NationStates Jolt Archive

Liberalism as an ideology (rather than a political attitude) places a high priority on individual political and economic freedom. Adherents of a liberal ideology believe that politics should seek to create the maximum degree of liberty for all people, including free speech, the right of association, and other basic political rights. This goal requires a state with a low degree of autonomy, so that it can be easily controlled or checked by the public should it begin encroaching on individual rights. For liberals, the lower the ability of the state to intervene in the public's affairs, the greater the scope and promise of human activty and prospertiy. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The legtimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are inurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my procket nor breaks my leg.


This is a very old fashioned definition of Liberalism. Since Rawls, the meaning of the word has changed hugely. Hence why people of that schools call themselves 'classic liberals', rather than 'liberals'.

This is a very old fashioned definition of Liberalism. Since Rawls, the meaning of the word has changed hugely. Hence why people of that schools call themselves 'classic liberals', rather than 'liberals'.
I strongly disagree, as does my book which was written in 2007. . .

Also, it obviously depends where you where. In some countries liberals still mean classical liberals, while others they mean social-democrats. It just depends on the regional context. But in international-relations, that is the correct definition to use.
Oh, we're getting plastered if that ever happens.
Are you going to be travelling next school year at all?

Okay, that makes more sense to me now. I'm oriented again. Thanks.
Welcome. I'm actually really enjoying this thread. :)

I strongly disagree, as does my book which was written in 2007. . .


What book?


Also, it obviously depends where you where. In some countries liberals still mean classical liberals

Possibly.

But in international-relations, that is the correct definition to use.


International-relations is still not a specific enough, are you talking about trade? Because a liberal approach to trade is obviously a free trade (liberalisation of trade barriers, hence liberal), but that's very separate to the domestic economy.

Are you going to be travelling next school year at all?

Money and class load will heavily determine that answer. If I do, we'll talk.

To summarize, we brought 9-11 upon ourselves. Even the official government 9-11 investigative committee concluded that Bin Laden attacked us because we were intruding in the Middle East and especially building military bases in Saudi Arabia.

GWB should've done the right thing and closed down all our military bases on 9-12-01. Then the so called "War on Terror" would've ended with ~2,000 unfortunate American casualties, but no more would have to die and suffer.

I'm not saying what Bin Laden did was excusable, but that our policies have flushed and continue flushing billions of dollars and thousands of American and foreign lives down the toilet. We could've averted all this wasted lives and money and ended this mess the day after 9-11. Obama can still end it today.

Coward.

When you are attacked you don't roll over and submit. You fight.
I'm sure you'd advise rape victims and victims of all crimes to simply submit?

I can't believe someone actually just said that the United States of America should surrender. To fucking Osama bin Laden. I really cannot fucking believe it.

I can't believe someone actually just said that the United States of America should surrender. To fucking Osama bin Laden. I really cannot fucking believe it.

Why?

Not that I'm advocating that myself, but, from a philosophical point of view, wouldn't it be better to avoid conflict, and not have thousands dead and billions spent?

Not that I'm advocating that myself, but, from a philosophical point of view, wouldn't it be better to avoid conflict, and not have thousands dead and billions spent?

From a utilitarian perspective, specifiaclly surrendering to the Taliban edit: and Al Qaeda (so not counting the Iraq war), would set a dangerous precedent. That being that terrorism is an effective means to a political goal, for one thing.

Money and class load will heavily determine that answer. If I do, we'll talk.
Alright. It could be dangerously fun :p

What book?
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Essentials-of-Comparative-Politics/Patrick-ONeil/e/9780393928761/?itm=2

Good book, quite a broad class.



International-relations is still not a specific enough, are you talking about trade? Because a liberal approach to trade is obviously a free trade (liberalisation of trade barriers, hence liberal), but that's very separate to the domestic economy.
In trade and political economy, a Liberal would have the same approach; that of a limited role of government intervention and a greater freedom to do business outside of government regulation (or protectionism). A liberal would be just as likely to oppose, for example, government protecting the American auto-industry by bailing it out as he would oppose the government using protectionist policies against foreign car imports (from Japan for example) in an effort to protect the American auto-industry.

Why?

Not that I'm advocating that myself, but, from a philosophical point of view, wouldn't it be better to avoid conflict, and not have thousands dead and billions spent?

Not at the cost of all respect worldwide, self respect, and pride.

Coward.

When you are attacked you don't roll over and submit. You fight.
I'm sure you'd advise rape victims and victims of all crimes to simply submit?

I can't believe someone actually just said that the United States of America should surrender. To fucking Osama bin Laden. I really cannot fucking believe it.

I get the vague impression you spend a lot of your life in disbelieve. Mostly starting right around November 5th.

Not at the cost of all respect worldwide, self respect, and pride.

ah yes, pride. Worth more than tens of thousands of human lives.

Frankly, I see no reason why innocents should die so you can feel good about yourself.

ah yes, pride. Worth more than tens of thousands of human lives.

Frankly, I see no reason why innocents should die so you can feel good about yourself.



Then you should familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. The answer is there. Right next to the bit about how treaties the US signs arent really law.

Neo, what do you think the US should have done after 9/11?

Submit to the terrorists or fight?


And yes, pride. Pride in one's nation. Pride in the fact that we're the powerful nation in the history of the world, and will never submit to the likes of Osama bin Laden.

In trade and political economy, a Liberal would have the same approach; that of a limited role of government intervention and a greater freedom to do business outside of government regulation (or protectionism). A liberal would be just as likely to oppose, for example, government protecting the American auto-industry by bailing it out as he would oppose the government using protectionist policies against foreign car imports (from Japan for example) in an effort to protect the American auto-industry.

People rarely if ever in academia use the word liberal to describe a general international AND domestic economic ideology any more. It's conflicting, for instance, a liberal approach to economic redistribution is an egalitarian one, not minimal or no redistribution approach. A liberal approach to trade is free trade, the term 'liberal market' is simply not used. Economic liberalism describes basically what you call liberal, but as a matter of fact, a liberal may not support economic liberalism, but rather social liberalism which means a more regulated market in an economic sense. But whatever, I think the word liberal is too vague anyway.

Neo, what do you think the US should have done after 9/11?

Submit to the terrorists or fight?


And yes, pride. Pride in one's nation. Pride in the fact that we're the powerful nation in the history of the world, and will never submit to the likes of Osama bin Laden.

Not squandered the worlds good will, focused our attention on Afghanistan rather then botch that, stick to our nation's supposed principles, you know, stuff that wouldnt have basically given the terrorists their objective on a silver platter.

Neo, what do you think the US should have done after 9/11?

Submit to the terrorists or fight?


And yes, pride. Pride in one's nation. Pride in the fact that we're the powerful nation in the history of the world, and will never submit to the likes of Osama bin Laden.
Let's set aside the fact that you are conflating everything the US has done in the past 8 years with responding 9/11, which is just not true.

Just tell me this: What do you imagine would have happened if the US had not started two wars after 9/11?

People rarely if ever in academia use the word liberal to describe a general international AND domestic economic ideology any more. It's conflicting, for instance, a liberal approach to economic redistribution is an egalitarian one, not minimal or no redistribution approach. A liberal approach to trade is free trade, the term 'liberal market' is simply not used. Economic liberalism describes basically what you call liberal, but as a matter of fact, a liberal may not support economic liberalism, but rather social liberalism which means a more regulated market in an economic sense. But whatever, I think the word liberal is too vague anyway.
A Liberal approach to economic redistribution is that they would not support it. Simply becauses in North America social-democrats like to call themselves Liberals does not mean that in International Comparative Politics, it is correct to say. A Liberal approach to trade is free trade, but a North-American liberal would support more protectionism and be more.....less trusting, shall we say, of open markets and free-ballin' capitalism.

Not squandered the worlds good will, focused our attention on Afghanistan rather then botch that, stick to our nation's supposed principles, you know, stuff that wouldnt have basically given the terrorists their objective on a silver platter.
Don't forget the wonderful recruiting campaign we created for them, and all those safe havens and public support, none of which they had before...

Yeah, we sure showed them. :rolleyes:

Let's set aside the fact that you are conflating everything the US has done in the past 8 years with responding 9/11, which is just not true.

Just tell me this: What do you imagine would have happened if the US had not started two wars after 9/11?

What do you imagine would have happened if the US hadnt done what created these terrorists and brought 9/11 down on our own heads?

9/11 wouldnt have happened!

9/11 was a direct response to the US's "pride". And whats the proposed solution here? More pride of course!

Neo, what do you think the US should have done after 9/11?

Submit to the terrorists or fight?

Fight...whom?


And yes, pride. Pride in one's nation. Pride in the fact that we're the powerful nation in the history of the world, and will never submit to the likes of Osama bin Laden.

I will say once again, I see no reason why tens of thousands of innocent people should die so you can feel good about yourself.

Not squandered the worlds good will, focused our attention on Afghanistan rather then botch that, stick to our nation's supposed principles, you know, stuff that wouldnt have basically given the terrorists their objective on a silver platter.
So you still would have gone after Bin Laden though, not simply pulled out of the region and gave up like the poster Trollgard was quoting stated we should do.

What do you imagine would have happened if the US hadnt done what created these terrorists and brought 9/11 down on our own heads?

9/11 wouldnt have happened!

9/11 was a direct response to the US's "pride". And whats the proposed solution here? More pride of course!
Well, of course. You don't win a pissing contest if you stop pissing all over the place.

So you still would have gone after Bin Laden though, not simply pulled out of the region and gave up like the poster Trollgard was quoting stated we should do.

The poster in question's idea is just as unrealistic and just as dangerous, yes.

A Liberal approach to economic redistribution is that they would not support it.

Completely false, read John Rawls. I'm a UK European student studying economics (so not an American), and a liberal approach to redistribution has a specific definition pertaining to an egalitarian approach. Your approach has been clearly defined as a libertarian, the remaining approach to redistribution being utilitarian.

9/11 was a direct response to the US's "pride". And whats the proposed solution here? More pride of course!

A significant percentage of the American population still believe in Manifest Destiny after all, where everything they do, even if it's bombing your country to bits for self serving reasons, is good, and anything done in retaliation is bad.

If an Iraqi or Brazilian decides to take revenge for past US hostile actions on their soil by attacking US soil with high loss of life, you can bet that Trollgaard and those like him would still argue that they never were at fault.

What do you imagine would have happened if the US hadnt done what created these terrorists and brought 9/11 down on our own heads?

9/11 wouldnt have happened!

9/11 was a direct response to the US's "pride". And whats the proposed solution here? More pride of course!
9/11 was a response against American support of Israel, America's relationship with Saudi-Arabia and America's interventionism in the Middle East. But it was also a response by reactionary forces against cultural imperialism (real or perceived) into their region, bringing values and ideas that they deemed hostile into their 'homeland'. That's why they didn't just attack our military over there, they struck at things that represented what America stood for, in an ideological attack as well as a tactical strike.

Not squandered the worlds good will, focused our attention on Afghanistan rather then botch that, stick to our nation's supposed principles, you know, stuff that wouldnt have basically given the terrorists their objective on a silver platter.

Let's set aside the fact that you are conflating everything the US has done in the past 8 years with responding 9/11, which is just not true.

Just tell me this: What do you imagine would have happened if the US had not started two wars after 9/11?

What do you imagine would have happened if the US hadnt done what created these terrorists and brought 9/11 down on our own heads?

9/11 wouldnt have happened!

9/11 was a direct response to the US's "pride". And whats the proposed solution here? More pride of course!

Now, now, calm down. I was referring to Afghanistan.

Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11.

The US has chosen the path of a superpower. Thus, we act as other great powers have done: meddling in the affairs of others.
We are committed to this path. So we must act as one, by fighting Al Qaida, not submitting.

The US has chosen the path of a superpower. Thus, we act as other great powers have done: meddling in the affairs of others.

And somehow, somewhere, in your head you believe this to be a....good thing?

Completely false, read John Rawls. I'm a UK European student studying economics (so not an American), and a liberal approach to redistribution has a specific definition pertaining to an egalitarian approach. Your approach has been clearly defined as a libertarian, the remaining approach to redistribution being utilitarian.
No. The "liberal" approach you seem to be on about is what supporters of a 'social-democracy' political-economy pursue.

A significant percentage of the American population still believe in Manifest Destiny after all, where everything they do, even if it's bombing your country to bits for self serving reasons, is good, and anything done in retaliation is bad.

If an Iraqi or Brazilian decides to take revenge for past US hostile actions on their soil by attacking US soil with high loss of life, you can bet that Trollgaard and those like him would still argue that they never were at fault.

Hey now, I've stated in this forum that we are partly responsible for 9/11 because of interventionism.

So you can kindly be quiet.

(I can't think of any US actions Brazil...)

9/11 was a response against American support of Israel, America's relationship with Saudi-Arabia and America's interventionism in the Middle East. But it was also a response by reactionary forces against cultural imperialism (real or perceived) into their region, bringing values and ideas that they deemed hostile into their 'homeland'. That's why they didn't just attack our military over there, they struck at things that represented what America stood for, in an ideological attack as well as a tactical strike.

Well yes, I was simplifying it a bit. My point stands, however, that 9/11 was a response to exactly the kind of things that Trollgaard advocates.

And somehow, somewhere, in your head you believe this to be a....good thing?

I analyze discourse for a living, and I can't fathom how he would.

Love the response the stock market has to Obama's direction so far.

Looks like we're in a prolonged nosedive now.

Now, now, calm down. I was referring to Afghanistan.

Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11.
Okay, so what do you imagine would have happened if the US had not attacked Afghanistan? If we had taken the Ghandi road, instead?

The US has chosen the path of a superpower. Thus, we act as other great powers have done: meddling in the affairs of others.
We are committed to this path. So we must act as one, by fighting Al Qaida, not submitting.
No matter how committed we may be, I think we are nearing the end of that path, in practical terms.

Also, what if we had not been a superpower? Do you think we should have "submitted" to al qaeda then?

And how would taking any other path but war automatically add up to "submitting"? (See my question above.)

And somehow, somewhere, in your head you believe this to be a....good thing?
The Economist (which is not American and happens to be my bible) made this point about Obama's presidency and I couldn't agree more with it.

On foreign policy, President Obama's biggest challenge will be to convince the rest of the world that America's exporting of freedom, Liberalism and democracy is and will always be a good thing.

(I can't think of any US actions Brazil...)

Sponsoring coups?

I can't think of any US actions Brazil...

The darkest moment of our history, the coup of 1964.

Sponsoring coups?

I was too late, and I'm the Brazilian one.

Shame on me. :(

And somehow, somewhere, in your head you believe this to be a....good thing?

Being on top strikes me a good thing, yes.

Oh, and to your earlier question: fight bin Laden and Al Qaida, and their supporters.

Being on top strikes me a good thing, yes.

Yeah, that's your problem right there. Still convinced that means anything.

Being on top strikes me a good thing, yes.

Then I'll be glad to buy you a tape measure you can use in any bathroom stall, if that keeps your interventionist hands out of my country.

Love the response the stock market has to Obama's direction so far.

Looks like we're in a prolonged nosedive now.
Well, maybe. But negatives attitudes don't help, now do they?
No matter how committed we may be, I think we are nearing the end of that path, in practical terms.
I really don't think so. I think of the industrialized world, the American economy will be the first major one to recover . . . and, all in all, be less damaged than most of the rest.

No. The "liberal" approach you seem to be on about is what supporters of a 'social-democracy' political-economy pursue.

Look, words like 'liberal' never used to apply to redistribution because it would be meaningless. Then Rawls came along and theorised about how you could put liberal ideas of justice into practice with redistribution (btw, by redistribution, I mainly mean income redistribution, as in taxes, not Marxist property redistribution). That was the only time the word liberal was ever used to apply to a theory on income redistribution and has since been the standard term to describe that approach in economic circles. The other mainstream approaches were espoused by the likes of Bentham, and Nozick, hence the words utilitarian and libertarian being retroactively (I think) applied to go with liberal.

Look, words like 'liberal' never used to apply to redistribution because it would be meaningless. Then Rawls came along and theorised about how you could put liberal ideas of justice into practice with redistribution (btw, by redistribution, I mainly mean income redistribution, as in taxes, not Marxist property redistribution). That was the only time the word liberal was ever used to apply to a theory on income redistribution and has since been the standard term to describe that approach in economic circles. The other mainstream approaches were espoused by the likes of Bentham, and Nozick, hence the words utilitarian and libertarian being retroactively (I think) applied to go with liberal.
I know you meant income, not property.(Neither actual classical liberals nor social-liberals are in favor of property redistribution)


Dude, what you are describing is called a Social-Democracy.

Okay, so what do you imagine would have happened if the US had not attacked Afghanistan? If we had taken the Ghandi road, instead?


No matter how committed we may be, I think we are nearing the end of that path, in practical terms.

Also, what if we had not been a superpower? Do you think we should have "submitted" to al qaeda then?

And how would taking any other path but war automatically add up to "submitting"? (See my question above.)

If we had not attacked Afghanistan in response to 9/11 it would have made us appear weak before the world. We would lose face, and invite more attacks upon ourselves, and around the world as terrorists and nations would no longer fear reprisal for their actions.

I don't think we'll give up willingly. But hey, we'll know in 20 years.

I cannot see how any other response besides war would be appropriate towards 9/11. A better managed and conducted war, yes, but still war.

Sponsoring coups?

The darkest moment of our history, the coup of 1964.

I didn't know we intervened in Brazil.

South American history isn't my strongpoint.

Yeah, that's your problem right there. Still convinced that means anything.

What?

Then I'll be glad to buy you a tape measure you can use in any bathroom stall, if that keeps your interventionist hands out of my country.

Why would a need a tape measure in a bathroom stall??

The only reason I would possibly want to intervene in Brazil would be to stop the destruction of the rainforest. (or if they sponsored al qaida or something)
But that's neither here, nor there.

Dude, what you are describing is called a Social-Democracy.

That's a whole political theory that covers lots of things, not just redistribution. However, it still remains true that the only time the word liberal is applied to redistribution is with a Rawlsian approach.

Why would a need a tape measure in a bathroom stall??

To relieve your need to be superior.

To relieve your need to be superior.

You're just jealous because you're anti-American and you were incorrect about the Iraq war. :P

You're just jealous because you're anti-American and you were incorrect about the Iraq war. :P

:p!

To relieve your need to be superior.

Ok...

I have no need to measure my junk.

Ok...

I have no need to measure my junk.

Try not to be too disappointed. :p

That's a whole political theory that covers lots of things, not just redistribution. However, it still remains true that the only time the word liberal is applied to redistribution is with a Rawlsian approach.
Ok, let's just agree to disagree.

This is going nowhere fast.

We are racing to the finish line in circles.

We are having a swimoff in a Swim-In-Place lap-pool.

Ok, let's just agree to disagree.

This is going nowhere fast.

We are racing to the finish line in circles.

We are having a swimoff in a Swim-In-Place lap-pool.

Alright, but I might make another thread discussing this sort of thing.

Being on top strikes me a good thing, yes.


So let's see if I have this right. You say that America is partly responsible, yet at the same time, think that continuing to do the things that make it responsible for the backlash is a good thing.

So let's see if I have this right. You say that America is partly responsible, yet at the same time, think that continuing to do the things that make it responsible for the backlash is a good thing.

See also: "Tape measure".

So let's see if I have this right. You say that America is partly responsible, yet at the same time, think that continuing to do the things that make it responsible for the backlash is a good thing.

Seems logical to me. Ignoring history got us into this, ignoring history is gonna get us out of it... or something.

I don't get it.

They're most likely enemy combatants, which means they were most likely trying to kill our troops.

No rights for them, they're just POWs.

Seems logical to me. Ignoring history got us into this, ignoring history is gonna get us out of it... or something.

I wonder how many people have to die for that mentality to die.

No rights for them, they're just POWs.

Except, there is this whole treaty about the rights they have.

I don't get it.

They're most likely enemy combatants, which means they were most likely trying to kill our troops.

No rights for them, they're just POWs.

Indeed, you don't get it.

No rights for them, they're just POWs.

You realise those two things actually contradict?

You realise those two things actually contradict?

Shh. Let's see how long it takes.

I wonder how many people have to die for that mentality to die.

Given that the people who USE that logic... aren't the people who end up bleeding in the sand... it's likely we're stuck with it.

The US, as a sovereign nation, chooses to sign certain treaties and not sign other treaties as matters of international relations. It is not, however, bound by any of them.

Actually, according to the US Constitution, they are. Under law, all treaties once signed become law. We are absolutely bound to uphold our treaties as a matter of law. Bush sure as hell knew that.

So let's see if I have this right. You say that America is partly responsible, yet at the same time, think that continuing to do the things that make it responsible for the backlash is a good thing.

Is it really that hard to understand?

The US is on top. Thus, it acts in ways that other powers have acted in the past.

There are always challengers and those trying to damage the power on top.

Those challenges must be faced and dealt with.

The fact that there are challenges does not deny that fact that being on top is good.

Is it really that hard to understand?

The US is on top. Thus, it acts in ways that other powers have acted in the past.

There are always challengers and those trying to damage the power on top.

Those challenges must be faced and dealt with.

The fact that there are challenges does not deny that fact that being on top is good.

You seem to be implying that we should 'learn the lesson of history' - in that the world's superpowers have historically acted in a certain fashion.

And yet you seem to be suggesting that we should ignore the fact that the world's superpowers have historically been brought low by that behaviour.

Is it really that hard to understand?

The US is on top. Thus, it acts in ways that other powers have acted in the past.

There are always challengers and those trying to damage the power on top.

Those challenges must be faced and dealt with.

The fact that there are challenges does not deny that fact that being on top is good.

It's rather clear you're not understanding. The US is on top precisely because it has acted in the way that other powers have acted in the past. They toppled democratically elected governments and replaced them with dictatorships that would support them. They supported tyrants in power plays to balance against ideological enemies. They invaded countries when those countries wouldn't be lapdogs to them.

All of this creates resentment and outright hate. And that hate comes back to bite you in the ass when people have had enough. You admit to this.

And yet you think it's a good thing.

So there we have it. You're like the murderer who admits to murder, but argues that it's good because you get to steal your victims possessions and then get offended when your victims resist, justifying even more vicious acts.

You seem to be implying that we should 'learn the lesson of history' - in that the world's superpowers have historically acted in a certain fashion.

And yet you seem to be suggesting that we should ignore the fact that the world's superpowers have historically been brought low by that behaviour.

We can do it better, certainly, as we are doing a half-assed job of it.

We need to be more selective of where we intervene, have more careful planning when we intervene, and be more aggressive and more ruthless when we do intervene.

Or, we could cut as many ties to the rest of the world as possible live as we want.
Though I our economy seems to rely on the strength of our military and being able to intervene around the world to make things better for us. I think it would take a massive restructuring of society, our mindset, and our economy to fade into insignificance.

Realists believe that intl relations is a zero-sum game. Even someone who just took their intro to intl relations midterm would know that. In contrast, liberals believe its a positive-sum game.

Dude, this is why you're getting called on just having scratched the surface of IR.

1. Realism is far more nuanced than your summary gives credit to. This is why people can peg you as having only a passing knowledge of the subject from your posts.
2. You've obviously not heard of Liberal Realism. A tiny amount of research would certainly help your posts sound more educated.
3. Realism is meant to be the opposite of a deragotory name given to what WAS called Idealism/Liberalism after WWII. The problem with your statemenst is that was 60 years. Unsurpisingly, both schools of thought have evolved since then.
4. Realism banked on a level of cynicism claiming it was right because it was founded on a more "real" and more educated view of the world. Obviously, you do it a disservice by proving you don't have either.

It's rather clear you're not understanding. The US is on top precisely because it has acted in the way that other powers have acted in the past. They toppled democratically elected governments and replaced them with dictatorships that would support them. They supported tyrants in power plays to balance against ideological enemies. They invaded countries when those countries wouldn't be lapdogs to them.

All of this creates resentment and outright hate. And that hate comes back to bite you in the ass when people have had enough. You admit to this.

And yet you think it's a good thing.

So there we have it. You're like the murderer who admits to murder, but argues that it's good because you get to steal your victims possessions and then get offended when your victims resist, justifying even more vicious acts.

Somewhat true, I guess.

I have things to ponder. I'll come back to this thread sometime tomorrow, as I have plans for tonight and most of tomorrow.

I have to admit however, this thread has rekindled old imperialistic and militaristic dreams of mine.

I imagine...glory.

Anyways.

Till tomorrow!

Somewhat true, I guess.

I have things to ponder. I'll come back to this thread sometime tomorrow, as I have plans for tonight and most of tomorrow.

I have to admit however, this thread has rekindled old imperialistic and militaristic dreams of mine.

I imagine...glory.

Anyways.

Till tomorrow!

. . . :p

You remind me of a younger me.

Though, I'm probably not much older than you unless you are really young.

I imagine...glory.

No, you won't.

. . . :p

You remind me of a younger me.

Though, I'm probably not much older than you unless you are really young.

It's always fun and games until you take a bullet in the gut and watch yourself bleed to death or be inside an APC when an RPG comes knocking and if you're unlucky, you'll stay alive long enough to roast alive.

It's always fun and games until you take a bullet in the gut and watch yourself bleed to death or be inside an APC when an RPG comes knocking and if you're unlucky, you'll stay alive long enough to roast alive.
That's why I've diverted my imperialistic ambitions to the Risk board. . .


. . . for now . . .

Well, maybe. But negatives attitudes don't help, now do they?

I really don't think so. I think of the industrialized world, the American economy will be the first major one to recover . . . and, all in all, be less damaged than most of the rest.
I hope you're right about that, of course, but that's not all I was thinking of. There are a lot of ways in which the world is changing around us, and I do not believe the US will be able to continue in the role of "superpower" as we are used to thinking of it for much longer. Nor should we, in my opinion. I don't think it will be as good for us in future as it was in the past to be the one's stuck out in front of the world. A leading power? Yes. A vitally important power? Yes. The world's superpower? I think we need to rethink that.

Love the response the stock market has to Obama's direction so far.

Looks like we're in a prolonged nosedive now.

You have to love how the right (or those pretending to be on it) define patriotism these days. Apparently, it was unpatriotic to be against the leadership of the US when you don't like what they're doing, but it's patriotic to be against not just the leadership of the US but also to enjoy every hardship the American people suffer under them, just because you didn't want them be in that position.

I never agreed that questioning the leadership of our country was unpatriotic, since it is, in fact, the first requirement given us by the founders, but I have to say it is pretty damn good evidence that you put politics before people and country, when you wish the collapse of the US just because your candidate sucked.

If we had not attacked Afghanistan in response to 9/11 it would have made us appear weak before the world. We would lose face, and invite more attacks upon ourselves, and around the world as terrorists and nations would no longer fear reprisal for their actions.

I don't think we'll give up willingly. But hey, we'll know in 20 years.
Do you really believe that we have not invited more attacks upon us by our actions since 9/11? Do you really believe the reason we have not been attacked again on our own soil (so far) is because of our attack on Afghanistan? Considering how badly we have bungled that military action, considering how badly overextended our forces are, considering how crippled our economy is, do you really think those who wish to be our enemies will deterred by this performance?

Do you really, seriously believe that the only or best reason to attack another nation is to "save face"? And now that we are stuck in Afghanistan with an under-manned, under-funded, under-equipped force who can do nothing but dig in and hope to survive until they can come home -- now that we are mired in the hellhole of that country, just like everyone else who has ever tried to conquer or defeat that territory in, oh, all of history, as we get potshots taken at us by every angry goat-jumper in the Khyber Pass -- tell me exactly how much face we are saving. Just what, exactly, is this going to do for our reputation?

I cannot see how any other response besides war would be appropriate towards 9/11. A better managed and conducted war, yes, but still war.

Do you have a reason for thinking that a pacifist response would not have been good, or do you just knee-jerk reject pacificism?

You have to love how the right (or those pretending to be on it) define patriotism these days. Apparently, it was unpatriotic to be against the leadership of the US when you don't like what they're doing, but it's patriotic to be against not just the leadership of the US but also to enjoy every hardship the American people suffer under them, just because you didn't want them be in that position.

I never agreed that questioning the leadership of our country was unpatriotic, since it is, in fact, the first requirement given us by the founders, but I have to say it is pretty damn good evidence that you put politics before people and country, when you wish the collapse of the US just because your candidate sucked.
But hypocrisy is FUN!

Jocabia is a downer who doesn't enjoy hypocrisy. :(

It is pretty amazing, though, isn't it, how some people can be that blatant in their double standards?

Jocabia is a downer who doesn't enjoy hypocrisy. :(How dare he!? :mad:

But hypocrisy is FUN!

Jocabia is a downer who doesn't enjoy hypocrisy. :(

It is pretty amazing, though, isn't it, how some people can be that blatant in their double standards?

Not just double standards. They aren't just disagreeing with the President. They're actively wishing the American people will suffer for electing him. It's quite different and a damn sight more Anti-American than what earned the term "Anti-American" for the last eight years.

How dare he!? :mad:

I'm quite good at pissing people off, apparently.

They're actively wishing the American people will suffer for electing him. It's quite different and a damn sight more Anti-American than what earned the term "Anti-American" for the last eight years.

*Voice cold with fury and hatred* Quite so, innit?

(Not directed at you, Jocabia, mind you)

*Voice cold with fury and hatred* Quite so, innit?

(Not directed at you, Jocabia, mind you)

Yeah, but you are Anti-American.

I'm quite good at pissing people off, apparently.Not me, man, not me. I may disagree with you here and there, but getting pissed off because somebody believes something isn't anything that I want to waste time doing.

Yeah, but you are Anti-American.

And you think you get invisible when you run around naked. :p

It's rather clear you're not understanding. The US is on top precisely because it has acted in the way that other powers have acted in the past. They toppled democratically elected governments and replaced them with dictatorships that would support them. They supported tyrants in power plays to balance against ideological enemies. They invaded countries when those countries wouldn't be lapdogs to them

True.


All of this creates resentment and outright hate. And that hate comes back to bite you in the ass when people have had enough. You admit to this.

And yet you think it's a good thing.


True. There is much room for improvement in our policies, however, if they respond with hate, the answer is clear. Fight fire with fire. Use more force. Break their spirits and will to fight back.


So there we have it. You're like the murderer who admits to murder, but argues that it's good because you get to steal your victims possessions and then get offended when your victims resist, justifying even more vicious acts.

Foreign relations are another beast entirely from individual relations.

Do you really believe that we have not invited more attacks upon us by our actions since 9/11? Do you really believe the reason we have not been attacked again on our own soil (so far) is because of our attack on Afghanistan? Considering how badly we have bungled that military action, considering how badly overextended our forces are, considering how crippled our economy is, do you really think those who wish to be our enemies will deterred by this performance?

As I said before, there is room for improvement in our policies, and Afghanistan should have been the main, and only theater of operations.


Do you really, seriously believe that the only or best reason to attack another nation is to "save face"? And now that we are stuck in Afghanistan with an under-manned, under-funded, under-equipped force who can do nothing but dig in and hope to survive until they can come home -- now that we are mired in the hellhole of that country, just like everyone else who has ever tried to conquer or defeat that territory in, oh, all of history, as we get potshots taken at us by every angry goat-jumper in the Khyber Pass -- tell me exactly how much face we are saving. Just what, exactly, is this going to do for our reputation?

Not only to save face. To show that we are ready and willing to use force to defend ourselves, and will take the fight to the enemy. And Afghanistan could and should have been better conducted.


Do you have a reason for thinking that a pacifist response would not have been good, or do you just knee-jerk reject pacificism?

Pacifism has always struck me as wrong. If someone hits you, you don't stand there and take it. You fight back.

On further thought, my thoughts on pacifism turned from thinking it was merely a naive and cowardly way out, to being revolted by it. Not being willing to defend yourself, or those you care about strikes me as morally reprehensible. This extends to the country level, as well.

True. There is much room for improvement in our policies, however, if they respond with hate, the answer is clear. Fight fire with fire. Use more force. Break their spirits and will to fight back.

So you fight fire with fire, never learn the lessons of why the fires broke out in the first place, and go back to dumping high octane fuel on them?


Foreign relations are another beast entirely from individual relations.

They aren't significantly different than individual relations on a family to family basis. It just happens to be that blowing up other families is generally frowned upon, but blowing up other countries is accompanied by cheers and flag waving.

They aren't significantly different than individual relations on a family to family basis. It just happens to be that blowing up other families is generally frowned upon

What if theyre brown, a different religion, or claiming their house is part of your manifest destiny?

<snip>

True. There is much room for improvement in our policies, however, if they respond with hate, the answer is clear. Fight fire with fire. Use more force. Break their spirits and will to fight back.

<snip>

As I said before, there is room for improvement in our policies, and Afghanistan should have been the main, and only theater of operations.


Not only to save face. To show that we are ready and willing to use force to defend ourselves, and will take the fight to the enemy. And Afghanistan could and should have been better conducted.


Pacifism has always struck me as wrong. If someone hits you, you don't stand there and take it. You fight back.

On further thought, my thoughts on pacifism turned from thinking it was merely a naive and cowardly way out, to being revolted by it. Not being willing to defend yourself, or those you care about strikes me as morally reprehensible. This extends to the country level, as well.
Your brave words would sound less ridiculous to me if we were not currently mired in a slow, bleeding pit of death and failure. If it were not the same bleeding pit of death and failure for us that it has been every single would-be conqueror of that region in the entirety of history.

Big balls do not win wars, Trollgard. Not even if they're made of brass and clang real loud.

I am not particularly a pacifist, but your denunciation of pacifism reveals a fundamentally ignorant and childish view of things. You simply are not looking at reality. Marry:

> Ghandi used pacifism and non-violence and won India's indendence from Great Britain.

> Martin Luther King Jr. used pacifism and non-violence and won equal rights for black Americans against enemies willing to commit murder and terrorism against the civil rights activists.

> The US used force in Vietnam and got ground into the dirt and forced to to beat a hasty and humiliating retreat from Saigon.

> The US used force in Korea and was fought to a standstill and left that country split in two and frozen in a perpetual state of suspended war.

> The US used force in Iraq and lost all of its reputation and standing in the world, while gaining nothing but a massive drain on our lives and treasure.

> The US used force in Afghanistan is now stuck there, with nothing to do but die. And is Osama bin Laden dead or in custody? No, quite the opposite. He is at large and his organization is thriving and plotting.

Your claim that pacifism is just a matter of not defending yourself is just plain false. Pacifism is actually a matter of winning by an alternative route. If you bothered to look at history and current events and really think about what you see there, you should be able to figure that out.

Oh, and while you're educating yourself about pacifism, you should try learning a bit about Afghanistan, and why it is not necessarily the obvious mismanagement of the Afghan war that has led to the current quagmire there. What is happening to the US in Afghanistan is exactly the same as happened to every single other foreign power that attempted to subdue that region. Exactly the same. You can clang your brass balls as loud as you want -- it won't change the fact that there has never been a muthafucka bad enough to break Afghanistan.

Your way is not bravery or saving face or the appropriate action of a superpower. What it is, is teenage-style bravado that ignores the facts of a situation.

it won't change the fact that there has never been a muthafucka bad enough to break Afghanistan.


Didnt Alexander the Great?:p

Didnt Alexander the Great?:p
No, actually, he never got that far. He got to the Swat Valley, talked a bit to the warlords and tribes further on, and even he, the baddest dude in history (arguably) said, "You know, Swat is a nice valley. We can hang here. We're good."

Seriously, Afghanistan is the worst neighborhood on the planet. Even Alexander the Great decided to stay out of it.

And every world dominator who came after him but wasn't as smart, proved Alexander's greatness by getting their asses WHUPPED really really badly, just like he would have if he had tried to take it on.

No, actually, he never got that far. He got to the Swat Valley, talked a bit to the warlords and tribes further on, and even he, the baddest dude in history (arguably) said, "You know, Swat is a nice valley. We can hang here. We're good."

Stupid pacifist.

Stupid pacifist.
:D yep.

:D yep.

My history focus tends to be Egypt, Rome, and the Middle Ages (especially the middle east). And I can tell you the Romans got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan too.

I think (?) the Mongols may have taken Afghanistan...

My history focus tends to be Egypt, Rome, and the Middle Ages (especially the middle east). And I can tell you the Romans got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan too.

I think (?) the Mongols may have taken Afghanistan...
Sort of but not really. As far as I understand it, the Mongols just passed through repeatedly, and dealt with the local tribes as they went along. But they never tried to hold that territory. The tribes don't really care who moves through their lands as long you don't stop moving and you don't mind them attacking your armies and caravans along the way a bit.

However, I do not know if the Mongols ever fought the Afghan tribes, or if they just made a mutually beneficial deal with them to keep the passes open on the few occasions they wanted to use them.

Sort of but not really. As far as I understand it, the Mongols just passed through repeatedly, and dealt with the local tribes as they went along. But they never tried to hold that territory. The tribes don't really care who moves through their lands as long you don't stop moving and you don't mind them attacking your armies and caravans along the way a bit.

However, I do not know if the Mongols ever fought the Afghan tribes, or if they just made a mutually beneficial deal with them to keep the passes open on the few occasions they wanted to use them.

From what I understand and know, it was basically tribal warfare, with the Mongols technically holding Afghanistan, but the Afghan tribes not really caring what the Mongols thought.

Fight fire with fire. Use more force. Break their spirits and will to fight back.
To the point of what? Eliminating the physical and mental capacity of non-Americans to react to fight back?

Because folks can be uppity about that sorta thing.

Pacifism has always struck me as wrong. If someone hits you, you don't stand there and take it. You fight back.

On further thought, my thoughts on pacifism turned from thinking it was merely a naive and cowardly way out, to being revolted by it. Not being willing to defend yourself, or those you care about strikes me as morally reprehensible. This extends to the country level, as well.
As has been noted, pacifism is quite different to how you've portrayed it. It's certainly not an unwillingness to defend others, and can achieve wonderful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperation_movement) things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solidarity).

I'd highly recommend Jonathan Schall's Unconquerable World and Gene Sharp's Waging Nonviolent Struggle as two great books which discuss pacifism in detail.

From what I understand and know, it was basically tribal warfare, with the Mongols technically holding Afghanistan, but the Afghan tribes not really caring what the Mongols thought.
Sounds about right.

Also sounds like current events. :D

Your brave words would sound less ridiculous to me if we were not currently mired in a slow, bleeding pit of death and failure. If it were not the same bleeding pit of death and failure for us that it has been every single would-be conqueror of that region in the entirety of history.

Big balls do not win wars, Trollgard. Not even if they're made of brass and clang real loud.

I am not particularly a pacifist, but your denunciation of pacifism reveals a fundamentally ignorant and childish view of things. You simply are not looking at reality. Marry:

> Ghandi used pacifism and non-violence and won India's indendence from Great Britain.

> Martin Luther King Jr. used pacifism and non-violence and won equal rights for black Americans against enemies willing to commit murder and terrorism against the civil rights activists.

> The US used force in Vietnam and got ground into the dirt and forced to to beat a hasty and humiliating retreat from Saigon.

> The US used force in Korea and was fought to a standstill and left that country split in two and frozen in a perpetual state of suspended war.

> The US used force in Iraq and lost all of its reputation and standing in the world, while gaining nothing but a massive drain on our lives and treasure.

> The US used force in Afghanistan is now stuck there, with nothing to do but die. And is Osama bin Laden dead or in custody? No, quite the opposite. He is at large and his organization is thriving and plotting.

Your claim that pacifism is just a matter of not defending yourself is just plain false. Pacifism is actually a matter of winning by an alternative route. If you bothered to look at history and current events and really think about what you see there, you should be able to figure that out.

Oh, and while you're educating yourself about pacifism, you should try learning a bit about Afghanistan, and why it is not necessarily the obvious mismanagement of the Afghan war that has led to the current quagmire there. What is happening to the US in Afghanistan is exactly the same as happened to every single other foreign power that attempted to subdue that region. Exactly the same. You can clang your brass balls as loud as you want -- it won't change the fact that there has never been a muthafucka bad enough to break Afghanistan.

Your way is not bravery or saving face or the appropriate action of a superpower. What it is, is teenage-style bravado that ignores the facts of a situation.

I didn't think we were trying to conquer Afghanistan, just root out the Taliban and al Qaida while creating an Afghan government that can fend for itself. (though history says that may be an impossible task)



The US did not lose Vietnam militarily. We lost it because we lost our stomach for it, and we didn't go on the offensive and invade North Vietnam.

We stopped in Korea because we didn't want to risk getting involved in a larger war with China and the Soviet Union.

I'm not going to buy any books about Pacifism. One, there are other things I want and need to buy. And two, I have no interest in pacifism, I'm not a pacifist, and have no desire to waste time on pacifism.

I'll read an article here or there about it online in the next few days, but there's no way I'm sitting down and reading an entire book on the subject.

To the point of what? Eliminating the physical and mental capacity of non-Americans to react to fight back?

Because folks can be uppity about that sorta thing.


As has been noted, pacifism is quite different to how you've portrayed it. It's certainly not an unwillingness to defend others, and can achieve wonderful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperation_movement) things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solidarity).

I'd highly recommend Jonathan Schall's Unconquerable World and Gene Sharp's Waging Nonviolent Struggle as two great books which discuss pacifism in detail.

As I said, I'm not reading an entire book about Pacifism.

I thought Pacifism was not being willing to use force to defend yourself, or anything, really.

How is this wrong? What is Pacifism is this is incorrect?

As I said, I'm not reading an entire book about Pacifism.

I thought Pacifism was not being willing to use force to defend yourself, or anything, really.

How is this wrong? What is Pacifism is this is incorrect?

I'll summarize your post for those who don't want to read the longer versions...

"I don't want to educate myself on a subject I've repeatedly chosen to address because it's a waste of my time. That won't stop me from continuing to blather about it anyway."

That about right?

I'll summarize your post for those who don't want to read the longer versions...

"I don't want to educate myself on a subject I've repeatedly chosen to address because it's a waste of my time. That won't stop me from continuing to blather about it anyway."

That about right?

No.

The gist was that I wasn't going to read to heavily into it. I'll do some light reading on the net, but that's about it.

Thanks for trying though.

No.

The gist was that I wasn't going to read to heavily into it. I'll do some light reading on the net, but that's about it.

Thanks for trying though.

And, of course, you've attempted to lambast the entire ideology, your admitted ignorance on the subject notwithstanding, and you'll obviously continue to do so. Don't you think your unwillingness to actually educate yourself on the subject should play into your willingness to talk about it?

I mean, you must realize that every good debator on this forum is going to quote you admitting you can't be arsed to do a reasonable amount of reading on the subject before going on about it. You've swept the legs out from under yourself.

It's admirably honest, but if you're being forthright about it, you should just admit you don't know what you're talking about and *gasp* stopping talking about it.

I do think I know what pacifism is. Maybe I don't know the ins and outs, the entire history of pacifism, and every nuance of it, but the main points I understand, and reject.

Pacifism, as defined at dictionary.com:
1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.

That is what I said I thought it was earlier. I disagree with that philosophy.

From wikipedia's article on pacifism:
"Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.."

So there are differing forms of pacifism, but it seems the general consensus is the rejection of using violence to settle disputes.

Now, how was what I defined pacifism as earlier wrong?

I do think I know what pacifism is. Maybe I don't know the ins and outs, the entire history of pacifism, and every nuance of it, but the main points I understand, and reject.

Pacifism, as defined at dictionary.com:
1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.

That is what I said I thought it was earlier. I disagree with that philosophy.

From wikipedia's article on pacifism:
"Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.."

So there are differing forms of pacifism, but it seems the general consensus is the rejection of using violence to settle disputes.

Now, how was what I defined pacifism as earlier wrong?

First of all, you proved earlier that you don't actually get the main points, since it's not about avoiding resistence or defense. What you said was..."I thought pacificism was being unwilling to use force to defend yourself." This, of course, is not true. It's an unwillingness to use military force. Economic, political, social, etc., forces are perfectly acceptable to use. That's why you're position is treated as both untenable and ignorant.

Second, you're talking about a complex philosophy you think you needn't actually learn the "ins and outs" of before condemning.

Don't be surprised when you get ridiculed for attempting to talk about a subject you've repeatedly admitted a great deal of ignorance about. More so, you admitted that you don't believe it's necessary to rectify that ignorance. People are going to quote this thread every time you bring it up until you demonstrate that you're educated enough to speak intelligently on the matter.

First of all, you proved earlier that you don't actually get the main points, since it's not about avoiding resistence or defense. What you said was..."I thought pacificism was being unwilling to use force to defend yourself." This, of course, is not true. It's an unwillingness to use military force. Economic, political, social, etc., forces are perfectly acceptable to use. That's why you're position is treated as both untenable and ignorant.

Second, you're talking about a complex philosophy you think you needn't actually learn the "ins and outs" of before condemning.

Don't be surprised when you get ridiculed for attempting to talk about a subject you've repeatedly admitted a great deal of ignorance about. More so, you admitted that you don't believe it's necessary to rectify that ignorance. People are going to quote this thread every time you bring it up until you demonstrate that you're educated enough to speak intelligently on the matter.

Well, first definition says 'opposition to force or violence of any kind'.
What do you say to that?

I say that there seem to be varied degrees of pacifism. With extreme pacifists being reprehensible, and mild pacifists being naive.

Being against force of any kind is reprehensible because
1. It means that people would not defend themselves or loved if attacked.
2. The condemnation of all force seems to equate all use of force as the same. So the the person who uses force to try and mug someone is on the same level as the person who uses force to defend themselves.

Being against the use of military force is less reprehensible, however.
1. It is naive. Nations wouldn't have survived or expanded without war. Every nation has had to fight to to survive. A pacifist nation would be swallowed by a nonpacifist nation.
2. Again, it seems to equate any use of force as the same.

The idea that force should only be used in defense, however, is a fine idea to have, though sometimes you need to go on the offense to make sure the enemy quits.

Those are my thoughts on pacifism as I have learned it.

The definition as I have learned it is the rejection of war and violence. That implies rejection of violence in self defense.

Reading the wiki article showed that there are differing levels of pacifism.
(I didn't know one could claim to be a pacifist if they thought using force in self defense or others was accepted. I admit that. I thought that was just common sense.)

Well, first definition says 'opposition to force or violence of any kind'.
What do you say to that?

I say, you're trying ignore one part of the sentence to focus on another in order to cover up a mistake due to your ignorance, frankly.

More importantly, the first definition says... opposition to WAR or violence, not FORCE or violence.

To quote you...

I do think I know what pacifism is. Maybe I don't know the ins and outs, the entire history of pacifism, and every nuance of it, but the main points I understand, and reject.

Pacifism, as defined at dictionary.com:
1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.

That is what I said I thought it was earlier. I disagree with that philosophy.

From wikipedia's article on pacifism:
"Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.."

So there are differing forms of pacifism, but it seems the general consensus is the rejection of using violence to settle disputes.

Now, how was what I defined pacifism as earlier wrong?

Literacy is your friend.

That said, I quote you admitting your ignorance "I don't know the ins and outs, the entire history of pacifism, and every nuance of it" and ask you to perhaps learn the ins and outs and perhaps a nuance or two before you attempt to delve into the subject and then you won't have to rely on a wiki page as the entirety of your familiarity with the subject.

I say, you're trying ignore one part of the sentence to focus on another in order to cover up a mistake due to your ignorance, frankly.

More importantly, the first definition says... opposition to WAR or violence, not FORCE or violence.

To quote you...



Literacy is your friend.

That said, I quote you admitting your ignorance "I don't know the ins and outs, the entire history of pacifism, and every nuance of it" and ask you to perhaps learn the ins and outs and perhaps a nuance or two before you attempt to delve into the subject and then you won't have to rely on a wiki page as the entirety of your familiarity with the subject.

WAR or VIOLENCE of ANY KIND

you forgot the second part. As war is the first one mentioned, it seems natural that pacifism is against war than other forms of violence, but the definition says war or violence of any kind...implying violence used in self defense.

Anyway, I have no reason to delve into a philosophy when the foundations of that philosophy are outright rejections of war and violence.

(the rejection of all violence seem to implied with the rejection of violence part in the definition...)

So, no. I don't know everything about pacifism. I know the main idea and disagree with it. And that's that.

So, one could say literacy is your friend- as you forgot the last parts of the definition (war or violence of any kind)

WAR or VIOLENCE of ANY KIND

you forgot the second part. As war is the first one mentioned, it seems natural that pacifism is against war than other forms of violence, but the definition says war or violence of any kind...implying violence used in self defense.

Anyway, I have no reason to delve into a philosophy when the foundations of that philosophy are outright rejections of war and violence.

(the rejection of all violence seem to implied with the rejection of violence part in the definition...)

So, no. I don't know everything about pacifism. I know the main idea and disagree with it. And that's that.

So, one could say literacy is your friend- as you forgot the last parts of the definition (war or violence of any kind)

War and violence does not address all kinds of force. Many, many kinds of force are entirely non-violent. Seriously, what is complicated about this? One can defend oneself without violence. This is the part you're not getting. Ghandi is an example. He not only defended himself, but the entirety of his nation.

War and violence does not address all kinds of force. Many, many kinds of force are entirely non-violent. Seriously, what is complicated about this? One can defend oneself without violence. This is the part you're not getting. Ghandi is an example. He not only defended himself, but the entirety of his nation.

Would Ghandi have been successful if he had tried the same thing when the British were at the height of their power instead of near their end?

Ghandi wasn't defending anything. Don't you know history?

There had never been a completely unified India before. There were a series of large empires and then lots of small kingdoms.

One cannot defend from an attacker without violent force. (I don't know about you but force implies violence, rightly or wrongly to me)

An attacker with the intent of doing violence won't care about someones nonviolent and pacifist beliefs. And those beliefs won't do shit to stop the attacker.

Would Ghandi have been successful if he had tried the same thing when the British were at the height of their power instead of near their end?

Ghandi wasn't defending anything. Don't you know history?

Uh, I think you don't know history or you don't know the meaning of self-defense. You seem to think the only threats are imminent violent threats. This simply isn't true.

The British were oppressing the Indians. Defending oneself and others from an oppressive regime, by definition, is mounting a defense.

Whether different tactics might have been necessary at another time does not negate that these tactics, pacifist tactics, were effective and efficient at that time in this case. You attempted to say that pacificists don't resist or defend themselves. You've demonstrated that the only way you can support that assertion is to ignore even the most basic understanding of what pacificists are.

There had never been a completely unified India before. There were a series of large empires and then lots of small kingdoms.

One cannot defend from an attacker without violent force. (I don't know about you but force implies violence, rightly or wrongly to me)

An attacker with the intent of doing violence won't care about someones nonviolent and pacifist beliefs. And those beliefs won't do shit to stop the attacker.

Force does not imply violence to those who understand the word properly. I realize that you want to look at very specific examples because otherwise your point is pretty much toast, but the you don't get to redefine the word "force". You also don't get to redefine "defense", nor "attacker".

There are dozens of examples. But how about just one. You're coming at me. You have every intent to attack and kill me. We're both inside a room with a single exit. I step out the exit and close and lock the door. Did I defend myself? I'm pretty sure everyone familiar with tactics would admit that places an barrier between oneself and an attacker is a very effective defense. Not only that, it's entirely non-violent.

Golly, it looks like pacifists can resist without violence, even mount a defense. It's almost like... hmmmm... it works at times. But then, you have read parts of a wikipedia article, so you're clearly the expert.

snip

I suppose the threats I'm talking about are violent threats. And in my mind, you meat a violent threat head on with violence in return. My mindset and pacifism are incompatible.

I also think words hold different connotations for us. Force, defense, attacker, etc all imply violence to me, but not to you. Why I do not know. Maybe its my mindset.

And your example is true, but...something. Misleading, I don't know. Seems like it just doesn't seem right. running away and shutting a door doesn't seem like defense. Just seems like running away.

It isn't a permanent solution. It would take force (violent force, I guess) to subdue the attacker.

And pacifists are so against violence how can they support the police? The police rely on force or the threat of force to enforce the law. So does the government in general.

I suppose the threats I'm talking about are violent threats.

Jocabia's example was a violent threat.


And in my mind, you meat a violent threat head on with violence in return. My mindset and pacifism are incompatible.

Your mindset isn't the boundary of concept, reality, or discourse. Mine isn't either, but Joc has shown several instances where violence or the threat thereof has, in time, turned away violence.


I also think words hold different connotations for us. Force, defense, attacker, etc all imply violence to me, but not to you. Why I do not know. Maybe its my mindset.

Well, if one mindset includes a broader grasp (including the many dictionary definitions and other common usages of those words that DON'T require violence) than another (which ignores all those other issues), then which mindset is closer to actual understanding?


And your example is true, but...something. Misleading, I don't know. Seems like it just doesn't seem right. running away and shutting a door doesn't seem like defense. Just seems like running away.

In a non-violent way that caused the attacker to fail. That's what defense is.


It isn't a permanent solution. It would take force (violent force, I guess) to subdue the attacker.

Right now, there are many people who would like to attack other people, and they are prevented from doing so by doors and locks. Its non-violent. If you have to use more, you do (I'm not personally a pacifist), but its still a valid defense.


And pacifists are so against violence how can they support the police? The police rely on force or the threat of force to enforce the law. So does the government in general.

That society as a whole hasn't found a practical way to have unilateral pacifism doesn't mean it hasn't, at some times with some people, be effective.

Right now, there are many people who would like to attack other people, and they are prevented from doing so by doors and locks.

And laws. Don't forget laws. Else a lot more people would be open season by now I suspect.

As I said, I'm not reading an entire book about Pacifism.
That's a shame. Gene Sharp in particular is an excellent writer, and one of the top theorists on pacifism; he's been called, rather tongue-in-cheek I suspect, the Machiavelli of nonviolent struggle. Wikipedia has a very brief summary of his views here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp#Sharp.27s_theory_of_nonviolent_resistance).

I say that there seem to be varied degrees of pacifism.
You're right on that account.

Following Sharp, and others, I think we can draw a distinction between passivity and pacifism; between those who wish to be completely passive and those who are willing to use nonviolent action. The way I think you've been characterising things, a complete unwillingness to defend oneself or others, is passivity. The way the vast majority of pacifists and pacifist thinkers would characterise their views, I think it's fair to say, is through the notion of nonviolent struggle; the idea that one can resist oppressive forces through noncooperation, civil disobedience, etc.

To quote from the article linked above:

“Sharp's key insight is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power... any power structure is based on the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). Therefore, if subjects do not obey, leaders have no power.

In Sharp's view all effective power structures have systems by which they encourage or extract obedience from their subjects. States have particularly complex systems for keeping subjects obedient... This is ultimately related to nonviolent resistance because it is supposed to provide subjects with a window of opportunity for effecting change within a state.”

The ideas laid down by Sharp and others are pragmatic and useful; indeed, they've been directly applied recently with great success to the revolutions in Georgia, Serbia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine.

And pacifists are so against violence how can they support the police? The police rely on force or the threat of force to enforce the law. So does the government in general.
Hence why many pacifists are anti-authoritarians, anarchists and the like.

CLARIFACTORY EDIT: Though I wouldn't want to characterise all pacifists as such.

Being against force of any kind is reprehensible because
1. It means that people would not defend themselves...
Why do you find this to be "reprehensible"?


And your example is true, but...something. Misleading, I don't know. Seems like it just doesn't seem right. running away and shutting a door doesn't seem like defense. Just seems like running away.
What's the problem with running away? If you get away from the mugger or whatever, it works wonders.

Also, see Norway anno 1904 as an example of a non-violent struggle for independence, achieved without the use of force or military means.

And pacifists are so against violence how can they support the police? The police rely on force or the threat of force to enforce the law. So does the government in general.
I would suspect your bewilderment here to be in connection with this:

So, no. I don't know everything about pacifism. I know the main idea and disagree with it. And that's that.

I suppose the threats I'm talking about are violent threats. And in my mind, you meat a violent threat head on with violence in return. My mindset and pacifism are incompatible.

I also think words hold different connotations for us. Force, defense, attacker, etc all imply violence to me, but not to you. Why I do not know. Maybe its my mindset.

And your example is true, but...something. Misleading, I don't know. Seems like it just doesn't seem right. running away and shutting a door doesn't seem like defense. Just seems like running away.

It isn't a permanent solution. It would take force (violent force, I guess) to subdue the attacker.

And pacifists are so against violence how can they support the police? The police rely on force or the threat of force to enforce the law. So does the government in general.

Let me tell you that you'd be a HORRIBLE leader of any kind based on this post. A leader that doesn't see fleeing as a valid defense is a poor leader indeed. Fleeing is a valid defensive tactic and unsurprisingly it contains a great deal less risk than standing and fighting, particularly when a direct battle is not likely to be won.

I happen to not think that pacificist principles are a good solution to all problems, but I equally don't think that militaristic principles are the proper solution in all or even most situations. It's amusing you've spent an entire thread bitching that pacificists don't consider all valid options and then you demonstrate that you not only don't consider all valid options, but that you'd put yourself in harm's way because you don't view protecting yourself properly doesn't "seem right". Not end up in harm's way, but force yourself into harm's way when simply closing and locking a door would prevent any harm to your person.

Let me tell you that you'd be a HORRIBLE leader of any kind based on this post. A leader that doesn't see fleeing as a valid defense is a poor leader indeed. Fleeing is a valid defensive tactic and unsurprisingly it contains a great deal less risk than standing and fighting, particularly when a direct battle is not likely to be won.


It rather depends on your view. If you think Napoleon and Hitler were great leaders, as exemplified by their masterful endeavours against Russia, then you'll obviously frown upon tactics that DON'T involve charging at machine-gun nests.

If, on the other hand, you look at the sheer brilliance of marching men into a Russian winter, against partisan (and scorched-earth) resistance, and with insupportable supply... and you think "Wow, THAT was a clusterfuck, they'd have done better staying home"... well, then you'll probably see a more nuanced vision of leadership.

Thing is, what can be done to with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the areas bordering Pakistan, that doesn't involve militaristic methods?

It rather depends on your view. If you think Napoleon and Hitler were great leaders, as exemplified by their masterful endeavours against Russia, then you'll obviously frown upon tactics that DON'T involve charging at machine-gun nests.

If, on the other hand, you look at the sheer brilliance of marching men into a Russian winter, against partisan (and scorched-earth) resistance, and with insupportable supply... and you think "Wow, THAT was a clusterfuck, they'd have done better staying home"... well, then you'll probably see a more nuanced vision of leadership.

His discription is more like, I'm not gonna hide behind this tree because that just seems wrong. So instead I'm going to stand out in the middle of a field with bright red on while people fire guns on me cuz I don't want to seem like a pussy.

Let me tell you that you'd be a HORRIBLE leader of any kind based on this post. A leader that doesn't see fleeing as a valid defense is a poor leader indeed.

Isn't the famous picture of Washington on a boat a point where the revolutionaries slipped under the nose of the British, basically a crucial point where if they hadn't successfully fled, the revolution would have been over?

As another example, in 1066, the Normans tricked Harold by pretending to flee, meaning Harold's army ran down the hill to chase thus losing their high ground.

Fleeing is often very good strategy.

So instead I'm going to stand out in the middle of a field with bright red on while people fire guns on me cuz I don't want to seem like a pussy.
It worked a treat for the British Empire...

(For a bit.)

Thing is, what can be done to with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the areas bordering Pakistan, that doesn't involve militaristic methods?

Well, for one thing, we could perhaps stop oppressing Muslims and completely ignoring the idea that innocent people have rights and making it increasingly difficult for them to find people motivated enough to join their cause.

I won't justify the behavior of terrorists, but I certainly won't ignore that we've spent 8 years ensuring there will not shortage of people who would like nothing more than to see America destroyed. Reversing that trend would be a wonderful nonmilitaristic way to bring about their ultimate failure.

It worked a treat for the British Empire...

(For a bit.)

For the empire but not for the soldiers who died for no good reason other than some goofy and disturbing idea of honor.

That's a shame. Gene Sharp in particular is an excellent writer, and one of the top theorists on pacifism; he's been called, rather tongue-in-cheek I suspect, the Machiavelli of nonviolent struggle. Wikipedia has a very brief summary of his views here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp#Sharp.27s_theory_of_nonviolent_resistance).


You're right on that account.

Following Sharp, and others, I think we can draw a distinction between passivity and pacifism; between those who wish to be completely passive and those who are willing to use nonviolent action. The way I think you've been characterising things, a complete unwillingness to defend oneself or others, is passivity. The way the vast majority of pacifists and pacifist thinkers would characterise their views, I think it's fair to say, is through the notion of nonviolent struggle; the idea that one can resist oppressive forces through noncooperation, civil disobedience, etc.

To quote from the article linked above:

“Sharp's key insight is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power... any power structure is based on the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). Therefore, if subjects do not obey, leaders have no power.

In Sharp's view all effective power structures have systems by which they encourage or extract obedience from their subjects. States have particularly complex systems for keeping subjects obedient... This is ultimately related to nonviolent resistance because it is supposed to provide subjects with a window of opportunity for effecting change within a state.”

The ideas laid down by Sharp and others are pragmatic and useful; indeed, they've been directly applied recently with great success to the revolutions in Georgia, Serbia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine.


Hence why many pacifists are anti-authoritarians, anarchists and the like.

CLARIFACTORY EDIT: Though I wouldn't want to characterise all pacifists as such.

Thank you very much for your post, Chumbly. It was very informative.

I agree with you that I've been against the completely passive school/branch/whatever of pacifism.

I'll admit that nonviolent resistance can be effective, and may in some circumstances be more effective than violent resistance.

Why do you find this to be "reprehensible"?

What's the problem with running away? If you get away from the mugger or whatever, it works wonders.


I find that not defending yourself to be reprehensible because it goes against instinct, is a failure of responsibility, and forces somebody else to take up the responsibility to defend you.

Fleeing a confrontation can be a very valid option. Not in all cases however. My fight or flight response leans heavily towards fight, so I'm probably a little biased on the issue of staying or fleeing. I also don't share most people's seeming aversion to fights. I haven't been in one in years, though there have been several close calls. Confidence and intimidation are great ways win without even throwing a fight.

Let me tell you that you'd be a HORRIBLE leader of any kind based on this post. A leader that doesn't see fleeing as a valid defense is a poor leader indeed. Fleeing is a valid defensive tactic and unsurprisingly it contains a great deal less risk than standing and fighting, particularly when a direct battle is not likely to be won.

I happen to not think that pacificist principles are a good solution to all problems, but I equally don't think that militaristic principles are the proper solution in all or even most situations. It's amusing you've spent an entire thread bitching that pacificists don't consider all valid options and then you demonstrate that you not only don't consider all valid options, but that you'd put yourself in harm's way because you don't view protecting yourself properly doesn't "seem right". Not end up in harm's way, but force yourself into harm's way when simply closing and locking a door would prevent any harm to your person.

What I meant was that fleeing doesn't seem like a form of defense. There are times when fleeing is a valid option, and other times where its not- even if it means almost certain defeat.

I agree that pacifist principles/nonviolent methods are not right in every circumstance. I also agree that fighting is not always the right method.

Call me reckless, but I haven't backed down from a fight. The very fact that I stood my ground and acted with confidence won the fight without throwing a punch. In those instances I would have been perfectly will to fight if the other party hadn't backed down.

Well, for one thing, we could perhaps stop oppressing Muslims and completely ignoring the idea that innocent people have rights and making it increasingly difficult for them to find people motivated enough to join their cause.


Do you think that would be sufficient? To actually make them hate us a tiny bit less, you would probably need to do quite a lot, like withdraw any support of Israel, and break off ties with Saudi Arabia etc... Do you support this?

For the empire but not for the soldiers who died for no good reason other than some goofy and disturbing idea of honor.

Honor, glory, duty, and gold!

Do you think that would be sufficient? To actually make them hate us a tiny bit less, you would probably need to do quite a lot, like withdraw any support of Israel, and break off ties with Saudi Arabia etc... Do you support this?

Yes, I think it would be enough. Will they ever attempt to attack us? Sure. But I'm one of those crazy people that doesn't think that leaving a bloody trail so we won't ever be threatened is the best solution, particularly when it causes FAR, FAR more deaths than the potential attacks.

Terrorism is a threat. It will always be a threat. Foreign and domestic. It's not going to change. It won't change if we kill every Muslim on the planet. We can only attempt to behave in a way that doesn't encourage people to attempt our overthrow. Oddly enough, when you act like bullies and conquerors and throw other countries under the bus for political reasons or in the "Cold War" with Russia, the people who suffer under that oppression tend to want you to die. Americans were pretty violent towards Brits at one time. Is it because we're Barbarians? We were considered terrorists. And if GB had wanted to end that conflict without bloodshed, they could have and should have.

Yes, there are Muslims who would attack us for supporting Isreal, but there are far, far more who attack us because they view us, rightly, as a credible threat to them. Gitmo is probably the best recruiting tool terrorists could have ever hoped for. And going on a murderous rage isn't going to reverse the recruiting power of our actions.

What I meant was that fleeing doesn't seem like a form of defense. There are times when fleeing is a valid option, and other times where its not- even if it means almost certain defeat.

I agree that pacifist principles/nonviolent methods are not right in every circumstance. I also agree that fighting is not always the right method.

Call me reckless, but I haven't backed down from a fight. The very fact that I stood my ground and acted with confidence won the fight without throwing a punch. In those instances I would have been perfectly will to fight if the other party hadn't backed down.

Okay. You're reckless. And when you get your head kicked in when all you had to do was walk away and realize your manhood isn't wrapped up in whether or not you stupidly stick your chin out at every threat, don't expect anyone to feel bad for you.

I'm sure your family will feel better knowing that you were too stu... I mean, so manly that walking away wasn't an option.

Wisdom is an important part of efficient defense. Wise people recognize that many battles are won simply by not fighting them.

The very fact that I stood my ground and acted with confidence won the fight without throwing a punch.

Ah. A victory for pacifism, then?

Yes, I think it would be enough.

Is that also a yes to the 'do you support this' as well?


-snip-

But, if there is for instance another 9/11 type event, how would you respond, if at all?

Also, I am not only concerned about attacks against westerners. For instance, I feel that terrorist groups will focus attention against Israel if they stopped caring so much about the west. And I'm pretty sure they won't stop until Israel is gone, the creation of Israel is a large part of how groups like Al Qaeda came about in the first place. I do not believe groups like this should be able to exist in Afghanistan and terrorise other nations without any repercussions at all. That's why I'm not too uncomfortable with the invasion of Afghanistan, but that's not the only reason.

Is that also a yes to the 'do you support this' as well?



But, if there is for instance another 9/11 type event, how would you respond, if at all?

Also, I am not only concerned about attacks against westerners. For instance, I feel that terrorist groups will focus attention against Israel if they stopped caring so much about the west. And I'm pretty sure they won't stop until Israel is gone, the creation of Israel is a large part of how groups like Al Qaeda came about in the first place. I do not believe groups like this should be able to exist in Afghanistan and terrorise other nations without any repercussions at all. That's why I'm not too uncomfortable with the invasion of Afghanistan, but that's not the only reason.

I don't value certain lives over others. How many innocent people died in 9/11? How many in the Iraq war?

How I would respond is by addressing those responsible. I like a scalpal not a hatchet as a tool for dealing with tumors... and terrorists.

Ah. A victory for pacifism, then?

Err, no as I would have been more than willing to fight if the other party hadn't backed down.

Err, no as I would have been more than willing to fight if the other party hadn't backed down.

Fortunately, the other individual was wiser than you were. I hope that fortune holds out.

Fortunately, the other individual was wiser than you were. I hope that fortune holds out.

And why, pray tell, were the assholes at a concert who purposely knocked over my female coworkers wiser than me?

And why, pray tell, were the assholes at a concert who purposely knocked over my female coworkers wiser than me?

They were wise enough to walk away. By your own claim, that is not something you ever do. Having the wisdom to recognize when violating the law and risking harm to yourself, others and property isn't worth it is a good thing. Don't worry, most people acquire it if they live long enough. Patience.

They were wise enough to walk away. By your own claim, that is not something you ever do. Having the wisdom to recognize when violating the law and risking harm to yourself, others and property isn't worth it is a good thing. Don't worry, most people acquire it if they live long enough. Patience.

So you are defending assholes who deliberately knock over women at concerts.

And you are saying there is something wrong with me for being willing to fight because of the actions of said assholes.

Wow.

They were wise enough to walk away.

This is not a certainty. It is equally possible that they were intimidated by Trollgaard enough to walk away. You could argue that it is a small part of wisdom, but it has absolutely no guarantee that anything that they did was motivated by possible repercussions from lawbreaking.

In short, you give the accused too much credit without basis.

So you are defending assholes who deliberately knock over women at concerts.

And you are saying there is something wrong with me for being willing to fight because of the actions of said assholes.

Wow.

Uh, no, I'm not. I just recognize that violence doesn't solve problems like that and should be avoided.

There is something wrong with you not recognizing that fighting wouldn't have accomplished anything. There is something wrong with you for saying that walking away just doesn't seem right. Pretend like you were talking about ONLY this one incident all you like, but I'll state this categorically. The goal in self-defense and the defense of others is to ensure no one gets hurt if possible. You don't accomplish that goal by fighting, particularly when you're not experienced enough to recognize this basic principle of self-defense.

There is wisdom in walking away. They (if they exist) excercised it. You didn't. You admit you wouldn't have and don't think it's the right thing to do in any situation. I'm glad you think so. More power to you. However, fighting when you can avoid it is illegal. You risk your life, your liberty, the lives of others, damage to property, etc., when you fight. I'm not saying there is never a reason to fight. I'm saying you've admitted you don't have the wisdom to discern when that is.

So you are defending assholes who deliberately knock over women at concerts.

And you are saying there is something wrong with me for being willing to fight because of the actions of said assholes.

Wow.

It must be so comforting to live in such a simple world as yours, Trollgaard.

This is not a certainty. It is equally possible that they were intimidated by Trollgaard enough to walk away. You could argue that it is a small part of wisdom, but it has absolutely no guarantee that anything that they did was motivated by possible repercussions from lawbreaking.

In short, you give the accused too much credit without basis.

As you say, walking away when you find someone else intimidating is wise. Trollgard said he wouldn't have had the wisdom to do so and that he things walking or running away doesn't seem right.

Can you quote me saying that I believe they were doing it to avoid lawbreaking? I think what I said was something to the effect, it's wiser to avoid the potential injury to yourself and others, the possible run-in with the law and other potential consequences. Nothing I said implies they necessarily considered all of those consequences. One would be enough.

It must be so comforting to live in such a simple world as yours, Trollgaard.

Well, see, if some people show up and seeing him fighting and end up kicking his ass, he'll be comforted while in his hospital bed that he didn't walk away.

When he's under arrest for felonious assault, he'll feel better sitting on that cement bed because he didn't walk away like those pussy pacificists.

When he's paying for the table or door he busted, he'll feel better...

When he's limping for the rest of his life, he'll feel better...

When he's paying for the lawsuit he lost, he'll feel better...

When he's not able to work for certain companies, he'll be all warm on the inside because he didn't walk away.

Some people deserve to have their ass kicked. Some people deserve to have statues erected in their name. Until someone appoints Trollgard the sole decider of who deserves what, it's probably best if he not pretend he has that job.

Walking away when you find someone else intimidating is wise. Trollgard said he wouldn't have had the wisdom to do so and that he things walking or running away doesn't seem right.

I never said that lawbreaking was what motivated them. I listed several potential factors including injury to self. I didn't say which one motivated them at all. All I said was they were wise enough to walk away. Unless they didn't act of their own volition, that they walked away and that they were wise enough to do so is a fact.

Well then, let's take this a few steps further along. Supposing that there was no intimidation factor, without which, the accused continued to act in a manner which results in guaranteed harm to others, but none to themselves. Does that make Trollgaards actions wrong then?

Pacifism has its uses. But it is not, and never will be, the be all, and end all to all issues dealing with humans. Solutions where no one will be harmed, ever, do not always happen. Sometimes the reverse happens, where insisting on solutions where no one gets hurt only results in more people harmed than if other paths were chosen.

Well, see, if some people show up and seeing him fighting and end up kicking his ass, he'll be comforted while in his hospital bed that he didn't walk away.

When he's under arrest for felonious assault, he'll feel better sitting on that cement bed because he didn't walk away like those pussy pacificists.

When he's paying for the table or door he busted, he'll feel better...

When he's limping for the rest of his life, he'll feel better...

When he's paying for the lawsuit he lost, he'll feel better...

When he's not able to work for certain companies, he'll be all warm on the inside because he didn't walk away.

Some people deserve to have their ass kicked. Some people deserve to have statues erected in their name. Until someone appoints Trollgard the sole decider of who deserves what, it's probably best if he not pretend he has that job.

Mmm. Well-crafted. Ironic. Good delivery. A bit roundaboutish, though. It may be just me feeling laconic tonight. I dunno. I'm feeling a slight lack of the usual spark I have...

But, overall, I like.

Well then, let's take this a few steps further along. Supposing that there was no intimidation factor, without which, the accused continued to act in a manner which results in guaranteed harm to others, but none to themselves. Does that make Trollgaards actions wrong then?

Are you under the impression that I claimed that backing down is always the right thing to do? I didn't. What I said was that if avoiding the conflict altogther is an option it's wise to take it. Obviously, it was an option for the other gentlemen because they took it. Obviously, it was an option of Trollgard because no fight occurred. In this case.

Defense of others is not illegal. I didn't recommend he avoid defending others. I pointed out he's admitted he can't or won't treat situations differently when avoiding the violence is possible.

Pacifism has its uses. But it is not, and never will be, the be all, and end all to all issues dealing with humans. Solutions where no one will be harmed, ever, do not always happen. Sometimes the reverse happens, where insisting on solutions where no one gets hurt only results in more people harmed than if other paths were chosen.

Again, are you arguing with someone else? Your monitor broken? Your ability to actually read what was posted? Because in this, you're agreeing with me. Perhaps you should reply to the actual arguments I made before you look more silly.

I'm a former Marine who believes such service is honorable. I believe there are uses for violence and I'm quite adept at them. I'm actually used a specific example of a commander that is willing to employ direct violence or to use non-violent means to protect his troops and his country being the best of both worlds. Perhaps before you jump into an argument, you should, you know, find out what the two sides are arguing. Just a thought.

Let me tell you that you'd be a HORRIBLE leader of any kind based on this post. A leader that doesn't see fleeing as a valid defense is a poor leader indeed. Fleeing is a valid defensive tactic and unsurprisingly it contains a great deal less risk than standing and fighting, particularly when a direct battle is not likely to be won.

I happen to not think that pacificist principles are a good solution to all problems, but I equally don't think that militaristic principles are the proper solution in all or even most situations. It's amusing you've spent an entire thread bitching that pacificists don't consider all valid options and then you demonstrate that you not only don't consider all valid options, but that you'd put yourself in harm's way because you don't view protecting yourself properly as an option because it doesn't "seem right". Not ending up in harm's way, but force yourself into harm's way when simply closing and locking a door would prevent any harm to your person.

Since catching up with the conversation is to much to ask, here. I hope this helps you avoid such posts in the future.

Defense of others is not illegal. I didn't recommend he avoid defending others. I pointed out he's admitted he can't or won't treat situations differently when avoiding the violence is possible.

In the situation described above, violence was possible, and so was avoiding it. Apparently it was avoided. In Trollgaards defense, he did not initiate hostilities, but implied a retaliation of violence if it came to it. If this is how he treats future situations, can you say that he deliberately avoided non-violent approaches?


Again, are you arguing with someone else? Your monitor broken? Your ability to actually read what was posted? Because in this, you're agreeing with me.


Sometimes it is better to be certain, and sometimes I miss parts of a post with pertinent information.


Perhaps you should reply to the actual arguments I made before you look more silly.

This is NSG. People can't look any sillier on it.

In the situation described above, violence was possible, and so was avoiding it. Apparently it was avoided. In Trollgaards defense, he did not initiate hostilities, but implied a retaliation of violence if it came to it. If this is how he treats future situations, can you say that he deliberately avoided non-violent approaches?

He plainly said he was happy to fight. Not willing to do it if he had not choice. Happy to do it. And that he required them to back down. He said that explicitly. You're altering history.

Not only did he say that in this situation. I gave a hypothetical situation where someone was coming at me and I shut and locked a door to protect myself. He said that backing down doesn't feel right and that's not how it should be handled. Again, it would help you to actually read what you're responding to and not pretending like the first post you saw was the only post I saw.


Sometimes it is better to be certain, and sometimes I miss parts of a post with pertinent information.

And that's ALWAYS your fault. And you weren't being certain. You were challenging an argument I didn't make when a simple and reasonable effort and context would have prevented it.


This is NSG. People can't look any sillier on it.

Some can't. Some like tacos. Which group are you in?

He plainly said he was happy to fight. Not willing to do it if he had not choice. Happy to do it. And that he required them to back down. He said that explicitly. You're altering history.

Not only did he say that in this situation. I gave a hypothetical situation where someone was coming at me and I shut and locked a door to protect myself. He said that backing down doesn't feel right and that's not how it should be handled. Again, it would help you to actually read what you're responding to and not pretending like the first post you saw was the only post I saw.

I read both posts. Happy to fight, willingness to fight, not much of a difference the way I see it. Happy or willing to start one, that is a different story, and as best as I can gather, I've not seen Trollgaard make an argument here for initiating an offensive action on a personal level. Retaliatory, most certainly, but not initiating one.

Perhaps it's not much of a difference to you, but it's enough that there's some level of distinction here.

I won't claim it's pacifism, that would be silly, but it's not quite the other side either.


Some can't. Some like tacos. Which group are you in?

I prefer fried mushrooms actually.

I read both posts. Happy to fight, willingness to fight, not much of a difference the way I see it. Happy or willing to start one, that is a different story, and as best as I can gather, I've not seen Trollgaard make an argument here for initiating an offensive action on a personal level. Retaliatory, most certainly, but not initiating one.

Perhaps it's not much of a difference to you, but it's enough that there's some level of distinction here.

I won't claim it's pacifism, that would be silly, but it's not quite the other side either.

If you are able to avoid a fight and you didn't, you started a fight. It's not about who threw the first punch. It's not about who is more wrong. If you initiate violence or push someone else to initiate violence, you started a fight. It is absolutely the other side. This is a guy who is more worried about saving face than he is about protecting his actually face.

This was probably the hardest self-defense lesson for me. I was unwilling to back down once. Big dude. See, he thought he was protecting a girl too. He wasn't. But he thought he was. So he comes at me, I, uh, subdue him. No one gets hurt.

So far so good, right?

But someone pulls me off of him and I let them. And he gets up and swings again and I duck. He hits the guy holding me who does get hurt and his headphones (he was the soundman for the band) get broken. I offer to pay for half. He wants me arrested and to pay the full amount.

Now the band wants to fight. The bartender, a friend of the band throws me out with the intent of them jumping me outside. I'm prepared for it and try to just get a room at the attached hotel. The bartender gets pissed and becomes violent. I slip and hit my head. And because I was injured, I injured him. Bad.

So, now what? There is damaged property. There are several people injured, including me. I can't even remember what happened well enough to protect myself when speaking to the cops. I end up charged with a felony. How comforting do you think I found it that I didn't start it? I

could have walked away repeatedly, but I wasn't doing anything wrong and didn't want to. It's pretty obvious it would have been wise to leave. Not just in hindsight, but it even occurred to me and others at the time.

It doesn't matter who starts it. It doesn't matter if you really want to teach someone a lesson. Saving face doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not walking away is the safest option for all involved. Most times it is.

I prefer fried mushrooms actually.

Exactly my point.

If you are able to avoid a fight and you didn't, you started a fight. It's not about who threw the first punch. It's not about who is more wrong. If you initiate violence or push someone else to initiate violence, you started a fight. It is absolutely the other side.

That's an odd sort of reasoning. If you draw a line and tell them if they cross it, violence will follow, and they do so anyway, you started the fight by pushing them to it? I don't follow.

If you are able to avoid a fight and you didn't, you started a fight. It's not about who threw the first punch. It's not about who is more wrong. If you initiate violence or push someone else to initiate violence, you started a fight. It is absolutely the other side. This is a guy who is more worried about saving face than he is about protecting his actually face.

This was probably the hardest self-defense lesson for me. I was unwilling to back down once. Big dude. See, he thought he was protecting a girl too. He wasn't. But he thought he was. So he comes at me, I, uh, subdue him. No one gets hurt.

So far so good, right?

But someone pulls me off of him and I let them. And he gets up and swings again and I duck. He hits the guy holding me who does get hurt and his headphones (he was the soundman for the band) get broken. I offer to pay for half. He wants me arrested and to pay the full amount.

Now the band wants to fight. The bartender, a friend of the band throws me out with the intent of them jumping me outside. I'm prepared for it and try to just get a room at the attached hotel. The bartender gets pissed and becomes violent. I slip and hit my head. And because I was injured, I injured him. Bad.

So, now what? There is damaged property. There are several people injured, including me. I can't even remember what happened well enough to protect myself when speaking to the cops. I end up charged with a felony. How comforting do you think I found it that I didn't start it? I

could have walked away repeatedly, but I wasn't doing anything wrong and didn't want to. It's pretty obvious it would have been wise to leave. Not just in hindsight, but it even occurred to me and others at the time.

It doesn't matter who starts it. It doesn't matter if you really want to teach someone a lesson. Saving face doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not walking away is the safest option for all involved. Most times it is.



Exactly my point.

Sounds like the cops were assholes.

If someone throws a punch are you just supposed to take it? Run away and call the police?

That makes no sense.

Can people actually not retaliate legally if attacked? That seems to be fucked up.

How can you be responsible for a fight if you didn't throw the first punch?

Is all this your opinion, or defined by the law?

Your whole story makes no sense to me. It seems as if the cops couldn't get a clear picture of what happened and decided to charge the wrong person.

Sounds like the cops were assholes.

No, actually. Sounds like they were doing their job.

If someone throws a punch are you just supposed to take it? Run away and call the police?

If someone attacks me I am allowed to use force. If someone attacks me in a situation I escalated or could have easily avoided, it's more cloudy. I can't provoke or prod someone into attacking me and then kick the everloving shit out of them and get away with it.

Trust me, there was a time when I would happily have done this. I used to search out morons who thought fighting was manly and get them to "not back down". And when I got them to get in my face or to push me and then leveled 'em, I convinced myself it was okay because they started it. I was lying to myself and I was behaving in a rather pathetic manner.


That makes no sense.

Can people actually not retaliate legally if attacked? That seems to be fucked up.

Depends. You can use appropriate force. If you're as trained as I am, I'm expected to show that the force I used was not excessive.


How can you be responsible for a fight if you didn't throw the first punch?

You really think all they care about is who swung first? Seriously, what is this grade school?


Is all this your opinion, or defined by the law?

Your whole story makes no sense to me. It seems as if the cops couldn't get a clear picture of what happened and decided to charge the wrong person.
First, it doesn't matter if you're technically not guilty. I was not convicted, but in even the best scenario I would have spent the night in jail, two grand on a lawyer and a lot of time in court.

You have a legal responsibility to use force as a last resort. If it's shown that you and another guy were nose to nose and he finally pushed you and you punched him knocking him backwards and killing him, you're probably in a world of shit.

That's an odd sort of reasoning. If you draw a line and tell them if they cross it, violence will follow, and they do so anyway, you started the fight by pushing them to it? I don't follow.

Actually, yes. Unsurprisingly, in the adult world, things are more nuances than "but, but Johnny started it".

If you could have avoided the fight and you instead hastened it, then you are as culpable as the other people involved. If you, God forbid, killed someone in a fight, you better be damn certain it was clear that you were forced into self-defense. It is not self-defense to draw a line in a public place and say if you cross this line I'm going to kick your ass. In fact, I challenge you to find a case where a guy used that as his defense. Hell, it even sounds silly to ask you for an example.

Actually, yes. Unsurprisingly, in the adult world, things are more nuances than "but, but Johnny started it".

If you could have avoided the fight and you instead hastened it, then you are as culpable as the other people involved. If you, God forbid, killed someone in a fight, you better be damn certain it was clear that you were forced into self-defense.

Your definition of line drawn is a little narrower than mine I suspect. I'll elaborate below.


It is not self-defense to draw a line in a public place and say if you cross this line I'm going to kick your ass. In fact, I challenge you to find a case where a guy used that as his defense. Hell, it even sounds silly to ask you for an example.

I was speaking metaphorically when I said drawing a line. I didn't mean a physical line. You've already agreed that if someone attacks you, you're allowed to respond with force. Assault is a fairly well established line to cross for the initiation of force as a response. So is theft, although the degree of force allowed to apprehend the thief is lower.

And if we don't specify public places as the sole limitation, there are various countries with varying types of castle laws which allow for force in response to actually crossing a physical line.

All of the above mentioned allow some degree of retaliatory force that puts the fault on the one who "swung first" so to speak.

Your definition of line drawn is a little narrower than mine I suspect. I'll elaborate below.



I was speaking metaphorically when I said drawing a line. I didn't mean a physical line. You've already agreed that if someone attacks you, you're allowed to respond with force. Assault is a fairly well established line to cross for the initiation of force as a response. So is theft, although the degree of force allowed to apprehend the thief is lower.

And if we don't specify public places as the sole limitation, there are various countries with varying types of castle laws which allow for force in response to actually crossing a physical line.

All of the above mentioned allow some degree of retaliatory force that puts the fault on the one who "swung first" so to speak.

All of which doesn't address whether or not you're actually responsible for initiating the fight.

For example, what if I didn't swing first, but I acted in a way that made the other person think they were not going to get away from me without fighting? Am I responsible for the fight, then? What if I yelling and swearing and abusing this person till they flip? Am I responsible then?

See, it's not as simple as who threw the first punch. Reasonable people realize that the world is not black and white and it's not as simple as you started it or I started it. Sometimes we both started the fight because both of us caused it to happen through our actions and reactions.

All of which doesn't address whether or not you're actually responsible for initiating the fight.


All of the above mentioned allow some degree of retaliatory force that puts the fault on the one who "swung first" so to speak.

I had thought this made it rather clear.


For example, what if I didn't swing first, but I acted in a way that made the other person think they were not going to get away from me without fighting? Am I responsible for the fight, then? What if I yelling and swearing and abusing this person till they flip? Am I responsible then?


To use a rather odious example, Fred Phelps. Unless he or his brood initiate violence, any directed against him would be the fault of the ones who initiated it no matter what they said. It's been a rather clear cut case so far. Legally that is.

The only exception to this rule appears to be when there is reasonable expectation of imminent harm from the person doing the metaphorical yelling.

I had thought this made it rather clear.

No, you didn't. Not unless you're seriously so short-sighted to think that what is legal defines what is accurate. You are talking about criminal responsibility. I'm certain you're aware that things are a far sight more complicated than that.

Go ahead, say it. Tell me that you think that the law defines reality. That if the law says it works some way, then there is no need to discuss it because it's cut-and-dry. Because if it doesn't work that way, then you're spouting nonsense.

In fact, I'm certain you're aware that regardless of the way the law by it's nature assigns blame, it's actually possible to sue someone that would not be considered to have committed a crime.

To use a rather odious example, Fred Phelps. Unless he or his brood initiate violence, any directed against him would be the fault of the ones who initiated it no matter what they said. It's been a rather clear cut case so far. Legally that is.

The only exception to this rule appears to be when there is reasonable expectation of imminent harm from the person doing the metaphorical yelling.

Again, it's not as if the law defines reality. I know you want to keep this really narrow, but the law kind of has to treat fault that way to some degree. However, in practice, I assure you that if you provoked someone into attacking you and then killed them, you're fucked. It won't matter they threw the first punch.

In fact, self-defense isn't about how "started" it. And that doesn't necessarily define assault. It's about whether or not the force you used was necessary for your defense. If it wasn't, it's quite possible that both people can be charged with assault.

But, hey, again, let's not talk about what really happens, cuz that really kicks the crap out of your nonsense argument.

Let's hear your argument for that. Does it mean that both people punched at the same time when both people are charged with assault?

*snip*

At this point, it seems to me that you are arguing how fault lies from a philosophical standpoint rather than anything that operates by the rules currently in play.

Going by your personal experience as an example, you were charged with assault despite not having actually begun the violence. However, by your own admission, you were inebriated and incapable of providing an accurate testimony of the events when the police arrived. Furthermore, you admit that the available witnesses, the band and the bartender, were already biased against you.

Are you certain you are not misinterpreting how the rules are done due to a series of unfortunate events?

The rules of self defense differ on a country to country basis, but most do appear to set at least some level of proportionate force in the event that you are threatened, in which most cases, the one who threatens is the one who "started it".

For the empire but not for the soldiers who died for no good reason other than some goofy and disturbing idea of honor.
Oh, I quite agree.

Tongue firmly in cheek, good sir.

I have no love for the Taliban, but for any country's armed forces to remain in Afghanistan is folly. It is, quite simply a "lose/lose" situation.
And why keep that slimy puppet HKarzai in power. Afghanistan is rated on of the most corrupt nations in the world.

Did anyone else noticed how the Pakistani Government rolled over and handed one of their provinces to the Taliban (recognising the facts on the ground.)

Perhaps it would be better to arm the mujahadeen who are opposed to the Taliban and then get the hell out of there. As long as Western troops remain there, we are seen as the problem.

I didn't think we were trying to conquer Afghanistan, just root out the Taliban and al Qaida while creating an Afghan government that can fend for itself. (though history says that may be an impossible task)
Yeah, it does. So what part of doing it sounds like a good idea to you? What part of setting ourselves up for another humiliating failure sounds like it's going to save face and build our reputation as superpower badasses?

The US did not lose Vietnam militarily. We lost it because we lost our stomach for it, and we didn't go on the offensive and invade North Vietnam.
Equivocation and second-guessing history. Did we or did we not have to resort to an airlift evacuation of Saigon? Is or is not the enemy we fought against now in charge of that country?

We stopped in Korea because we didn't want to risk getting involved in a larger war with China and the Soviet Union.
More equivocation. Is there or is there not a DMZ between North and South Korea that is heavily armed and considered one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the world? Is there or is there not an isolated enemy regime in charge of North Korea that is a constant source of threat against its neighbors and, increasingly, against the US itself? Are we or are we not responsible for that?

I'm not going to buy any books about Pacifism. One, there are other things I want and need to buy. And two, I have no interest in pacifism, I'm not a pacifist, and have no desire to waste time on pacifism.

I'll read an article here or there about it online in the next few days, but there's no way I'm sitting down and reading an entire book on the subject.
Defending your right to argue from a position of ignorance? You don't know jack about pacifism and you're going to keep it that way...why? Because you like being an uninformed dickwaver?

If you enjoy being ignorant about pacifism that much, I have to say I don't have any faith that you know anything at all about war, either. I said your arguments sounded like a kid roaring over how far he can piss off a porch, and now I'm even more sure that that is the case.

And, of course, you've attempted to lambast the entire ideology, your admitted ignorance on the subject notwithstanding, and you'll obviously continue to do so. Don't you think your unwillingness to actually educate yourself on the subject should play into your willingness to talk about it?

I mean, you must realize that every good debator on this forum is going to quote you admitting you can't be arsed to do a reasonable amount of reading on the subject before going on about it. You've swept the legs out from under yourself.

It's admirably honest, but if you're being forthright about it, you should just admit you don't know what you're talking about and *gasp* stopping talking about it.
I've saved those posts of his, and I have every intention of quoting them as reason to dismiss all his arguments any time he mentions pacifism or otherwise persists in arguing about something he clearly knows nothing about, ever again.

War and violence does not address all kinds of force. Many, many kinds of force are entirely non-violent. Seriously, what is complicated about this? One can defend oneself without violence. This is the part you're not getting. Ghandi is an example. He not only defended himself, but the entirety of his nation.
Ghandi wasn't even doing a defensive action. He FORCED Great Britain to relinquish control of India, and he did it without using violence. Wow, look at that -- force but no violence. *watches Trollgard get confused*

Err, no as I would have been more than willing to fight if the other party hadn't backed down.
So, you'll never know how badly they might have injured you. They decided not to fight you. Since you never fought, you have no idea how weak or strong they were. You just love basing all your world view on stuff you do not know, don't you? A whole world of ignorance.

This is not a certainty. It is equally possible that they were intimidated by Trollgaard enough to walk away. You could argue that it is a small part of wisdom, but it has absolutely no guarantee that anything that they did was motivated by possible repercussions from lawbreaking.

In short, you give the accused too much credit without basis.
Actually, since the fight never occurred, no one will ever know who would have been the victor. The bullies, like most bullies, may have been more willing to push around someone who appeared weaker than them than to take on someone they were less sure of. But that does not mean they actually were weaker than Trollgard. If they had been more belligerent and taken his challenge, he could have ended up the one in the hospital, just as easily as not.

One could say that the bullies he waved his pecker at were in fact wiser, because they assessed a danger, saw too much uncertainty, and chose not to take the risk, whereas Trollgard was the foolish one for challenging strangers he knew nothing about.

Of course, the bullies were fools in the first place, because it is not guaranteed that a woman will be weaker than a man and thus an easy target for bullying, so the bullies would have been better served all round to have adopted the pacifist stance of not being belligerent at all.

At this point, it seems to me that you are arguing how fault lies from a philosophical standpoint rather than anything that operates by the rules currently in play.

Going by your personal experience as an example, you were charged with assault despite not having actually begun the violence. However, by your own admission, you were inebriated and incapable of providing an accurate testimony of the events when the police arrived. Furthermore, you admit that the available witnesses, the band and the bartender, were already biased against you.

Are you certain you are not misinterpreting how the rules are done due to a series of unfortunate events?

The rules of self defense differ on a country to country basis, but most do appear to set at least some level of proportionate force in the event that you are threatened, in which most cases, the one who threatens is the one who "started it".

Actually, under law, had I been able to give an accurate description of the events, he would have been charged as well. It would not have exonerated me.

I noticed you ignored my questions about that bit. Oftentimes when people get in a fight both parties are changed. Why? Because most of the time, neither part was in a position where fighting was their only option.

How I would respond is by addressing those responsible. I like a scalpal not a hatchet as a tool for dealing with tumors... and terrorists.

But what does that scalpel represent in real terms? Covert operations?

They were wise enough to walk away. By your own claim, that is not something you ever do.

You sure?


Fleeing a confrontation can be a very valid option....

...There are times when fleeing is a valid option...

.... I also agree that fighting is not always the right method.

I find that not defending yourself to be reprehensible because it goes against instinct, is a failure of responsibility, and forces somebody else to take up the responsibility to defend you.
Why does it force someone else to defend you?

And in a somewhat related vein, what's your feelings on Thích Quảng Đức (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c)?


Fleeing a confrontation can be a very valid option.
Indeed.

And why, pray tell, were the assholes at a concert who purposely knocked over my female coworkers wiser than me?

Someone got knocked over at a concert, and you were going to start a fight over it? Because people NEVER get knocked over at concerts, and it MUST have been deliberate violence...

Who was performing, "Dora the Explorer"?

How can you be responsible for a fight if you didn't throw the first punch?


We even have that rule in debate - we call it (here) flamebaiting. You flamebait, I flame - both are against the rules, and we should both be held accountable.

Provocation.

You sure?

Just because I say homosexual sex is a valid option doesn't mean I'll ever engage in it. Do you usually provide evidence to debunk a claim I didn't make? I said he said he never does it. I did not say he said it's not an option.

Provocation.

No, of course not. See, the law works the way it does on movies. You'll never be held accountable provided you get the other guy to let one fly first.

But what does that scalpel represent in real terms? Covert operations?

Attacking the actual culprits. GWB basically attacked everyone that looks like them. Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan. One great big giant hatchet.