Pacifism...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-03-01 10:03pm

Captain_Cyran wrote:Here is a question. How many of you here are either A) going to be involved in this war, or B) Have family in the war.

I myself have a cousin who is an ensign in the infantry

I have a sister who *just* joined the Air Force a couple months ago. She's an Ammo Tech in the 159th Fighter Wing (I think)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /159fw.htm

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2003-03-01 10:07pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Captain_Cyran wrote:Here is a question. How many of you here are either A) going to be involved in this war, or B) Have family in the war.

I myself have a cousin who is an ensign in the infantry
I have a sister who *just* joined the Air Force a couple months ago. She's an Ammo Tech in the 159th Fighter Wing (I think)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /159fw.htm

Hmmm, yeah a friend of mines dad is in the Air Force and he just got activated as of today.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-03-01 10:11pm

Captain_Cyran wrote:Here is a question. How many of you here are either A) going to be involved in this war, or B) Have family in the war.

I myself have a cousin who is an ensign in the infantry

Lieutenants in the Infantry. Navy got the Ensigns, man. But no I don't have anyone going this around.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2003-03-01 10:26pm

Captain Lennox wrote:
Captain_Cyran wrote:Here is a question. How many of you here are either A) going to be involved in this war, or B) Have family in the war.

I myself have a cousin who is an ensign in the infantry
Lieutenants in the Infantry. Navy got the Ensigns, man. But no I don't have anyone going this around.

Well, something like that he's one of those people down their with only an automatic and he's no doubt he's going to be on front lines.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-03-02 10:37am

Mr Bean wrote:I thought it better to answear the question by providing abit of info, Utopia is not nessary for Pacifism

First off, other way around. Second, Utopia is subjective.

The problem with it as I've noted before is that the only time Passifism works is when no one relizes its is

[points to Gandhi] No one realized it was happening, eh?

Its within the human nature to drive and surive, to conquer and procrate and violence just happens to be one of the most often used tools to achive it

It's within human nature to survive - hence, pacifism, or, the lack of (or choice against) the will to fight. "Run away, live to fight another day" as the saying goes.

Post by **Zaia** » 2003-03-02 11:17am

I try to be a pacifist. It's a bit easier to have pacifistic thoughts when I have friends (yes, now it's plural--not just Rob anymore) overseas in Kuwait.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-02 12:07pm

First off, other way around. Second, Utopia is subjective.

First-Err you mean provided less infomation? and Second connceded

[points to Gandhi] No one realized it was happening, eh?

Eh? You looked an India Recently? It was not pacifism that worked it was bone head moves by the British in charge combined with Political Pressure from the rest of the War-Mongering Countries (

)

Second did Gandhi even succeded? How well off is India today?

It's within human nature to survive - hence, pacifism

Ummm, No, Human nature is to surive and expand get more land, have more children collect more shinny things, whatever it is, All of Man wants to do two things, 1. Die of Old Age, 2. Be much better off then your parents ever where

Pacifism unless without a perfect people will not achive this because, Not everyone can be Number 1, And everyone wants to be Number 1, Some might deny it, but the main goal of Humanity is to survive and THRIVE

"Run away, live to fight another day" as the saying goes.

But I though we were talking about Pacifism?

Besides as its been noted before, Man can not survive on bread alone, we must kill our food and you don't eat by runing away all the time

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-03-02 12:38pm

Mr Bean wrote:
First off, other way around. Second, Utopia is subjective.
First-Err you mean provided less infomation? and Second connceded

Huh? Never mind.. don't answer that.

[points to Gandhi] No one realized it was happening, eh?
Eh? You looked an India Recently? It was not pacifism that worked it was bone head moves by the British in charge combined with Political Pressure from the rest of the War-Mongering Countries ( )

So now non-violence is not considered pacifism. ALthough they don't completely coincide, non-violence can be looked at as a type of pacifism.

Second did Gandhi even succeded? How well off is India today?

To an extent; very poorly, but it's its own nation. I'm not stupid, Bean.

It's within human nature to survive - hence, pacifism
Ummm, No, Human nature is to surive and expand get more land, have more children collect more shinny things, whatever it is, All of Man wants to do two things, 1. Die of Old Age, 2. Be much better off then your parents ever where

BOTH are. You need to be pacific sometimes in order to survive - to know when to back off. Again, I am not stupid. Don't treat me like it.

Pacifism unless without a perfect people will not achive this because, Not everyone can be Number 1, And everyone wants to be Number 1, Some might deny it, but the main goal of Humanity is to survive and THRIVE

You're going into a Utopian concept.. I know that this will never be, but to make it as peaceful as possible is the goal of some humans (not myself). I don't see the point of this war, but I understand why other wars have happened. I don't see why the US is always intervening in everyone else's affairs, is what I am mainly getting at.

"Run away, live to fight another day" as the saying goes.
But I though we were talking about Pacifism? Besides as its been noted before, Man can not survive on bread alone, we must kill our food and you don't eat by runing away all the time

Man can gather veggies - been some really successful vegans in the past y'know. And you don't live by always fighting, Bean. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-03-02 12:58pm

As predicted by Einhander, Bean has turned this into a debate!
(Thread count bump)

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-03-02 01:20pm

I have good friends who where involved in the 1st gulf war. One of them had a baby who died to what he calls Gulf War Syndrome.

That being said i have applied to join the Terratorial Army on the basis that if i support a war on Iraq i better be prepared to put my ass on the line for it. Being a bi-sexual man from one of Northern Ireland biggest paramilitary familys wheather i'll get in is another story.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-02 01:45pm

Mr Bean wrote:I thought it better to answear the question by providing abit of info, Utopia is not nessary for Pacifism

The problem with it as I've noted before is that the only time Passifism works is when no one relizes its is

Its within the human nature to drive and surive, to conquer and procrate and violence just happens to be one of the most often used tools to achive it

Darwinism, Social as well as Biological.

Oh fun.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-03-02 01:59pm

If you see the enemy, shoot 'em.

Twice.

For good measure.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-03-02 02:14pm

I'm decidedly not a pacifist. I abhor real-world violence, although I would be willing to kill in defense of myself or my friends.

That's why I like fantasy-violence so much... you can do all the crazy shit you want and nobody ever gets hurt.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-02 02:18pm

So now non-violence is not considered pacifism. ALthough they don't completely coincide, non-violence can be looked at as a type of pacifism.

At its core Passifism by the defintion anyway is basicly, accepting what comes and not doing anything about it

To an extent; very poorly, but it's its own nation. I'm not stupid, Bean.

Question, When did Gandhi die, And when did India become its own nation?

BOTH are. You need to be pacific sometimes in order to survive - to know when to back off.

Thats not Passifism thats picking your Battles, Remeber as I said Eariler, Passifism is an all or nothing, either you don't fight or you do

The opposite of Passifism of course would be attacking anything that moves but its not the Rational Alternative that people assoisate Passifism with,

IE Passifism is don't for no matter the reason, no fighting period

*snip attempt to get debate started

Well you said you did not want a debate in this thread so
LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA

Man can gather veggies - been some really successful vegans in the past y'know. And you don't live by always fighting, Bean. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Not if you did your job right, Furthermore, Ver, How many Vegans have succesfuly lived past 85?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-02 02:19pm

That's why I like fantasy-violence so much... you can do all the crazy shit you want and nobody ever gets hurt.

Damn you Digtial Murder!

Think of the Pixels man! Think of the Pixels!!!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-02 02:49pm

Mr Bean wrote:
That's why I like fantasy-violence so much... you can do all the crazy shit you want and nobody ever gets hurt.
Damn you Digtial Murder!

Think of the Pixels man! Think of the Pixels!!!

He's gone crazy men use your shotguns!

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-03-02 02:53pm

Mr Bean wrote:
So now non-violence is not considered pacifism. ALthough they don't completely coincide, non-violence can be looked at as a type of pacifism.
At its core Passifism by the defintion anyway is basicly, accepting what comes and not doing anything about it

[waits for a dictionary definition]

To an extent; very poorly, but it's its own nation. I'm not stupid, Bean.
Question, When did Gandhi die, And when did India become its own nation?

When you can show me Gandhi didn't have influence, you'll have a point made.

BOTH are. You need to be pacific sometimes in order to survive - to know when to back off.
Thats not Passifism thats picking your Battles, Remeber as I said Eariler, Passifism is an all or nothing, either you don't fight or you do

You said, but have not proven.

The opposite of Passifism of course would be attacking anything that moves

[couchbushcough]

but its not the Rational Alternative that people assoisate Passifism with,

SO then pacifism is rational. Okies.

IE Passifism is don't for no matter the reason, no fighting period

So you're saying there is no grey area. Wrong. There's grey areas in everything.

*snip attempt to get debate started
Well you said you did not want a debate in this thread so
LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA

Uhmmmmm........ okay.. [raises eyebrow questioningly]

Man can gather veggies - been some really successful vegans in the past y'know. And you don't live by always fighting, Bean. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Not if you did your job right, Furthermore, Ver, How many Vegans have succesfuly lived past 85?

Does it matter, considering that average lifespan is 82?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-02 05:02pm

[waits for a dictionary definition]

And Lol-and behold there was one, and it was good

pac·i·fism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-fzm)
n.
The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.

Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
Not the best definition in the world(And thats odd considering its comes from Websters)

The reason I'm unhappy with using this one however as it makes no mention of Interpesonal or Community Confilct, mearly nation state conflict, and frankly Pacifist existed long before Nations did

When you can show me Gandhi didn't have influence, you'll have a point made.

Burden of Proof Logic Fallicy: You have to provid evidance he had an influence before I have to Disprove it

[couchbushcough]

No Debate Verilon thats what you asked for but since your so hung up on Bush, Let me ask you, When does American Plan the Invasion of the Canadian Heathens to the North? When shall our Leigions be marching on the Corrupt Leaders of the Grand Mexican Republic? When shall our Marines storm the Beachs of Iwo-Jima and Normandy once more? When shall the Nuclear Show-down between America and Russia and China occure? When can we expect to wrap up the Africa Campain and when shall Istanbule be within our hand?

So you're saying there is no grey area. Wrong. There's grey areas in everything.

To be a Pasafist you must give up violence, There is no, you must give up 50% of your Violence in there anywhere

Does it matter, considering that average lifespan is 82?

I'm proving a point Ver, Let me try agian, How many Vegans do you know who lived past 65? Remeber they must have been Vegan's the greater part of their lives?

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-03-03 11:51am

Mr Bean wrote:<snip>

Biased opinion on the definition, but you admitted it. Furthermore, pacifism resolves more firmly to the nations rather than to communal conflicts and disputes.

Burden of Proof Logic Fallicy: You have to provid evidance he had an influence before I have to Disprove it

Why?

No Debate Verilon thats what you asked for but since your so hung up on Bush, Let me ask you, When does American Plan the Invasion of the Canadian Heathens to the North? When shall our Leigions be marching on the Corrupt Leaders of the Grand Mexican Republic? When shall our Marines storm the Beachs of Iwo-Jima and Normandy once more? When shall the Nuclear Show-down between America and Russia and China occure? When can we expect to wrap up the Africa Campain and when shall Istanbule be within our hand?

So I can't have one opinion to myself....

In any case, he is at least concentrating on only one wareffort - but it seems unlikely that he'll look at too many home issues, at this point. He's a warmongering fool, otherwise we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in! (IMO, anyways).

To be a Pasafist you must give up violence, There is no, you must give up 50% of your Violence in there anywhere

You can be pacific about some things. You're being an idiot, Bean. That's bullshit, telling me there's no grey areas.

I'm proving a point Ver, Let me try agian, How many Vegans do you know who lived past 65? Remeber they must have been Vegan's the greater part of their lives?

Oh, wait, you said 85 the first time around. As for vegans that have lived that long.. I don't know - don't believe there have been many vegans around in the past 65 years or so, but I may be wrong. Furthermore - what does it matter? Does it matter more how long someone lived, or what they did in that life?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-03 03:39pm

Pacifism would never work unless both sides agreed to pacifistic stances, and, that most likely would never happen with people like Saddam and Kim Jong left in the world.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-03 03:43pm

All I'm saying is... give war a chance.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-03 03:46pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:All I'm saying is... give war a chance.

muwahahahahah

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-03 03:46pm

Without war, there can never be peace.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-03-03 03:53pm

Mr Bean wrote:I reguard Pacificsm as I reguard Communism, Both are wonderful ideas
If you happen to have perfect citizins, Until such time it simply won't work

*in an Ed McMahon voice*
You SIR are CORRECT!

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-03-03 03:58pm

NF_Utvol wrote:Without war, there can never be peace.

Technically that should be, "without discord there can never be peace as a dictionary defined word, the core concept of peace would however be completely intact and as the only way of life would not need singular definition nor specialist wording." Not quite as effective as a slogan though.