While We Wait: Part 4

[Symphony D.]

Counterassertion: To those practicing True Pacifism, survival is conditional upon maintaining pure beliefs; death is preferable to dishonor.

Unfortunately then all somebody has to do is kill all practitioners and then the movement itself is gone. It is entirely possible to stop ideas with bullets. And the practitioners themselves are helpless to stop this. Death before dishonor is usually a choice; faced with such an entity, for True Pacifists, it is the only option. Having convictions is great, but doesn't tend to do you much good when you're dead, and martyrdom doesn't work if all who would follow you are already equally resolute and just as easy to kill.

It's also hypocritical. The idea of pacifism is that by not countering violence with violence you are somehow saving lives overall. If someone set out with the explicit purpose of killing pacifists, by conforming to their beliefs they would be facilitating their own murder, and would thus be complicit in their own death, and everyone subsequent to them. Thus: suicide. Suicide by other, admittedly, but suicide nonetheless.

True Pacifism in any realistic setting, therefore, is tantamount to discarding one's own life. It is simply a question of whether someone else takes it.

 

[Thlayli]

I think that's considering the Pacifist as an isolate. They tend to work in groups, where they're much harder to eliminate due to the difficulty of it, whether political or simply logistical.

In addition, we have to consider the Pacifist's cosmology. From a purely materialist standpoint, death is the worst possible option. To the Pacifist, self-protection or even violence is tantamount to degrading oneself to petty selfishness. Whether a spiritual worldview that extends beyond life itself, or a wish to serve the purpose of outrage and action, (since murder isn't all that tolerable to non-pacifists as well,) the True Pacifist is more an element of a collective 'hive-mind' than a coherent individual looking out for an individual's needs.

 

[carmen510]

Sorry to interrupt but I just had to ask:

What is your opinion on the Off-Topic?

 

[Thlayli]

The forum?

 

[das]

True Pacifism is suicidal if predominant, but True Pacifists can survive easily enough under the strong protection of any structure or ideology that is generally opposed to the taking of innocent/useful lives. Basically, it's safe as long as it's globally insignificant. Organised True Pacifist movements survive solely on the mercy of others, or, if they're obnoxious and the predominant force is ruthless enough, don't (see the Tolstovyans in Stalin-era USSR).

 

[Abaddon]

dAMN YOUR eYES!

I wanted this thread

 

[Sloaf]

Anyone else ever heard of / played the game Blood Bowl? Seems like something right up the alley of some of y'all.

2nd. Best. Game. Ever

OK, you got me. What's the 1st?

 

[Luckymoose]

OK, you got me. What's the 1st?

All those in the NES genre.

 

[Disenfrancised]

True Pacifism is suicidal if predominant, but True Pacifists can survive easily enough under the strong protection of any structure or ideology that is generally opposed to the taking of innocent/useful lives. Basically, it's safe as long as it's globally insignificant. Organised True Pacifist movements survive solely on the mercy of others, or, if they're obnoxious and the predominant force is ruthless enough, don't (see the Tolstovyans in Stalin-era USSR).

And if the True Pacifism ideology contains components that cause excelling in other spheres (such as medicine), then there is a net gain for the protective overculture/cultures.

See Cleaner Wrasse and some iterations of the Society of Friends and Sufism. These are groups that could survive quite happily in a world lacking in threats, but in a world of predators exchange services for symbiotic or commensal living in a more agressive society.

 

[sp1023]

Pacifism works to a certain extent. I never participate in wars, in fear I will lose in them, even when I am in command of a powerful nation.

 

[das]

That's not really what we call "True Pacifism" here. That's just reasonable neutrality and diplomatic tact.

 

[silver 2039]

Look at Gandhi.

Gandhi is scum.

 

[Abaddon]

And if the True Pacifism ideology contains components that cause excelling in other spheres (such as medicine), then there is a net gain for the protective overculture/cultures.

See Cleaner Wrasse and some iterations of the Society of Friends and Sufism. These are groups that could survive quite happily in a world lacking in threats, but in a world of predators exchange services for symbiotic or commensal living in a more agressive society.

The wrasse has nothing to do with pasifism, its merely a symbotic relationship

 

[das]

The wrasse is very nonviolent, though, and its fun to belittle pacifists with this conveniently apt comparison. (It is an apt and appropriate comparison, though, for the sake of the argument presented here.)

 

[sp1023]

Gandhi is scum.

Why do you say that?

 

[das]

Why do you say that?

Because silver2039 is a spammer.

Because he likes posting utterly irrelevant comments whenever something he has or pretends to have a strong opinion about pops up within view range.

Anyway, let's ignore silver and forget about Gandhi (for a moment), we have the symbiotic potential of True Pacifism to dissect.

 

[Abaddon]

The wrasse is very nonviolent, though, and its fun to belittle pacifists with this conveniently apt comparison. (It is an apt and appropriate comparison, though, for the sake of the argument presented here.)

so is a stick insect, so are most herbivores... its nonviolent due to the prey it consumes lack of ability to fight back of escape.

Most fish choose flight over fight

 

[Abaddon]

Random afterthought, is the way a charmelion (sp) eats/survives particularly agressive?

 

[silver 2039]

Why do you say that?

His foolish ideology poisoned the nation.

Firstly there would have been a gloriously bloody uprising and mutiny against the British possibly as a continuation of the Bombay Mutiny. It would have been far more satisfying and gratifying to say the least.

Secondly Pakistan wouldn't exist nor would Bangladesh, they would have been annihlated mostly likely in 1971, perhaps even in 1947 had Nehru not stopped Vallabhai Patel which was the perfect opportunity when the Pakistani air force was annihilated and Karachi bombed. Nehru, and all succeeding leaders were all influenced and poisoned by Gandhi's corrupt and vile ideology.

Furthermore Gandhi always favored the Muslims, and threw in his support for Partition, sure he opposed partion intitally but he aquised soon enough didn't he, and due to his influence everyone else went along with it. Gandhi is also a traitor he betrayed true patriots such as Bhagat Singh, and the sailors of the British Indian Navy who mutunied by refusing to give his support to them and the other flunkies of his in the Indian National Congress toed the line.

India would not have lost the 1962 war against China and would have been better prepared for it if not for Nehru's stupid India-China friendship crap. India and China can never, and will never be friends, they will always be rivals competing for dominance with Asia and the fool Nehru should have recognized that. The arse also gave up the opportunity's for a permanent seat on the UNSC to China as well.

So India would be larger, more powerful, more influential if not for Gandhi.

Its all that bastards Gandhi's fault and his stupid and foolish ideology.

And thats why I'm voting BJP to reverse the evils that Gandi wrought on the nation. HINDUSTAN!!!!

 

[sp1023]

His foolish ideology poisoned the nation.

Firstly there would have been a gloriously bloody uprising and mutiny against the British possibly as a continuation of the Bombay Mutiny. It would have been far more satisfying and gratifying to say the least.

Secondly Pakistan wouldn't exist nor would Bangladesh,

You do know I am Bengali, infidel!