Is Extreme Pacifism Unrealistic?

[Hygro]

Oh okay I see. I disagree with your last paragraph because a pacifist can achieve peace without needing to fight anyone, let alone the aggressor. Pacifists use other method, like science or religion or culture etc, something with a strong social component or effect, to turn the aggressor into an ally. To convert another Pacifist. That's what I mean when I think it actually can prove it's a movement than can either succeed or fail. It's the holy grail of society but it's entirely realistic. It just depends if we can cure people of choosing to be violent or oppressive.

But I see what you mean that it's all pretty tautological the way you first phrase it in your last post. You almost had me convinced!

 

[timtofly]

I was not trying to take one's tool away from them. It is not even unrealistic to trust in pacifism. You have to convince people to give up control and aggression, while at the same time give them the assurance there is stability. Pacifism however, can never be a tool, and you are the one who pointed out a pacifist can use other means.

There is a school of thought that seems to view conflict as a way to create stability in the world. Conflict is not a tool either. Is exploiting a persons strengths or weaknesses the same ideology that gives people the sense that pacifism and conflict are tools? From an economic standpoint, if the citizens of the US decided to start a civil war, it would pretty well destabilize the world, unless China, and or Russia would suddenly benefit from exporting arms for such an endeavor.