Denying Oneself - by Robert E Lee

admin: There's a few concerning little things here for me.

"Rare is the man who can take injustice indefinitely."
The world is unjust. Every single woman or man before has taken injustice indefinitely. It's not hard.

Every man has stood by and watched rape, torture, and murder happen and done nothing about it? Its not hard? Perhaps we should all put our heads in the ground ala the ostrich? Because clearly if we treat all injustice as equal than a paper cut and mass exploitation and oppression are the same thing.


"Real pacifism would demand accountability for our profligate wars"
Why not forgiveness? Especially as this entire thread concerns taking the moral high ground with war.

That is a dodge, and no, I think the thesis is that the Just War Doctrine is correct, not the moral high ground of war.

"those who follow the dark cannot always be reasoned with"
Oh wait, people don't do what I think is morally right? Screw trying to reason with them - attacking them is way safer!

When they have guns and are killing people? Best to just commit suicide. Better yet, why pretend its reasonable when we can just appeal to extremes? Some people are not reasonable, therefore NONE of them are? This is the logic of pacifism? You have me convinced now that stopping murderers is definitely the wrong thing to do.

"Rebellions across the globe put a violent end to colonialism. Its just a fact."
You do realize you're saying this to somebody from the one country with possibly the least violent end to colonialism on the planet?

Yes, New Zealand has quite the history of slavery and colonial exploitation. It was so much worse than Africa and say ... Vietnam. Why New Zealand must have had at least four different colonial masters attempt to brutally subjugate the Isles into subservience. But because it did not happen to New Zealand, it must not have happened anywhere else and we can safely ignore it. More ostrich?

"That America is the way it is is precisely because some men and women fought to make it so."
Not every struggle America has had has been violent. I'm no fan of American culture and how violent it is, but even I have to acknowledge that America's history was not entirely written at gunpoint.

And that has what to do with the Civil War? Has what to do with American participation in violent insurgency as its birth? WWI & II, Imperial ambitions? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh, and to think examining that record would lead us to some lessons about the proper and improper use of war as a instrument of policy? Funny, it seems that this record supports the Just War Doctrine?

PS want to do a debate about whether Hitler wanted to conquer the world? I'm very well prepped on the con side of the issue, and am fully convinced personally Hitler had no such intention but rather more nuanced reasons for initiating the war.

If you call subjugating the Soviet Union and murdering the Jews slightly more nuanced than entire world domination, more power to you. The goal here would be to demonstrate how pacifism would have been a better response to Hilter's nuanced policies. Or Emperor Tojo's. Take your pick.

gree0232: "Because clearly if we treat all injustice as equal than a paper cut and mass exploitation and oppression are the same thing."
All of us know rape, torture and murder are happening in the world. Few of us do anything to stop it. Those who support armies participate in it, since the militaries of the world cause more torture, murder, and probably even rape than any other group.

"I think the thesis is that the Just War Doctrine is correct, not the moral high ground of war."
So you don't believe Just War is morally justified? Isn't that the whole point of "just" war - to claim the moral high ground?

"You have me convinced now that stopping murderers is definitely the wrong thing to do."
No because you don't need to be violent to stop a murderer. I'm simply defending the idea that the use of violence against murderers is not any better than the use of violence by the murderers themselves.

"Yes, New Zealand has quite the history of slavery and colonial exploitation. It was so much worse than Africa and say ... Vietnam."
And do you know WHY it was worse in those places? Armed conflict. Take that out the equation and the analogy is perfect.

"Funny, it seems that this record supports the Just War Doctrine?"
No because all of them were improper (and nothing to be proud of), but the point is that America has accomplished much more not through war than through it. If you look at what America has done economically, politically, massive social changes etc, and then compare that to the ongoing death and destruction it routinely unleashes upon innocent people who happen to live in the wrong country, there's a big difference.

"The goal here would be to demonstrate how pacifism would have been a better response to Hilter's nuanced policies."
I'll challenge you shortly.

admin: "Because clearly if we treat all injustice as equal than a paper cut and mass exploitation and oppression are the same thing."
All of us know rape, torture and murder are happening in the world. Few of us do anything to stop it. Those who support armies participate in it, since the militaries of the world cause more torture, murder, and probably even rape than any other group.

Most rapes do not happen in military circumstances. And yes, some of us have and will continue to do something about things like rape and murderer. Apathy is not a solution. Not being able to stop it all does not mean not stopping that which you can. Apathy is not pacifism. "Oh well, I should not stop this injustice because I cannot stop it all - even though I have the power to stop this one ..."

"I think the thesis is that the Just War Doctrine is correct, not the moral high ground of war."
So you don't believe Just War is morally justified? Isn't that the whole point of "just" war - to claim the moral high ground?

What do you think? You do realize that asking loaded questions rather than supporting your own position is fallacious correct? If you have a problem with the Just War Doctrine than spell it out. Bit treating all wars as equal when the point has been conceded that they are not ... one must ask what your intent is other than appealing to emotion? War is bad. Sometimes its necessary. Like tolerating ALL injustice or something ...

"You have me convinced now that stopping murderers is definitely the wrong thing to do."
No because you don't need to be violent to stop a murderer. I'm simply defending the idea that the use of violence against murderers is not any better than the use of violence by the murderers themselves.

Obviously, you have not stopped many murders have you. You have a thesis, now try defending it. Murderers killing innocent people ... defending innocent people ... you see no difference? Or do not wish to acknowledge it, therefore ... no difference?

"Yes, New Zealand has quite the history of slavery and colonial exploitation. It was so much worse than Africa and say ... Vietnam."
And do you know WHY it was worse in those places? Armed conflict. Take that out the equation and the analogy is perfect.

Yes, it was totally Vietnam's fault that Ho Chi Min went to pAris and asked the colonial powers to leave and got blown off. Definitely there fault that France tried to violently pressure them into subservience, after the Japanese brutalized them ... for the resources they needed more than the Vietnamese people. And when America invaded, that too was Vietnam's fault. They are to be spat upon and derided as sub-human for defending themselves.

And Zimbabwe ... boy having a bunch of white guys take all the land and push the masses into the starving fringes was AOK. When they violently tried to keep them in the fringes, it was sure wrong of those guys to defend themselves.

Hmmm ... pirates taking over shipping lines and killing and ransoming to support warlordism and injustice on a grand scale ... definitely the wrong thing to do to send warships into the lanes to open them up and chase off the pirates. Obviously just a failure of reasoning.

Some men are evil. Its just that simple.

"Funny, it seems that this record supports the Just War Doctrine?"
No because all of them were improper (and nothing to be proud of), but the point is that America has accomplished much more not through war than through it. If you look at what America has done economically, politically, massive social changes etc, and then compare that to the ongoing death and destruction it routinely unleashes upon innocent people who happen to live in the wrong country, there's a big difference.

Again, whenever you wish to actually support that standing up to Hitler and Tojo was wrong ... somehow would have prevented destruction rather than stopped it ... you can make that case. So, the tens of millions of deaths in WWII were caused by the US fighting? Or again, are we to pretend that everyone in WWII were fighting for the same reasons?

That Civil War thing again? Just let slavery reign?

"The goal here would be to demonstrate how pacifism would have been a better response to Hilter's nuanced policies."
I'll challenge you shortly.

I'd prefer you simply spelled out the case. I have offered both Hitler and Tojo as examples of leaders who took economic monstrosities to war with the intent of violently subjugating their neighbors. They could not be reasoned with. Their actions were not 'logical' or born of an ethic that you or I would acknowledge - it was born of social darwinism and deliberate dehumanization. And when people start killing humans like feral dogs? Well, even a dog would defend itself in such circumstances, but if a man does ... somehow he is wrong?

How so?

gree0232: "And yes, some of us have and will continue to do something about things like rape and murderer."
If so, join the police. A military exists to kill and defend against foreigners. The fact that the USA has the biggest military in the world has hardly made them immune to either rape or murder.

"What do you think?"
I think the just war doctrine makes no sense. War is almost synonymous with injustice to me. All wars are equal in that they cannot be justified. Being equal in that one respect is different from treating all wars or all injustice as equal.

"Obviously, you have not stopped many murders have you. You have a thesis, now try defending it. Murderers killing innocent people ... defending innocent people ... you see no difference?"
I don't believe a violent attack on a murderer defends innocent people. By choosing not to murder people, and by trying to convince others to do the same, I like to think I've helped, but in absence of a crystal ball one can't prove or disprove the alternative of any moral hypothesis.

"Some men are evil. Its just that simple."
The more I read you, the more sure I am that you're jumping to this conclusion, because the narrative of "I'll fight anybody who's evil" is itself super evil. Human minds are anything but simple. Also, people are more similar than most of us want to believe. I'm not blaming Vietnam or Zimbabwe or anyone else. Violence is a global problem.

"That Civil War thing again? Just let slavery reign?"
Refusing to fight in the civil war does not mean supporting slavery. Just like refusing to fight in a war on terrorism does not mean supporting the terrorists.

"I'd prefer you simply spelled out the case."
This is a debate site. We might as well practice that.

admin: "And yes, some of us have and will continue to do something about things like rape and murderer."
If so, join the police. A military exists to kill and defend against foreigners. The fact that the USA has the biggest military in the world has hardly made them immune to either rape or murder.

That is precisely what I did. And unfortunately for you, when the thin blue line breaks down guess who back them up? Police did a bang up job in Nanking? In Auschwitz? In Kosovo? Countries around the world are wrong to a have Trinity of security forces to meet a spectrum of defense issues because we are randomly changing goal posts nd assigning duties to police - whose primary aim is the protection of cvil property and order - as opposed to the defeat of organized forces.

And the hole in the pacifism defense? Guess what kind of force police forces routinely use the world over? Lethal force. Your argument here simply does not exist.

"Obviously, you have not stopped many murders have you. You have a thesis, now try defending it. Murderers killing innocent people ... defending innocent people ... you see no difference?"
I don't believe a violent attack on a murderer defends innocent people. By choosing not to murder people, and by trying to convince others to do the same, I like to think I've helped, but in absence of a crystal ball one can't prove or disprove the alternative of any moral hypothesis.

That is an unsupported belief. But you are talking to a guy who has seen suicide bombers shot ... it saved a lot of innocent lives. Again, you continue to conflate situations, reasonable people should be handled reasonably - but not all people are reasonable. When they are not? And they are violent? When they create groups like Boko Harem and start slaughtering literally thousands of people? Well, GoodLuck Jonathan sent years reasoning with the conservative elements of Islam in Northern Nigeria, and when Boko Harem rose up? He sent the Army North.

The police would be able to stop that how? A Nation should not defend its citizens from a violent and frankly looney tunes insurgent force that exists and survives on kidnapping and mass slaughter and expropriation of property and funds? Just ... reason with it?

Or use reason to separate that force from the base of people who support it, isolate it, and destroy it while minimizing damage to the civilian infrastructure and people? Treat reasonable people reasonably and unreasonable and violent people as they have chosen to behave.

That is why most modern militaries are subordinated to civilian authority.

"Some men are evil. Its just that simple."
The more I read you, the more sure I am that you're jumping to this conclusion, because the narrative of "I'll fight anybody who's evil" is itself super evil. Human minds are anything but simple. Also, people are more similar than most of us want to believe. I'm not blaming Vietnam or Zimbabwe or anyone else. Violence is a global problem.

That makes no sense. And is again a blatant distortion of what is written and a continuation of the appeal to extreme. Can't fight all evil, but certainly will fight it when its directly in front of me and doing horrible things. Again, don;t doubt the similarity, but SOME people are evil and they do horrible things. Have you read history? Are you aware of the Just War Doctrine? Are you aware that the people who routinely advocate against going to war are those who have to actually fight it?

Violence is a global problem, so the question is whether we want Somalia type warlords using violence to brutalize and enslave, or a system of legalized checks and balances that produces legally constrained forces across a spectrum of security capability who is responsive and ultimately held accountable through the elections process.

Hence my concern about the dearth of civilian debate about our military adventures. Uninformed behavior leading to shopping rather than accountability at the polls is not pacifism either is it?

"That Civil War thing again? Just let slavery reign?"
Refusing to fight in the civil war does not mean supporting slavery. Just like refusing to fight in a war on terrorism does not mean supporting the terrorists.

Actually it does. For the committed pacifist, as I have said, I have sympathy. There are, unlike in earlier wars, means of testing the 'pacifism'. As I have stated, it is a position of immense difficulty to hold, and it will be tested - just as a commitment to the Just War Doctrine will be tested. Wars happen. But there are many who adopt 'pacifism' when war comes to roost and it has nothing to do with a commitment to non-violence, it has everything to do with being afraid. That is fine too, but when terrorism uses fear as its primary weapon ... we have a problem don't we?

As for slavery, a personal decision to not fight is fine. When you actively start preaching to undermine the war effort needed to free millions of enslaved human beings? This was not William Wilberforce where reason could triumph, this is the fruits of wisdom and realizing that the South, slavery was a culture, a way of life, and entire society arranged around slavery and willing to violently defend it to the death. Abe Lincoln's wisdom was in recognizing it and letting the South fire the first shot. That the war wound up so bloody is a testimony to just how determined the South was to hold onto the institution of slavery.

The problem remains. Not everyone is pacifist. Not everyone is willing to be reasonable and compromise about issue. Not everyone is ethical. Some people care only about enriching themselves and have figured out that violence is a good way to do that - whether it be drug lords, warlords, pirates, criminal gangs, corrupt police and politicians, or simply rapacious rulers who externalize their desires. That the world has developed a range of security forces, local and national police forces, coupled with military forces, is the natural evolution of humanity's reaction to itself.

We all pray that pacifism finds its way into the hearts of all men, until that happen, pragmatism and selflessness must trump idealization. We need the Priest and we need the Soldier.

Evil people are still people, and they do reason. Such reason can be appealed too, and it is a far better weapon than a gun. What these "evil" people are doing is motivated by things other than senseless violence. How many people died in world war two? Around 72 million, right? I wonder how many ways 72 million men and women could have positively impacted this world.

I am concerned by Gree0232's reckless approach to justifying war, just as equally as I am concerned by admin's idealistic belief that one should never fight back.

Blackflag: Am I supposed to take you seriously stag?

Lets get a couple of things straight:

#1 - stop attacking the person. Every time you name drop someone rather than stay on the ideas being presented, you are using what is called an ad hominem. Calling BOTH sides of a debate reckless and recklessly idealistic does not add to the debate. It effectively says, "I will attack the people in the debate."

#2 - I did not authorize the invasion of any countries.

#3 - I did not create the various security forces around the world.

#4 - I did not write the Bible, the Koran, or any Buddhist Manuscripts.

#5 - I did not create the Just War Doctrine, but I happen to agree with it - believing that it is the correct balance between avoiding pointless violence and the pragmatism needed when dealing with the reality of humanity.

So it would be very helpful if you would actually debate the point that is relevant, in this case, whether straight pacifism is the best method, or whether in limited scope and circumstance, violence is alloweable.

Tossing comments like evil people are still human, means, essentially means you are embracing moral relativism and abandoning concepts like consequence. Evil actions have consequences, and well - at the very least ... prison. In countries where there is no governance, no police, and no prisons? Murderers are routinely hanged and worse. They are human precisely because they are the masters of their actions, and actions have consequences. If you steal? If you rape? If you assault? If you take innocent life? If you cheat? Lie? Etc. All these things have consequences.

And when you embrace evil and violence and eschew reason? There are consequences for that action. On an individual level, police forces WILL seek to capture and imprison you. If you resist? They will kill you. On a national level, military forces WILL arrive and they will attempt to capture you, and if you resist, they will kill you.

There is something quite reverse about pretending that that there is no diversity in humanity. That all men are equally susceptible to reason and the desire and ability to control their baser emotions. That is simply not the case, and society has long recognized that this is so. Reasonable people know that not all people are reasonable, and that defending the innocent is a tad higher priority than attempting to reason with evil when its demonstrated that it beyond reason.

And before you go tossing about figures, everyone dies brother. Everyone. The choice is whether we live subjugated or free. Whether we follow our conscience and ethic or whether we do not.

There are some very, very bad people out there. Unconstrained? Why ... that is why 72 million people died. Let's put the blame where it lies, not with those who resisted it and ultimately stopped the killing BEFORE it grew worse than 72 million.

In the mean time, good luck 'reasoning' with those who have accepted social darwinism. Might as well attempt to reason with the KKK.

gree0232: "Guess what kind of force police forces routinely use the world over? Lethal force."
So what? I oppose that too. At least, unlike the military, lethal force is not necessary for them to do their work.

"But you are talking to a guy who has seen suicide bombers shot ... it saved a lot of innocent lives. Again, you continue to conflate situations, reasonable people should be handled reasonably - but not all people are reasonable."
So is it your claim that suicide bombers are unreasonable? That no suicide bomber has been talked or negotiated with?

"Well, GoodLuck Jonathan sent years reasoning with the conservative elements of Islam in Northern Nigeria, and when Boko Harem rose up? He sent the Army North."
How is it you and I have such different understanding of history? The guy was only elected in 2010. Boko Haram has been active since about 2002. They rose up in 2009. From 2002-2009, the government repeatedly ignored them despite numerous warnings that they were becoming violent. Jonathan can hardly be blamed for that though if you consider the nature of his political career.

"That is why most modern militaries are subordinated to civilian authority."
That is, until it no longer becomes convenient for the military to do so and a coup d'etat is staged...

"Can't fight all evil, but certainly will fight it when its directly in front of me and doing horrible things."
That narrative has the same problem. If I told you your sister was stealing money from you, then rather than talk to her about it or investigate further, you'd shoot her? Even if it were true, does she deserve to die because she did something moderately evil? The way you're weighing the issues in favor of people fighting wars and nothing on the other side makes it clear you don't believe in comparative justice as an element of just war theory, and that's probably the worst form of it.

"Have you read history? Are you aware of the Just War Doctrine? Are you aware that the people who routinely advocate against going to war are those who have to actually fight it?"
Yes on all three, but the people referred to in the third question are hypocrites in my view. Nobody HAS to fight a war; there is always a choice to refuse.

"the question is whether we want Somalia type warlords using violence to brutalize and enslave, or a system of legalized checks and balances that produces legally constrained forces across a spectrum of security capability who is responsive and ultimately held accountable through the elections process."
Or, as I propose, turning the other cheek, but doing nothing to encourage violence. Just because violence is a global problem should not mean it is inevitable.

"Uninformed behavior leading to shopping rather than accountability at the polls is not pacifism either is it?"
I agree with this - there should be more debate about these issues.

"But there are many who adopt 'pacifism' when war comes to roost and it has nothing to do with a commitment to non-violence, it has everything to do with being afraid. That is fine too, but when terrorism uses fear as its primary weapon ... we have a problem don't we?"
NO NO NO! Pacifism is NOT the fear of war or violence. It is the REFUSAL to engage in war or violence. It takes way more courage to walk right up to a bad man and try to talk to him than to shoot that person from afar with a gun. I am NOT a "problem" for committing to non-violence.

"When you actively start preaching to undermine the war effort needed to free millions of enslaved human beings? This was not..."
I have a big problem with how you say "needed" here. Again, you simply can't prove this. Slavery ended in many countries with no war.

"The problem remains. Not everyone is pacifist."
You're an example of a non-pacifist.

"That the world has developed a range of security forces, local and national police forces, coupled with military forces, is the natural evolution of humanity's reaction to itself."
Or maybe nations are just really big formalized warlords.

admin: "Guess what kind of force police forces routinely use the world over? Lethal force."
So what? I oppose that too. At least, unlike the military, lethal force is not necessary for them to do their work.

Yes, it is. What exactly do you think the difference is between a SWAT team and a Ranger Battalion capturing a terrorist outside the country? Right the borders they operate on. Worse, you cannot plop down one as a solution and then claim its something you still don;t support.

That is not a thesis and support, its ... just disagreement for disagreements sake.

"But you are talking to a guy who has seen suicide bombers shot ... it saved a lot of innocent lives. Again, you continue to conflate situations, reasonable people should be handled reasonably - but not all people are reasonable."
So is it your claim that suicide bombers are unreasonable? That no suicide bomber has been talked or negotiated with?

While they are in the act of seeking out victims? Nope. Are you claiming that suicide bombers seeking to kill the innocent are driven by 'rationalism'?

I am glad you feel more compassion for a suicide bomber than for the victims though ... their victims deserve what happens when a shout of 'reason' fails.

"Have you read history? Are you aware of the Just War Doctrine? Are you aware that the people who routinely advocate against going to war are those who have to actually fight it?"
Yes on all three, but the people referred to in the third question are hypocrites in my view. Nobody HAS to fight a war; there is always a choice to refuse.

Well, you have resorted to ad hominem rather than explaining your position. To me, a guy that advocates police violence, then withdraws it, would be an example of hypocrites. A man preaching caution about war, extreme caution, but who acknowledges that some things are worth fighting for is not a hypocrite. That is called honesty.

"the question is whether we want Somalia type warlords using violence to brutalize and enslave, or a system of legalized checks and balances that produces legally constrained forces across a spectrum of security capability who is responsive and ultimately held accountable through the elections process."
Or, as I propose, turning the other cheek, but doing nothing to encourage violence. Just because violence is a global problem should not mean it is inevitable.

Let me know when partially quoting the Bible and ignoring the OT testament, and the Christian doctrine about Just War counts are as actual rebuttal rather than an excuse. Warlords exist. What to about them? Pretend that they are ignorant of the Bible and the Koran?

Plow shares into swords.

You might want to remember the Suna awakening. The reasonable among your enemies can be reasoned with, those that cannot? We should ignore that the unreasonable fled to Syria and have created ISIS, who ripped across Syria and Northern Iraq, enslaving entire sects as sub-human, marrying off teenaged women to 'warriors' and brutally taking broad swaths of the middle east back to the middle ages against their will.

Partially quoting the Bible will solve that?

"But there are many who adopt 'pacifism' when war comes to roost and it has nothing to do with a commitment to non-violence, it has everything to do with being afraid. That is fine too, but when terrorism uses fear as its primary weapon ... we have a problem don't we?"
NO NO NO! Pacifism is NOT the fear of war or violence. It is the REFUSAL to engage in war or violence. It takes way more courage to walk right up to a bad man and try to talk to him than to shoot that person from afar with a gun. I am NOT a "problem" for committing to non-violence.

Please respond to what I say. I have drawn the delineation between pacifism and those who pay it lip service all the time. There remain many who have no problem with wars ... until they are asked to fight in them, the sudden pacifist ... is something everyone who mobilizes for war gets to see in our ranks. You are not a problem, but just as people will take the justification of the Just War doctrine and abuse it, so too will people abuse pacifism. True pacifism is rare.

If I criticize your pacifism, it is that it offers no solutions to real world problems - indeed it seems to avoid them. Some of us cannot. Problem solvers willing to get into the grit and strive to right it are not a problem either now are they?

"When you actively start preaching to undermine the war effort needed to free millions of enslaved human beings? This was not..."
I have a big problem with how you say "needed" here. Again, you simply can't prove this. Slavery ended in many countries with no war.

So? The South was not Great Britain, and when I specifically contrast William Wilberforce with Abe Lincoln ... again, "well, there must be some other way ..." is not a solution. I grew my teeth as a historian on the US Civil War. The South was ready and willing to defend slavery to the death ... and that is precisely what they did. The Abolitionist movement made great headway in the North, it ran into violent steel in the South.

Again, I respect a pacifist sitting out the fight on principle, but I disagree profoundly when someone starts saying, "Well, yankee, what you are doing s WRONG!" No, it was not. It was the selfless and right thing to do, and that is why we HONOR rather than ridicule Lincoln today - considered by MANY to be the greatest President the US ever had. Your disagreement is noted.

"The problem remains. Not everyone is pacifist."
You're an example of a non-pacifist.

And there are BILLIONS more. Are we reversing the fallacy? Appeal to unpopularity?

Again, very few men or women will be able to remain pacifist when severely pressed with injustice. That is why its so rare and celebrated.

"That the world has developed a range of security forces, local and national police forces, coupled with military forces, is the natural evolution of humanity's reaction to itself."
Or maybe nations are just really big formalized warlords.

I suggest you bring your speculation to Somalia ... The Pakistani Tribal belt ... South Sudan ... Northern Syria. See if you prefer that to the US, Europe, or New Zealand.

The fact remains, war is to be avoided at all costs, BUT, sometimes it is necessary. When we no longer defend things worth defending ... we truly have nothing.

If a man tried to rape my wife or daughter? I would kill him. Simple as that. There would be no reasoning. There would be no second guessing. I would protect that which is worth protecting. Most men would.

stop attacking the person. Every time you name drop someone rather than stay on the ideas being presented, you are using what is called an ad hominem. Calling BOTH sides of a debate reckless and recklessly idealistic does not add to the debate. It effectively says, "I will attack the people in the debate."
Where did I attack you? That was not my intention, but do not be mistaken, it is perfectly acceptable to allude to the other person if it furthers a point. I have done nothing but try to make you see reason, which was my sole intention in this debate.

I did not authorize the invasion of any countries
I did not create the various security forces around the world.
I did not write the Bible, the Koran, or any Buddhist Manuscripts.
I have no idea why you started talking about any of these three things.

Tossing comments like evil people are still human, means, essentially means you are embracing moral relativism and abandoning concepts like consequence. Evil actions have consequences, and well - at the very least ... prison. In countries where there is no governance, no police, and no prisons? Murderers are routinely hanged and worse. They are human precisely because they are the masters of their actions, and actions have consequences. If you steal? If you rape? If you assault? If you take innocent life? If you cheat? Lie? Etc. All these things have consequences.
To say I believe in evil would be stretching it. People are people, and they commit to actions with actual reasoning, even if you disagree. Did someone commit murder? Chances are they have a justification. Understanding the justification, and the person, makes violence an irrelevant pursuit.

That all men are equally susceptible to reason and the desire and ability to control their baser emotions. That is simply not the case, and society has long recognized that this is so. Reasonable people know that not all people are reasonable, and that defending the innocent is a tad higher priority than attempting to reason with evil when its demonstrated that it beyond reason.
If you cannot be reasoned with than you lack humanity. Nearly everyone can be reasoned with. You may never be able to see that though, because as I have mentioned numerous times, you have a tendency to only look at the problem from one perspective. Your own perspective. That kind of thinking is what leads society to war. Whereas nearly every war throughout history could of been avoided if we were to have stayed neutral in both thought and action.

defending the innocent is a tad higher priority than attempting to reason with evil when its demonstrated that it beyond reason.
No one is innocent in war. It is a chevaliers farse. People do not kill other people without a reason. If they justify their actions than they do retain humanity. They fight for what they believe is right, just as you do. Who are you to determine who is innocent? They have prepared a different list of condemnation than your own.

There are some very, very bad people out there. Unconstrained? Why ... that is why 72 million people died. Let's put the blame where it lies, not with those who resisted it and ultimately stopped the killing BEFORE it grew worse than 72 million.
No, 72 million people died because humanity took sides. Everyone is to blame for those 72 million deaths. Their deaths were on humanities hands, not one party.

Have you ever read the Bronze Bow? I believe it won a Nobel prize in Literature. Jews were more than ready to sacrifice their own lives than to fight a historical injustice. Do you know why? Because it is more selfless to undertake a heavy burden than to call in others to take it for you. What militarists do in the name of justice isn't right. If you believe in evil, then look no further than war, because it is the ultimate example of it. If you call yourself a Christian, then I ask you to accept two things spoken from the mouth of god. Do not kill, and do not resist unjust rule, for your true king is not of this world.

Blackflag: Stag:
Honestly, are you even attempting to understand the various positions here?

#1 - Stop throwing in people's names and start referring to the position. When you say 'Admin's' and then toss a pejorative, you are basically just insulting the person. When you take elements of this thread and start dumping them in other threads where they have no earthly reason for being there - you are going after the person.

#2 - the 'positions' of this debate are not personal. One is strict adherence to pacifism and the other is the limited exception of violence encapsulated in the Just War Doctrine. Your position is completely incomprehensible. Pacifism is stupid, and the limited use of violence is horrific. Leaving the alternative of ... just disagreeing for disagreement's sake?

#3 - You need to start using tried and true intellectual processes that begin with defining a thesis and then supporting it - lest we continue to get random stream of conscience commentary that never leads anywhere.

Thesis: The Just War Doctrine correctly reflects the balance between pacifism and violence. (Mine)

Thesis: Strict pacifism is the correct path regarding violence. (Admin's)

Both sides are supported with various historical examples and an array of security forces used in context.

In sharp contrast, we have absolutely no idea what your opinion (thesis) is regarding the use of violence and have been treated to fundamental opposites: Evil people engaged in unreasonable acts are human and should be reasoned with, but if they are unreasonable then they lack humanity .... meaning we should both kill them and reason with them at the same time? And God forbid you address any of the specific instances like suicide bombers, or the protection of one's spouse from rape.

#4 - There are innocent people in war. There is this little thing called the Law of Land Warfare and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It CLEARLY defines combatants and non-combatants (innocents) and if you kill the later ... legally its murder. People who are not engaged in combat operations are not combatants. Police forces engaged in brutal actions against drug lords and their street thugs are not supposed to be knocking over schools now are they? That is because we recognize the status of combatants and non-combants - or at least the side that attempts to LIMIT the use of violence does.

Who are you to determine everyone guilty and just blow of humanity's accepted standards?

#5 - Humanity did not take sides in WWII - the concept is ridiculous. I suggest you take good look at the Jewish resistance on the Eastern Front and in the Warsaw Ghetto among others .... followed by the immediate establishment of Israel through a violent insurgency. No point paying attention to these historical actions when we have a single book instead?

Again stag, do you have a point here or are you simply tossing about random ideas?

As Abe Lincoln famously said, a house divided against itself cannot stand, and neither can an argument attempting to support both sides of an argument. It simply becomes incomprehensible.

gree0232: "Yes, it is. What exactly do you think the difference is between a SWAT team and a Ranger Battalion capturing a terrorist outside the country? Right the borders they operate on."
No, law enforcement can attempt to enforce laws without resorting to lethal force. The only question is whether they would still be effective in doing so. That can be briefly resolved by looking at nations where cops regularly carry guns vs nations where they do not. Surprise, surprise, gun-wielding cops are no better. It has nothing to do with territoriality.

"While they are in the act of seeking out victims? Nope."
Yes. Israel does it all the time. England famously did it to arrest the remaining 28 people in the cell that hit their subway system while they were looking for a new target. Also, you do realize that "Jihad" literally means "just war", right? Because I feel like this is kinda getting directed by Clint Eastwood here.

"Are you claiming that suicide bombers seeking to kill the innocent are driven by 'rationalism'?"
Rarely. But one ideological purpose does not mean the person is completely irrational. The objective of negotiation in these kind of situations is usually to turn objectives into conditionals (for example, "I'm doing this BECAUSE of the western occupation of my country", then to "If western forces leave my country I won't blow up this bomb" etc), and negotiators are extremely well trained in that. When it's a conditional, there's a logical position that can be rationalized with.

"I am glad you feel more compassion for a suicide bomber than for the victims though ... their victims deserve what happens when a shout of 'reason' fails."
Wrong, if anything I feel more compassion for the victims. It isn't a binary though - I can feel compassion for both the bomber and the victims. Especially when the lives of both need not be taken. So far this year dozens of would be bombers have handed themselves over voluntarily to authorities.

"Well, you have resorted to ad hominem rather than explaining your position."
Oh really? Ad hominem means attacking the person. Here's what I said: "Yes on all three, but the people referred to in the third question are hypocrites in my view. Nobody HAS to fight a war; there is always a choice to refuse." Note: nowhere in this did I make a personal attack against everybody. The third question did not specifically name any individual. I further justified why a particular label applies to this group with logic rather than fallaciously attacking them for who they are and nothing more. This is not an ad hominem and is in every way an explanation of my views.

"To me, a guy that advocates police violence, then withdraws it, would be an example of hypocrites. A man preaching caution about war, extreme caution, but who acknowledges that some things are worth fighting for is not a hypocrite. That is called honesty."
Sure. Why then is a person who hates war and then willingly chooses - that is, desires - to fight one, not an example of a hypocrite?

"Warlords exist. What to about them? Pretend that they are ignorant of the Bible and the Koran?"
Let me make two things clear. First, I disagree with your particular interpretations of both Islam and Christianity, as each are inherently peaceful religions. That's fine though, because I wasn't making the reference because of its religious context, but rather as a convenient explanation of an alternative you have missed. What to do about warlords isn't really teaching them religion - God knows how crazy that is - but to let them strike and instead be peaceful and reasonable towards them. The model here, as I mentioned earlier, is Parihaka, where the people of that town did literally that and confounded the authorities looking to take them. It won't fully solve the problem kind of like how turning vegetarian won't solve all animal cruelty, but it helps in a way.

"We should ignore that the unreasonable fled to Syria and have created ISIS, who ripped across Syria and Northern Iraq, enslaving entire sects as sub-human, marrying off teenaged women to 'warriors' and brutally taking broad swaths of the middle east back to the middle ages against their will."
Well now might be a good time to look at why terrorists are so unreasonable. I mean, people aren't really born with natural inclinations to rape and pillage. These are terms that we come to apply to cultures - be they Vikings, Mongols, or now ISIS. Psychologists have found a startling number of similarities among suicide bombers etc:
1. They are all rebellious and had unhappy childhoods
2. Come from middle classes, usually authoritarian homes
3. Usually educated but unsuccessful
4. All felt like society mistreated them
5. Tend to feel like they're defending themselves against that society
6. Lots of either-or thinking, and intolerance especially as regards to their cause
7. Embracement of radical destruction and rebuilding of society
This has all been known for 50+ years based on very strong research and predates the "modern" notion of a suicide bomber. All this can be applied to your typical ISIS recruit. I was watching the doco on Al Jazeera recently about Australians who go to fight for ISIS and time and time again, the same traits keep appearing: disenfranchised by society? Check. Rebellious? Check. Defending themselves as their cause? Check. And so on. This is not inherently an example of pathological thinking, and indeed doesn't look too dissimilar to the psychological profile of your average suicide (key difference being who they blame for their problems). In the USA, school shooters are a young equivalent. This is a built up socially constructed ideology. Many bombers are at one stage lost souls on random forums looking for guidance and finding somebody to blame for their problems, as well as a movement to belong to that they come to identify strongly with. It's also interesting to note that more antisocial types tend to be the leaders of terrorist cells.

"just as people will take the justification of the Just War doctrine and abuse it, so too will people abuse pacifism. True pacifism is rare."
Sure, I agree with the sentiment. I called non-true pacifists hypocrites earlier. It was just that your phrasing in the last post implied all pacifists, as opposed to only "true" pacifists.

"If I criticize your pacifism, it is that it offers no solutions to real world problems - indeed it seems to avoid them. Some of us cannot. Problem solvers willing to get into the grit and strive to right it are not a problem either now are they?"
They are a problem if their "solution" is itself a problem. It's fine if you don't see solutions, and if that's the worst of the problems with my pacifism, then that's good, because war is much worse. If nothing else my pacifism makes war impossible if followed by at least one of the "sides" in a conflict. We're having a more detailed discussion of this in our debate, of course.

"The South was ready and willing to defend slavery to the death ... and that is precisely what they did"
I seem to remember not too long ago they were willing to die before they saw same sex marriage legalized in their state too.

"Are we reversing the fallacy? Appeal to unpopularity?"
No, I'm just expressing my surprise that you made an ad hominem attack against yourself.

"If a man tried to rape my wife or daughter? I would kill him. Simple as that. There would be no reasoning. There would be no second guessing. I would protect that which is worth protecting. Most men would."
The strongest argument I know of against pacifism is that for those of us who hold pacifism so dear, it's worth protecting at the same cost. If somebody raped a family member I'd hope they can go to prison and that I could forgive them, but if a family member were to tell me they'd kill somebody else to defend me, that would make me pretty mad.

admin: No, law enforcement can attempt to enforce laws without resorting to lethal force. The only question is whether they would still be effective in doing so. That can be briefly resolved by looking at nations where cops regularly carry guns vs nations where they do not. Surprise, surprise, gun-wielding cops are no better. It has nothing to do with territoriality.

So can a Ranger Battalion. Its called a demonstration of force - yet both the SWAT team and the Ranger Battalion have the implied use of violent and overwhelming force as a portion of the 'reasoning' with the opposing force. Gun wielding cops have done a great job limiting the damage that street gangs, the mafia, drug gangs, racial hate groups, and others from wrecking havoc on our society and turning it into Somalia. They have indeed used violence, not always well, to achieve and protect that reality. Surprise Surprise.

Yes. Israel does it all the time. England famously did it to arrest the remaining 28 people in the cell that hit their subway system while they were looking for a new target. Also, you do realize that "Jihad" literally means "just war", right? Because I feel like this is kinda getting directed by Clint Eastwood here.

And yet, with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of bombs dropped and raids conducted you have ... two instances of mistakes. The Targeting process is very involved, and, because there is a human element and an element of the unknown, its sometimes goes awry - it has a success rate of well over 90%. There have been no reports of the air and ground campaign hitting the wrong targets vice ISIL - quite the opposite, with Kobane being liberated rather than enslaved.

Jihad, BTW, is used by most Muslims to be a personal thing - denial of baser instincts - a war on the 'self' and submission to God's will. That some terrorists have taken that and called rape, enslavement, and murder 'Just' does not make it so. How easily can we fool those who desire to avoid a conflict? To the point where clear evil is called 'Just'?

"Are you claiming that suicide bombers seeking to kill the innocent are driven by 'rationalism'?"
Rarely.

OK, so we then have a choice - kill the suicide bomber or allow him/her to kill innocent people. Military targets are hardened and suicide bombers have little impact upon them, which is why they attack ... cafe's filled with non-combatants. I have seen a suicide bomber ripped apart when he walked into a cafe in Diyala and hesitated. The people in the Cafe did not. They killed him. They were not combatants but fathers and brothers. How does pacifism help here?

Well now might be a good time to look at why terrorists are so unreasonable.

You may want to actually take a look at terrorists rater than make a sociological excuse for them. Bin Laden was hardly 'poor'. He was hardly alienated from power. Neither is the current leader of ISIL Al Baghdadi - a Ph.d from Baghdad University? Now the LEADER of ISIL ... terribly unsuccessful in his chosen profession.

Most suicide bombers are simply given a choice, do you have a problem with martyrdom or not? Those that say no are turned into human weapons, and they come from all walks of life and from all walks of the economic strata. Its why racial and other forms of profiling are so unsuccessful. Being a suicide bomber is a choice, and Saudi Arabia and Iraq have programs where would be suicide bombers, or those who have survived the attempt, are placed on TV and expose the process.

The process? Its a violent radicalization process where very unreasonable men turn them into weapons. How does pacifism stop that?

They are a problem if their "solution" is itself a problem.

If pacifism facilitates and even winds up condoning violence and injustice, then it is not a solution either. It is itself the problem.

I seem to remember not too long ago they were willing to die before they saw same sex marriage legalized in their state too.

Red Herring. I was unaware that homosexuals were in bondage, sold as cattle, denied the right to vote, etc.

No, I'm just expressing my surprise that you made an ad hominem attack against yourself.

Its insulting myself to acknowledge that I am not a pacifist? And therein lies the problem. Anyone with a different opinion, the differing opinion - no matter how well supported - is an insult? Pacifism is simply not always practical.

Sure. Why then is a person who hates war and then willingly chooses - that is, desires - to fight one, not an example of a hypocrite?

I hate cleaning toilets too, but I do it because its necessary and failing to do it can become a public health hazard and wind up spreading diseases. Its called being responsible. The same for war. They are sometimes necessary, and when our society has its debate and decides to go to war? Guess what Soldiers do? And guess what happens if we send men and women who lack ethics and honor off to war? Necessary and liked are two different things.

Concepts like duty, selflessness, and honor seem to have no place in pacifism - its all about the self, eh?

The strongest argument I know of against pacifism is that for those of us who hold pacifism so dear, it's worth protecting at the same cost. If somebody raped a family member I'd hope they can go to prison and that I could forgive them, but if a family member were to tell me they'd kill somebody else to defend me, that would make me pretty mad.

Most people disagree. They are not wrong to defend their family. Forgiveness is always possible, but we defend what is dear. If you allow the love of your life to be defiled and violated in the name of some specious adherence to principle, then you have missed what is most important to humanity and is clearly spelled out in religions around the world: Love.

You can posthumously forgive someone. You cannot undo a rape.

gree0232: "Gun wielding cops have done a great job limiting the damage that street gangs, the mafia, drug gangs, racial hate groups, and others from wrecking havoc on our society and turning it into Somalia."
Name me one time when this has actually worked. Where gun weilding cops have ended street gangs. Because I've seen enough peaceful social workers ending street gangs to know it's possible. When have gun wielding cops ever stopped the drug trade? Some of the most heavily armed places are also the places where drug abuse is worst. When have police ever stopped racial hate groups with their guns? I seem to remember a certain Martin Luther King single handedly stopping more racial hatred with non violence than any police officer ever did at gunpoint.

"And yet, with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of bombs dropped and raids conducted you have ... two instances of mistakes."
Not mistakes. Successes. Times when bombs could have been detonated but were not due to a negotiation procedure. It happens more often than I think you give it credit. I hope it happens more often.

"That some terrorists have taken that and called rape, enslavement, and murder 'Just' does not make it so."
Of course, but is it then your claim that the millions of civilians who died when Iraq was captured was not murder? You believe CIA torture cells are superior to enslavement?

"OK, so we then have a choice - kill the suicide bomber or allow him/her to kill innocent people."
So first of all, that's rarely the dichotomy. Usually if you have information about a suicide bomber in advance then you'll have an opportunity to talk to them (if nothing else, to check if the information about them is accurate). Killing a suicide bomber is never the only option for diffusing the situation. You simply seem to refuse to believe that any other option will work.

"I have seen a suicide bomber ripped apart when he walked into a cafe in Diyala and hesitated. The people in the Cafe did not. They killed him. They were not combatants but fathers and brothers. How does pacifism help here?"
You saw a man killed who refused to detonate his bomb. What crime did he commit exactly, that was worthy of the death penalty? Last time I checked refusing to detonate a bomb is not a crime. Pacifism would help by preserving everybody's life. No need to resort to violence at all to resolve that problem.

"sociological excuse"
There's a difference between a reason and an excuse.

"Bin Laden was hardly 'poor'."
Then maybe you should read what I wrote. Bin Laden was a) not a suicide bomber, and b) raised in a middle class household (although his extended family did have wealth). I never said "poor" but "middle class".

"He was hardly alienated from power."
A) again, Bin Laden was not a suicide bomber, B) I said alienated from society, not power, and C) he totally was after his current time in Africa.

"Neither is the current leader of ISIL Al Baghdadi - a Ph.d from Baghdad University? Now the LEADER of ISIL ... terribly unsuccessful in his chosen profession."
a) read what I wrote
b) come back to me when he dies in a suicide bombing
c) highly educated is one of the most telltale signs of suicide bombers - less educated people are more likely to surrender
d) he did have a job before ISIL, you know...

"Being a suicide bomber is a choice"
This is not always true. Sometimes it is achieved through lies and deceit. This is particularly the case where children are used as bombers, but actually happens pretty often.

"The process? Its a violent radicalization process where very unreasonable men turn them into weapons. How does pacifism stop that?"
First of all, let's acknowledge that those guys are there because they didn't bomb some place. Those guys did that in spite of radicalization and indoctrination procedures. That's pretty badass pacifism right there.

Pacifism stops that by encouraging everybody to stop attacking each other, without killing anyone. Pacifists generally will of course disagree on how this encouragement should take place, but all agree that killing people just so happens to be one alternative not worth looking into.

"If pacifism facilitates and even winds up condoning violence and injustice, then it is not a solution either. It is itself the problem."
Of course, but not causing it towards "hostile" groups does not mean facilitating or condoning their actions. I don't like our current prime minister in this country much, but I would never shoot him.

"Red Herring."
Really? So it doesn't matter to you they were willing to die for it, only how severe the cause was they were willing to die for? Maybe then you can appreciate why suicide bombers usually pick far more serious causes than that, such as the occupation of Palestine. I thought, on the other hand, that this whole discussion was about whether we should be prepared to kill for something, even if the other person is prepared to die for it.

"Its insulting myself to acknowledge that I am not a pacifist? And therein lies the problem. Anyone with a different opinion, the differing opinion - no matter how well supported - is an insult?"
Not every ad hom is an insult. In this case you argued that you were part of the "problem" of a lack of a utopia - in other words, using yourself as an objection to the idea of pacifism because you simply won't be a pacifist. I honestly can't refute that.

"I hate cleaning toilets too, but I do it because its necessary and failing to do it can become a public health hazard and wind up spreading diseases. Its called being responsible. The same for war."
You think killing a human being is just like cleaning a toilet. "The same", as you put it? That's deplorable.

I want to clean toilets because that means better hygiene and fewer blocks. War would be like me trying to take a massive dump in the toilet and hoping that my dump is big enough to displace the mess that's already there. Just like two wrongs don't make a right, you can't fight violence with violence. Negotiation and communication is like a toilet cleaner. Of course some toilets are harder to clean than others but that does not make the strategy of taking a massive dump any more legitimate.

"And guess what happens if we send men and women who lack ethics and honor off to war? Necessary and liked are two different things."
Liked enough that the person would fail to refuse to fight. Or at least would want to be seen as contributing, since most soldiers intentionally misfire.

"Concepts like duty, selflessness, and honor seem to have no place in pacifism - its all about the self, eh?"
I disagree strongly.
I have a duty towards others to protect their life by not killing them. This extends not just to innocents but to the guilty, or those who I think are guilty, too.
I am selfless because I care about the welfare of others above my own life. A soldier hides behind a gun and kills anyone who would harm their life.
I am honorable because I do all this for a cause and claim no personal benefit from it. I am living my own moral code.

"Most people disagree."
I agree. I will be the first to admit I am not representative of most pacifists.

"If you allow the love of your life to be defiled and violated in the name of some specious adherence to principle, then you have missed what is most important to humanity and is clearly spelled out in religions around the world: Love."
I'd love my neighbor even if my neighbor was a rapist. Love does not mean "love only your family" to me, but to "love all people".

I can't remember if I said this before, so forgive me if I have, but about 5-6 years ago I was pretty seriously depressed. Verging on suicidal. Bullies were the reason. I know for a soldier like you that must sound stupid but it really did hurt. And I'll never be able to undo it either. I still, after talking to somebody, will stay up all night with anxiety attacks, thinking they followed me home so they can attack me or something dumb like that. It really screwed my brain up. And I'm saying that because on two occasions since, I have heard of mass shootings committed by somebody roughly my age, for much the same reasons as my depression. Both of those young gentlemen are dead now, taking numerous others with them. Let me just say that I am so thankful I've always had a committed belief in hurting nobody. My ability to forgive people, even if they didn't ever apologize or anything, has probably literally saved my life and possibly theirs. I believe strongly that had somebody reached out to somebody like me, the problem could have been avoided entirely. And reading all the literature on the psychology of suicide bombers and such, every time, I am struck by the similarity of circumstance. Practically every psychological "marker" of a bomber applies to me too. I don't know why you focus on rape as if it's worse than the murder you want to commit in such a circumstance, but even a murderer or a rapist is just another human being, not born evil. I don't want to come off as selfish, but please do know that. I totally respect how traumatic it must have been to see suicide attackers in action, and what that has taught you of the world. I just want you to respect that my ideology is not because I'm scared to fight, or have no sense of honor towards others.

Never forget that the most successful means of escape from ISIS so far has been volunteering as a suicide bomber and then refusing to detonate.

admin: "Gun wielding cops have done a great job limiting the damage that street gangs, the mafia, drug gangs, racial hate groups, and others from wrecking havoc on our society and turning it into Somalia."
Name me one time when this has actually worked.

It work everyday when dozens upon dozens of high risk warrants are served. It only noticed when it goes awry.

Show me one country that is successful and just without a police force. Just one.

Not mistakes. Successes. Times when bombs could have been detonated but were not due to a negotiation procedure. It happens more often than I think you give it credit. I hope it happens more often.

One, you have no idea how the military targeting process works or the rigor that goes into it. Kindly refrain from comments tossed in complete ignorance.

Two, how rapaciously evil do you have to paint your fellow man in order to sustain pacifism? After someone spells out that the killing of innocents is a crime, you turn around and call it what we desire anyway? Success?

So being pacifist means you hate humanity? See it all as evil unless it agrees with you?

You saw a man killed who refused to detonate his bomb.

Once again, you are speculating in ignorance. A man who straps a bomb onto himself and walks into a cafe filled with innocent people is not refusing. Amazing how pacifists defend the worst among us at the expense of the innocent.

"He was hardly alienated from power."
A) again, Bin Laden was not a suicide bomber, B) I said alienated from society, not power, and C) he totally was after his current time in Africa.

You changed goal posts from terrorists to suicide bombers. Once again, rather than ask people to read what you wrote, I suggest you read up on terrorists. Al Baghdadi fits right into the society he choose. He is not alienated, he is creating the caliphate. You appear to not be the President of New Zealand, thus are alienated from power, are you a terrorist? Do you advocate killing on a grand scale? Rape? Enslavement? Hmmmm .... perhaps some people just choose evil after all, and we should hold them accountable for their choices rater than blame society for it?

"Being a suicide bomber is a choice"
This is not always true. Sometimes it is achieved through lies and deceit.

Agh, so on the one hand we must appeal to reason, but some people are beyond choice ... and indeed still others choose ti lie and deceive for evil intent. Hence that pragmatism thing again.

Pacifism stops that by encouraging everybody to stop attacking each other, without killing anyone.

And does nothing to stop those who choose to kill anyway. See directly above.

"Red Herring."
Really? So it doesn't matter to you they were willing to die for it, only how severe the cause was they were willing to die for?

You seem to have trouble comprehending a thesis. That violence is SOMETIMES right does not mean it is always right. I am not sure who you think your disagreeing with, but when the Just War Doctrine states that limited utility of violence and expressly condemns its use in other situations ... what point is there is attempting to straw man someone into thinking violence is the answer to every situation?

That is a simple and utterly fallacious straw man. Right tool for the right job. Feel free to address the point about reasoning with people who are beyond reason and choice as you state above. The reasonable, as I have said several times, can be reasoned with. The unreasonable and violent cannot.

You think killing a human being is just like cleaning a toilet. "The same", as you put it? That's deplorable.

Its called an analogy. That you deliberately miss the point and resort to a fallacious appeal to emotion is noted. I think that demonstrates how supportable your position is. That someone has to again fail to note the statements that war is deplorable but necessary, and then turn around and paint someone as a wanton killing machine ... while defending ISIL? I think your argument not only lacks coherence but is openly supporting the worst in humanity.

A good reason not to follow it.

Liked enough that the person would fail to refuse to fight. Or at least would want to be seen as contributing, since most soldiers intentionally misfire.

SLA Marshall's dates from WWII and the military has revised its training methodology - successfully. People in battle fight. I've been there. And this states nothing about how pacifism deals with the problems of the world - other than by pulling an ostrich and hoping someone else will do the responsible thing.

"Concepts like duty, selflessness, and honor seem to have no place in pacifism - its all about the self, eh?"
I disagree strongly.
I have a duty towards others to protect their life by not killing them.

But you will sit by and allow others to kill without consequence? You protect nothing by allowing it to happen when you have the power to stop it - absolutely nothing. And as we see, there are plenty of people who will do so - but your argument defends those who kill the innocent by defiles and condemns those who rise up and defend the innocent? That is fundamentally backward.

I'd love my neighbor even if my neighbor was a rapist. Love does not mean "love only your family" to me, but to "love all people".

Then you are an idiot. And every day your neighbor would come on over and rape your family. Especially because you can't call the police either - they too are evil. I could call the police, knowing full well they might use violence to subdue the rapist, and I can defend my family and prevent them from being raped.

Its not love of other people that drives your position, its love of being right at any cost. Your pacifism is self licking ice cream cone. It cares little for justice, and gives mercy to the vile rather than the innocent. Its wrong.

Additionally, I joined the military precisely because I hate bullies. I thank God that I have the strength and will to stand up to them and allow the innocent to proceed unmolested with there lives in peace. that is what it means to care more about others than yourself. That is selflessness. As for rape verses murder, its six of these a half dozen of the other. Both are vile and evil. Both happen with alarming regularity, and we as humans have to figure out what to do about it.

I don;t think you are a coward, but pacifism is damned difficult - it will be tested like no other ideology out there. As I have said repeatedly, I am almost a pacifist myself - save that, stubbornly, I have always found reason to defend something worth defending. Its the message of the OP, if you care more about yourself than you do others then there are certain logical requirements that flow from it.

If all the world was pacifist, your opinion would undoubtedly be correct. In the vast majority of situations your opinion is undoubtedly correct. But not all men are either sensible or ethical. Some of us must stand as a bulwark between them and rest of humanity. Men like Al Baghdadi exist now. They must be dealt with now. A Caliphate could be established through non-violent means, that is not the way ISIL has chosen. The rest of the world must react it. That means changing plow shares to swords for a time, and when the threat is removed, to return the sword to plow shares.

gree0232: "Show me one country that is successful and just without a police force. Just one."
Can't think of one, but I can think of PLENTY of countries that don't respond to every rape with a SAWT team.

"One, you have no idea how the military targeting process works or the rigor that goes into it. Kindly refrain from comments tossed in complete ignorance."
Well then, fountain of all knowledge, you could always enlighten us rather than mock us...

"Two, how rapaciously evil do you have to paint your fellow man in order to sustain pacifism? After someone spells out that the killing of innocents is a crime, you turn around and call it what we desire anyway? Success?"
Dude, this was in response to me explaining several incidents where negotiation prevented a suicide bomb attack. I think you're getting confused. Killing of innocents did not happen due to this intervention. That was the success.

"Once again, you are speculating in ignorance. A man who straps a bomb onto himself and walks into a cafe filled with innocent people is not refusing."
Hesitating, however, is refusing. The fact he only started refusing at the last second makes it no less of a victory for peace, if only a Pyrrhic one due to the un-necessarily violent actions of the others.

"You changed goal posts from terrorists to suicide bombers."
No I didn't. You didn't read my post. If you scroll back up you can see that I wrote suicide bombers. If you still don't believe me you can do so again. This is the exact quote: "Psychologists have found a startling number of similarities among suicide bombers etc". Note how I said suicide bombers and not terrorists.

"Once again, rather than ask people to read what you wrote, I suggest you read up on terrorists."
Well isn't that a nice sentimental way to refuse to read my analysis or engage with my counter-analysis that even in spite of your strawman your examples fit pretty well too. This particular thread of the conversation has always focused on suicide bombers, and not terrorists. To accuse me of shifting the goal posts is ironic.

"Al Baghdadi fits right into the society he choose. He is not alienated, he is creating the caliphate."
Sure, but what about before that? Did he fit right in in Baghdad society?

"You appear to not be the President of New Zealand, thus are alienated from power, are you a terrorist?"
a) I never said "alienated from power"; this is a strawman you are rehashing from last round in the hopes I won't notice
b) Just because all terrorists share psychological characteristics does not logically mean that everyone with those characteristics is a terrorist
c) alienation from power or society is individually defined and accepted according to social norms, as opposed to defined by some random guy on an internet forum

"Do you advocate killing on a grand scale? Rape? Enslavement? Hmmmm .... perhaps some people just choose evil after all, and we should hold them accountable for their choices rater than blame society for it?"
a) advocating does not equal refusing to blame as I have pointed out previously
b) "holding somebody accountable" does not mean killing them. Accountability is wholly compatible with pacifism.

"Agh, so on the one hand we must appeal to reason, but some people are beyond choice ... and indeed still others choose ti lie and deceive for evil intent. Hence that pragmatism thing again."
If this is the case, then why are child suicide bombers one of the most likely groups of bombers to not go through with their attacks? Because they're not beyond reason. Often they are told that they'll be shot on sight by security forces, so all it usually takes is simply not to shoot them and they'll instantly lay down their weapons, as the lie is uncovered. Sometimes specialist negotiators are brought in, and that's fine.

"And does nothing to stop those who choose to kill anyway."
Yes it does. It tries everything except killing them. That's rather a lot of things to try and a very small number of things to exclude.

"...when the Just War Doctrine states that limited utility of violence and expressly condemns its use in other situations ... what point is there is attempting to straw man someone into thinking violence is the answer to every situation?"
It is with the greatest of irony that I have to ask, did I say that or are you straw manning me? Let's recap. You said the American civil war was just. I argued suicide in response to a crisis of gay marriage is not just. You argued that was no analogy. I argued yes it was because in both situations they are dying for a cause, only real difference being the cause. Now tell me how in the world you extrapolate from that my belief that in the just war doctrine, "violence is the answer to every situation"? You might need to talk me through this one slowly because you're making a very strong accusation and I really don't follow, even after checking the entire thread several times I don't see where I ever said or implied this at all.

"The reasonable, as I have said several times, can be reasoned with. The unreasonable and violent cannot."
Sure, I'll engage with this point right after you prove that unreasonable people exist. Whenever I try to prove suicide bombers are reasonable people you attack me on emotional appeals, like saying "why do you defend suicide bombers but not victims!?" and such.

"Its called an analogy. That you deliberately miss the point and resort to a fallacious appeal to emotion is noted."
The point of an analogy is to be analogous. Your point was not. I made it into an analogy by explaining what exactly a violent and non-violent approach to the situation might be. Frankly if you'd like to show how else your analogy makes sense I'd be happy to entertain it. Rather than "fail to note" your statements, I've tried to understand them and explain how I see them as being analogous since you didn't, which is quite different from ignoring it. I've never defended ISIL, and I never called you wanton. I think the only reason you don't get it is because of selective perception, but this is why I'm happy to continue the discussion for as long as it takes for us to understand each other.

"SLA Marshall's dates from WWII and the military has revised its training methodology - successfully."
Actually my data comes from the Korean War, but the point is noted. It's hard to get timely statistics on things like this, so I make do with the best research publicly available (or in this case, published in a book I own).

"And this states nothing about how pacifism deals with the problems of the world - other than by pulling an ostrich and hoping someone else will do the responsible thing."
Of course, because I don't feel the need to say it with every breath. I've spelt it out many times already - diplomacy, negotiation etc. You just don't believe my ideas work.

"But you will sit by and allow others to kill without consequence?"
I've said several times in this discussion I would not sit by. Refusing to kill somebody yourself does not mean sitting by and allowing others to kill without consequence. I know people often like to think there's only one solution to a problem in certain situations, but I've always found that it doesn't really matter how much you narrow down the situation, the number of choices doesn't decline proportionally. Or in other words, choice increases exponentially as a given situation is defined less specifically.

"And as we see, there are plenty of people who will do so - but your argument defends those who kill the innocent by defiles and condemns those who rise up and defend the innocent?"
No. Never have I defended those who kill the innocent, except from death. Likewise I would defend the innocent from death. And I would defend those who rise up and defend the innocent from death. Frankly none of these people should die, but they should face the consequences of their actions. Which I do not believe ought to be death.

"Then you are an idiot. And every day your neighbor would come on over and rape your family."
Funny how I get along great with my neighbors and they don't rape my family. Calling me an idiot is taking the ad hom in this thread to another level. It should probably stop.

"Especially because you can't call the police either - they too are evil."
I can tell you categorically that the police around here have neither the desire or resources to deploy a specialized military unit to deal with a single rapist. I would dread to live near you if that is the case where you are. Actually the police around here are pretty cool guys.

"Its not love of other people that drives your position, its love of being right at any cost."
You cannot prove that. You're making that up and saying that to hurt me. Ultimately however deluded I may be, only I know the reasons that drive my position, and I alone. Telling me what those reasons are, as if you know, is really obviously fake.

"I thank God that I have the strength and will to stand up to them and allow the innocent to proceed unmolested with there lives in peace."
Great. Unlike the military who didn't help me one bit, I stood up to my bullies too (however successfully or unsuccessfully I did). I'll bet that the use of violence on those bullies was probably super effective if you used it, but on the other hand, that kind of would make you the biggest bully in the yard.

"that is what it means to care more about others than yourself. That is selflessness."
Great. Sticking up for others is selfless. How ironic that you were attacking me a few sentences ago for sticking up for bullies you thought were just to kill (and pretending I stood up for nobody else)? Of course I won't argue anything else because this is the only place where we have disagreements.

"I don;t think you are a coward, but pacifism is damned difficult - it will be tested like no other ideology out there"
For me it's rarely been difficult. Only in times of extreme personal stress, but even then I feel like I've come through it each time all the stronger. I just don't have any particular inclination to kill people.

"The rest of the world must react it. That means changing plow shares to swords for a time, and when the threat is removed, to return the sword to plow shares."
Interesting how you say "must". Sounds sort of stubborn to me, as if you wouldn't accept any alternative no matter how compelling.

Stop throwing in people's names and start referring to the position. When you say 'Admin's' and then toss a pejorative, you are basically just insulting the person. When you take elements of this thread and start dumping them in other threads where they have no earthly reason for being there - you are going after the person.
I admit, in all my times discussing things over the internet, this is the first time someone has been so sensitive about me referring to their name. If it pleases you, I will draw the line whenever we discuss something, but to be fair, you are kind of doing exactly what you are telling me not to do.

Am I supposed to take you seriously stag?
Then you are an idiot
you are speculating in ignorance
^For example. Word of advice, if someone does something you do not like in a debate, it is best to simply say nothing at all. It makes you look less credible, when it is much easier simply to ignore it and let others see what you are complaining about for themselves. They do not need you to point it out, if what you are saying is true.

As Abe Lincoln famously said, a house divided against itself cannot stand, and neither can an argument attempting to support both sides of an argument. It simply becomes incomprehensible.
Ha, maybe that is because my position is comphrehensive. I find the middle road to be my favorite, although I thought it was clear which

There are innocent people in war. There is this little thing called the Law of Land Warfare and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It CLEARLY defines combatants and non-combatants (innocents) and if you kill the later ... legally its murder. People who are not engaged in combat operations are not combatants. Police forces engaged in brutal actions against drug lords and their street thugs are not supposed to be knocking over schools now are they? That is because we recognize the status of combatants and non-combants - or at least the side that attempts to LIMIT the use of violence does.
First off, you treat your own doctrine as law, which was my entire point to begin with. People are not innocent in war. Maybe I got a little beside the point here, but everyone is partially to blame for the events that happen to them. We should be responsible for our own deaths, which means owning up to the fact that we are a decision making race. We can make decisions, with our words and actions that can prevent our deaths, and sadly result in the death of others. When you promote violence in a prolonged conflict, you are guaranteeing the death of two when it could of been just one.

Just some historical background, since you insist on using WW2 as a constant example. When did the allies know Germany was massacring Jews? I guarantee you it wasn't upon any of the main allies entry into the war. The first reports of genocide occurred in mid 1944. There was not any psychical evidence or confirmation of the genocide until American troops entered the country. Here is my point. War is the root to which all injustices grow. In other words, in war, people are more prone to your idea of "evil". They act rash instead of reasoning.

Were we to have not entered the war, would the genocide of even happened? Could we have pursued a diplomatic solution instead of a violent one? We will never know, because once we turned to violence, all hope of civil and righteous dialogue went out the door. The Nazi regime may of still pursued a final solution, but thanks to war, we will never get to know if there could of been another way. Thanks to war, we did not even have a chance to try. Something to think about.

Who are you to determine everyone guilty and just blow of humanity's accepted standards?
Someone who thinks humanity needs to desperately reform their accepted standards. I think god would agree too.

Humanity did not take sides in WWII - the concept is ridiculous. I suggest you take good look at the Jewish resistance on the Eastern Front and in the Warsaw Ghetto among others .... followed by the immediate establishment of Israel through a violent insurgency. No point paying attention to these historical actions when we have a single book instead?
Of course they did. Everyone who took a stance in WW2 took sides. Many were innocent in action. Few, if any, were innocent in thought. Bless those who truly were taken by surprise to the violence, but again, they were few.

Again stag, do you have a point here or are you simply tossing about random ideas?
Well I did, but you kind of ignored it. Nonetheless, here it is.

Have you ever read the Bronze Bow? I believe it won a Nobel prize in Literature. Jews were more than ready to sacrifice their own lives than to fight a historical injustice. Do you know why? Because it is more selfless to undertake a heavy burden than to call in others to take it for you. What militarists do in the name of justice isn't right. If you believe in evil, then look no further than war, because it is the ultimate example of it. If you call yourself a Christian, then I ask you to accept two things spoken from the mouth of god. Do not kill, and do not resist unjust rule, for your true king is not of this world.
It is far more noble, selfless, and just, to accept responsibility for your guilt, and receive the consequences of your actions, than to call in others to take your place.

I've been in numerous fist fights. I was physically submitted more than once. The best solution was not more violence, even as they continued to put others in the same situation I was in. No, what I did was far more humble. I searched for them, and when I found them, I shook their hands and apologized for my role in their anger. I happen to be reasoning friends with three of the people who once engaged me through violence. Take from that what you will.

@gree0232 Oh no...... post edit
Stop throwing in people's names and start referring to the position. When you say 'Admin's' and then toss a pejorative, you are basically just insulting the person. When you take elements of this thread and start dumping them in other threads where they have no earthly reason for being there - you are going after the person.
I admit, in all my times discussing things over the internet, this is the first time someone has been so sensitive about me referring to their name. If it pleases you, I will draw the line whenever we discuss something, but to be fair, you are kind of doing exactly what you are telling me not to do.

Am I supposed to take you seriously stag?
Then you are an idiot
you are speculating in ignorance
^For example.

Word of advice, if someone does something you do not like in a debate, it is best to simply say nothing at all. It makes you look less credible, when it is much easier simply to ignore it and let others see what you are complaining about for themselves. They do not need you to point it out, if what you are saying is true.

As Abe Lincoln famously said, a house divided against itself cannot stand, and neither can an argument attempting to support both sides of an argument. It simply becomes incomprehensible.
Ha, maybe that is because my position is comprehensive. I find the middle road to be my favorite, although I am far from the middle road here.

There are innocent people in war. There is this little thing called the Law of Land Warfare and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It CLEARLY defines combatants and non-combatants (innocents) and if you kill the later ... legally its murder. People who are not engaged in combat operations are not combatants. Police forces engaged in brutal actions against drug lords and their street thugs are not supposed to be knocking over schools now are they? That is because we recognize the status of combatants and non-combants - or at least the side that attempts to LIMIT the use of violence does.
First off, you treat your own doctrine as law, which was my entire point to begin with. People are not innocent in war. Maybe I got a little beside the point here, but everyone is partially to blame for the events that happen to them. We should be responsible for our own deaths, which means owning up to the fact that we are a decision making race. We can make decisions, with our words and actions that can prevent our deaths, and sadly result in the death of others. When you promote violence in a prolonged conflict, you are guaranteeing the death of two when it could of been just one.

Just some historical background, since you insist on using WW2 as a constant example. When did the allies know Germany was massacring Jews? I guarantee you it wasn't upon any of the main allies entry into the war. The first reports of genocide occurred in mid 1944. There was not any psychical evidence or confirmation of the genocide until American troops entered the country. Here is my point. War is the root to which all injustices grow. In other words, in war, people are more prone to your idea of "evil". They act rash instead of reasoning.

Were we to have not entered the war, would the genocide of even happened? Could we have pursued a diplomatic solution instead of a violent one? We will never know, because once we turned to violence, all hope of civil and righteous dialogue went out the door. The Nazi regime may of still pursued a final solution, but thanks to war, we will never get to know if there could of been another way. Thanks to war, we did not even have a chance to try. Something to think about.

Who are you to determine everyone guilty and just blow of humanity's accepted standards?
Someone who thinks humanity needs to desperately reform their accepted standards. I think god would agree too.

Humanity did not take sides in WWII - the concept is ridiculous. I suggest you take good look at the Jewish resistance on the Eastern Front and in the Warsaw Ghetto among others .... followed by the immediate establishment of Israel through a violent insurgency. No point paying attention to these historical actions when we have a single book instead?
Of course they did. Everyone who took a stance in WW2 took sides. Many were innocent in action. Few, if any, were innocent in thought. Bless those who truly were taken by surprise to the violence, but again, they were few.

Again stag, do you have a point here or are you simply tossing about random ideas?
Well I did, but you kind of ignored it. Nonetheless, here it is.

Have you ever read the Bronze Bow? I believe it won a Nobel prize in Literature. Jews were more than ready to sacrifice their own lives than to fight a historical injustice. Do you know why? Because it is more selfless to undertake a heavy burden than to call in others to take it for you. What militarists do in the name of justice isn't right. If you believe in evil, then look no further than war, because it is the ultimate example of it. If you call yourself a Christian, then I ask you to accept two things spoken from the mouth of god. Do not kill, and do not resist unjust rule, for your true king is not of this world.
It is far more noble, selfless, and just, to accept responsibility for your guilt, and receive the consequences of your actions, than to call in others to take your place.

I've been in numerous fist fights. I was physically submitted more than once. The best solution was not more violence, even as they continued to put others in the same situation I was in. No, what I did was far more humble. I searched for them, and when I found them, I shook their hands and apologized for my role in their anger. I happen to be reasoning friends with three of the people who once engaged me through violence. Take from that what you will.

admin: "Show me one country that is successful and just without a police force. Just one."
Can't think of one, but I can think of PLENTY of countries that don't respond to every rape with a SAWT team.

Who are you arguing with? Are you arguing with Al Baghdadi? A man who chooses violence for every solution? Or are you arguing with a man who sees violence as acceptable under LIMITED circumstances as defined by the Just War Doctrine?

Your point is nonsensical. There are plenty of high risk RAPISTS who are routinely serviced by the SWAT team. Some are even killed by them. What is your point? Not all of them - no on is advocating that ALL of them should now are they?

Well then, fountain of all knowledge, you could always enlighten us rather than mock us...

Feel free to address the statistics that have already been supplied to you or the fact that we are not all rapaciously trying to kill innocent people a success. You have already been educated on those points. Please concede.

Dude, this was in response to me explaining several incidents where negotiation prevented a suicide bomb attack Not mistakes. Successes.

Here is what you wrote.

Not mistakes. Successes.

You followed THAT up with explanations that negotiations could, but failed to cite an example of, a suicide bomber being dissuaded by negotiations. Which is why Australia and France just sent in the SWAT teams when groups of enraged terrorists took over civilian infrastructure and began murdering people.

Hesitating, however, is refusing.
Or perhaps the trigger misfired (as I watched in still other incidents), go ahead and just say it - the people that killed a man attempting to kill them were wrong in your opinion and self defense is nog allowed. Just say it - stop grasping at straws and just say it.

a) advocating does not equal refusing to blame as I have pointed out previously

Yes it does, you are defending terrorists and attacking those who go after terrorists. You ARE advocating one over the other.

b) "holding somebody accountable" does not mean killing them. Accountability is wholly compatible with pacifism.

Who are you arguing with? You keep pretending that the only solution everyone not pacifist sees is the death sentence. That is a personal problem and one there appears to be no use explaining to you. Either you don;t want to concede the point, or simply cannot. LIMITED use of violence as explained in the Just War Doctrine.

You have instead painted anyone not totally pacifistic as warmongering idiot who wants to kill everyone for every reason. Its called a straw man. And if you pacifism relies on everyone else being evil ... then it is unsupportable.

Of course, because I don't feel the need to say it with every breath. I've spelt it out many times already - diplomacy, negotiation etc. You just don't believe my ideas work.

Once again, is there any point in me continuing to spell out reality to you? How do you reason or negotiate to someone who is not driven by rationalism - you concede with one hand that suicide bombers are not always driven by reason and choice ... and then turn around and try to appeal to what you concede is not there. Why?

If someone is murdering people how many times do you attempt to reason with him and watch him keep murdering people before you conclude that they are beyond reason? What then?

Do I have to type it out again? Reason with reasonable, kill those who chose evil and whom cannot be reasoned with.

Please feel free to site the Just War doctrine - at any point.

I've said several times in this discussion I would not sit by. Refusing to kill somebody yourself does not mean sitting by and allowing others to kill without consequence. I know people often like to think there's only one solution to a problem in certain situations, but I've always found that it doesn't really matter how much you narrow down the situation, the number of choices doesn't decline proportionally. Or in other words, choice increases exponentially as a given situation is defined less specifically.

You have been given several instances and just denied them. Your comments are simply, "Well, that doesn't ALWAYS have to be the case," when the point is that SOMETIMES it is clearly the best choice. That point remains here, a violent man attempting to rape or kill your family. Or anyone in front of you for that matter. The INNOCENT have more rights than wicked. Systems of jurisprudence all over the world recognize it, with little or no penalty for self defense against increasingly harsh penalties for the degree of criminality. Is our system of justice incorrect?

No. Never have I defended those who kill the innocent, except from death. Likewise I would defend the innocent from death. And I would defend those who rise up and defend the innocent from death. Frankly none of these people should die, but they should face the consequences of their actions. Which I do not believe ought to be death.

No, actually you are attacking someone who would rise up and defend the innocent. When you get involved in a life or death struggle ... guess what? Well, I really don't WANT to kill this guy is superseded by survival instinct. If you hold back in that instance, you may very well die. Those who are intent on rapacious violence will not hold back. Of that I can assure you. If you believe that defending the innocent from death is a worthy action ... then you must follow your conscience.

"Especially because you can't call the police either - they too are evil."
I can tell you categorically that the police around here have neither the desire or resources to deploy a specialized military unit to deal with a single rapist.

SWAT. And they routinely deploy the SWAT team to serve high risk warrants for ... even single rapists. the presence of overwhelming force either allows the rapist to quickly fold, or, if he fights, to be quickly eliminated. That is precisely why SWAT teams exist EVERYWHERE.

"Its not love of other people that drives your position, its love of being right at any cost."
You cannot prove that.

You are not denying it, and frankly this is clearly an emotional issue for you. One is which the delineation between warmongering and the Just War Doctrine is apparently not possible to concede.

"I thank God that I have the strength and will to stand up to them and allow the innocent to proceed unmolested with there lives in peace."
Great. Unlike the military who didn't help me one bit, I stood up to my bullies too (however successfully or unsuccessfully I did).

Point has already been made. That we cannot stop all acts of injustice does not mean we should not right the ones we CAN. Apathy and pacifism are not the same thing.

"I don;t think you are a coward, but pacifism is damned difficult - it will be tested like no other ideology out there"
For me it's rarely been difficult.

It would seem to be difficult now. And you haven't yet walked the darker places of humanity and really put it to test now have you?

"The rest of the world must react it. That means changing plow shares to swords for a time, and when the threat is removed, to return the sword to plow shares."
Interesting how you say "must". Sounds sort of stubborn to me, as if you wouldn't accept any alternative no matter how compelling.

Pragmatism is what it is. If you would rather fight an armed man with a plow rather than a sword ... you are free to attempt such a strategy in the name of open mindedness and greater tolerance. Some of us know what Jesus meant however. You might want to read the last thing you wrote there to boot ... one side will accept all manner of other solutions including violence WHEN NECESSARY, you? Stubbornness indeed.

Blackflag: I strongly agree with this part of Stag's comments:

Word of advice, if someone does something you do not like in a debate, it is best to simply say nothing at all.

I feel like I should distance myself from this discussion for a bit in case it becomes a pattern and this leads to a rule violation. The classic conflict between my duties as a site mod and as a passionate debater lol.