I suppose it's an exaggeration.
And therein lies the rationale against disarmament.
Could you elaborate?
If those who desire peace disarm, who is left armed? Do you think they will respect the desires of the peace-loving people? Or do you think those desiring peace should disarm at all costs? Even should that mean the possibilty/probability of subjugation?
Well I guess that depends how many people want war? If only a handful do they will not be strong enough if we refuse. If many people desire war but not the majority we can simply refuse them the same as if few seeked war as we are still stronger. However say the majority want war then I suppose we could be enslaved but even then we could choose death but that assumes that those who want war will work together instead of fighting each other. In all cases the question remains which is more important your ideals or your life. I choose my ideals.
And does that really hold true? Have a great many unarmed people never been subjugated by a relatively few with arms? Even before the sophisticated arms we possess today? Yes...many, many times.
And how many of those peace-loving people can easily be led to support war?
History has repeatedly borne out the fact that most people who oppose war will jump on its bandwagon the minute they feel threatened..or for revenge.
Well I will not. Ive been beaten within an inch of my life more than once and I never comprised my principles what makes you think war will change that. Those who praise peace but then go fight wars don't want peace they want praise
That is fine...for you. Most people believe in the right to self-defense and the defense of others.
People can truly desire peace, and still feel justified defending themselves/their country when attacked. To defend oneself, family, or country is not wrong.
Let me ask you this...if you have/had a child and someone attacks your child, would your ideology justify (in your mind) standing by and watching your child be raped, beaten, or murdered? If so, I believe your ideology sucks.
Defense is a shield not a sword for instance. Being a passifist doesn't mean being defenseless it means no offense. You can wear your attacker out. You can restrain them. You can out run them. What ed is their for killing and maiming. The weak kill and harm.
There is no guarantee that you can block, restrain, outrun, or wear down your attacker. The odds of you doing so are dramatically reduced if they are armed and you are not.
It is, in fact, often only by being armed that one can defend themselves without actually using those weapons. The concept of mutually-assured destruction is what kept the US and USSR from taking the cold war hot.
I'll take my chances. I've pulled it off a dozen times. I'm not saying being a passifist is easier I'm saying it's more ethical.
I don't want a world run by fear.
It just takes on crazy person to kill us all because of our obsession with mutually assured destruction as a safety net. I'm not saying passifism isn't without cons but atleast the cons won't fry the entire planet.
And the chances of your child? If you cannot block, restrain, outrun, or wear down their attacker your ethics and ideology would be more important than the welfare of your child?
I cant have children I'm infirtile, but let's say I wasn't I would die so they had time to run. I'm not going to become a murder I'd rather die.
The question, as initially asked several responses above, was hypothetical.
That wouldn't necessarily save them, whereas your putting up a fight might. If you died to give them a chance to escape, and they were unable to...I doubt they would be applauding your ideology as they suffered.
I'm 6'10'' 290 lbs of muscle if I can't hold my own against them I doubt I could kill them if I wanted to. Secondly I have a big family who will love and take care of them. And I'm sure they would think I was trash for giving up my life for them right? No I doubt anyone is that heartless
Uh-huh. You've already stated you would only try to deflect, so by not trying you expose your child to the possibility of harm that may have easy been prevented. There is no guarantee they would survive, but if they did after being subjected to possibly horrific things, they may indeed be that "heartless". They may, in fact, remember your pacifism at their expense as heartless on your part.
You are just looking for ways to justify murder and cruelty. None of that will happen. You know it won't you are just making up outlandish scenarios because you can't come up with any reasonable scenarios where I'd have to compromise my values.
No, I am not trying to justify anything. I unequivocally stated my belief that self-defense needs no justification.
I asked a question, I did not try to get you to compromise your values.
And I gave you a reasonable answer but you keep adding on extra conditions to the question trying to box me into giving you the answer you want to hear. Self defense that does no harm is fine I said that from the start killing and maiming is not.
First you bring up my nonexistent child and say I would be a bad parent and do nothing to protect them. Then I tell you there are ways to protect with out harming or killing people. Then you say but what if those don't work. Then I say I'll die to give them time to escape. Then you say that won't work. Your answer to every arguement is that my method might not work. Well news flash I can make the same lame a rguement what if violence doesn't work what about that. What if nothing works? What then?
If you do not kill the ones who are trying to kill you, you die. Plain and simple Mr. 610, 290lbs of muscle. No debate needed.
Then why am I alive after so many people have tried to kill me then?
Because they obviously aren't trained very well in how to kill. You're a very big target. Anyone who misses you isn't ready for combat. Well, I'm glad they failed anyway; you have good intentions; I just think maybe you're somewhat naive. Not meant to be insulting; I just couldn't think of a nicer sounding way to say it.
Lucky for me it's been mostly close combat I mean I can't dodge a sniper
Just cause you have a gun or a knife and you are willing to use it doesn't mean you can protect anyone. You can be taken by surprise or be to weak or just be unlucky. You may feel safer with weapons or a think you can fight your way out like Rambo but at a certain point were all screwed if someone stronger than me comes after you your gonna die I don't care if you have a gun. I work out so that I'm stronger than anyone else so I don't have to fight I'm not defenseless. Being a pacifist doesn't make you weak.
I am answering both of the above replies here.
The question never changed, Will. You introduced unlikely scenarios into your reply and I responded to those.
I never claimed weapons guaranteed any outcome. I said that often being armed negates the need to actually use those weapons.
My way does work I crossdress and men try to beat or kill me constantly and I'm a live aren't i? I come out on top. I've disarmed Gun and knives plenty of times. You can keep your hypothetical bullsh!t to yourself. I live in the real world and I'd bet my child's life on my skill and power any day and I'm not ashamed to say it. How many times have you been attacked and almost killed? I'll bet you I've had more close calls in a month than you have had in your entire life. I'm not gonna be like my attackers I'm better than that.
Uh-huh. That does not have any bearing on future outcomes, though.
I will say whatever I wish, Will. And you can keep spouting your bullshit...I have no issue with anyone exercising free speech.
Well atleast my **** is tried and tested. I may not know what the future hold I could die any day but I will die with no regrets because I lived my life doing what I believed in. I hope you live the same way whatever you believe.
As is mine. Factually, neither approach has worked 100% of the time.
Then why even argue the merits of an imperfect strategy?
There is no "perfect" strategy. I believe my approach to be the better option of the two discussed.
Your strategy is easier I could be much weaker if I used a gun. I don't deny your system has many advantages.
I am a jain. My whole religion is litteraly based on passifism. How would you like it if I said to you to drop all your beliefs? What if hypothetically the only way for you to save your child was to hate and curse God's name and commit every sin constantly and never repent? Would you become everything unholy to save your child?
Good for you, however, I do not intend to discuss religion with you.
Fine but you already are. You are litteraly talking down to my religions only tennet.
Many people are pacifists for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. In responding to your post I had no idea of your religion or your religious beliefs. Had you presented this as a religious question, I would have passed it by.
We disagree on pacifism, Will. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing.
Your right there isn't you can disagree without trying to make passifism out to be immoral though.
I stated my opinions. If you take issue with that, perhaps an opinion site isn't for you.
I can handle oppinions. What I'm saying is if you start a fire don't be supprised it spreads. If you trash talk someone's values expect an arguement.
I stated my opinion. Again, if you cannot handle differing opinions, then you came to the wrong place.
Have a nice evening, Will.
Everyone is crying out for peace.
None is crying out for justice.
But there will be not peace 'till man gets equal rights and justice.
I don't need to drop my arms to have peace...
If everyone dropped their arms...
Someone would pick up a stick and beat you senseless with it..
For as long as there are stupid people who will follow like sheep and fight for the ideals of others
I don't carry "arms".