from Metallicas song Don't Tread on Me
To secure peace is to prepare for war. Or Karl Von Clauswitz, "War is an extension of politics by other means". An lastly a quote from Machevelli, "War can not be stopped only postponed to the benefit of others."

I'm not sure what any of those quotes have to do with pacifism. And I'm not likely to choose to live my life by the wisdom of any of those individuals.

There can never truly be peace in the world.

Misrepresentation here: a pacifist will not just surrender to anyone - they will refuse to acknowledge their authority if the only reason they give for it is by threat of force. Did Gandhi 'surrender' to the British?

There ae different types of pascfism as there are different types of political views