Innocence Riots

Sorry, but that's silly shit to say. You stand up and fight for what's yours. Now, not all war is the right course of action, such as your example with Vietnam and I would say Afghanistan and Iraq too. Not all war needs to be the traditional military style battles commanded by rich Harvard fucks either. Some fights are much more personal. Agreed to some extent that not all battles should be fought, but also it needs to be pointed out that many things are worth fighting for.But to say that you should walk away from your home, and just give them what they want is not any kind of way for men to live or act. What if they want your wife, or your child? Should you give the warrior what he wants? What if he wants the home where your children are fed and sleep, where your wife lays with you at night in the safety of your presence? Should you let them have it?If this is what the Buddhist believe then they should keep that to weak shit to themselves IMO. What kind of man lets another man take what he has built for his family and their future without so much as a fight?This is what the Germans were doing to the Jews. Fighting back is without a doubt the right way for a man to act in defense of his family.- Oni

I cheered both you and Percy.

quote:

---

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate;
a time of war, and a time of peace.

​

-- Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

---

Once in a while, the Dusty Book gets it right. Life is complicated.Edited by ringo, : Removed inappropriate subtitle.Edited by ringo, : Splling.

I get his point too to some extent. Wait, that's not just a song from The Byrds?! I didn't know that.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

And where does that get us?Completely realistic situations can be described for which I have no answer, I readily concede that, but the priority must be to avoid violence at all costs because the inevitable result is visiting violence on foreign lands while claiming it is self defense, as demonstrated throughout history. Violence must always be rejected. As soon as one begins listing situations where violence is permitted then all is lost. One's philosophy must be that force and violence are never an answer to have any hope at all of keeping recourse to violence to a minimum.But to address your more important point: I agree. I'm somewhat chagrined myself to find that I actual believe this pacifistic bullshit.--Percy

But history has also shown us that aggressive military action has stoppped genocidal governments too, like with Hitler and the termination of the Nazis. But then you end up with a place like Cuba, where a dictator has been allowed to maintain his place of power by what can be called a pacifist citizenship.And lets look at what happens when the warrior comes and the pacifist leaves, in most cases the "pacifist" ends up being the one's with means. Again, like in Cuba. The rich left and the poor stayed behind to suffer through Castro for 50 plus years...and counting.Take Vietnam as another example. When those with means called themselves pacifist and many left the country to avoid the violence of the war, who stayed behind and had to fight? The poor.So seeking to avoid violence only aided in bringing about violence the the less fortunate sons. Haha, so long as you recognize it. - Oni

I like you Percy, but I think your speaking out of ignorance and naivety here.Humans are humans. Just because you are nice to people does not mean they will reciprocate. If people do not stand up for the innocent and helpless than they are as much to blame as those who instigate violence. If some one tries to take or do harm to your children or your wife are you just going to let them? Are you just going to walk away? I hope not. The same thing is true on the larger scale. Would you not through political and military means, fight to protect the innocent (i.e. the Holocaust, Rwanda, etc)?As Ringo so eloquently quotes Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 (one of the few passages of the Bible I like, along with some of Jesus parables and moral lessons), "to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven". There is a time for war (i.e. WWII) and there is a time for peace.Of course the preference is for peace but peace does not mean allowing the needless slaughter and genocide that occurs. Sometimes I feel we (collective 'we', not just the US) have not done enough to stand up for the defenseless (i.e. Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Darfur, etc). However, it is easy to say this in hindsight. Sometimes we do not get the full story of what is going on until after it happens. For example, the US was wrapping up the Vietnam War when Khmer Rouge occurred and was politically, culturally and military unable to stop it from happening.Sometimes I feel like countries (including the US) are not putting enough pressure on these despot regimes to prevent atrocities from occurring. The US, Great Britain (and sometimes France) cannot and should not be the only countries to pressure on the despotic regimes. It must, must be a multilateral, international effort.I do believe that we had to take action after 9-11 even though I disagree with how we did this. This should have been a multilateral, international action. If America had worked with other countries to take action instead of impetuously going in guns blazing without carefully considering the best course of action, we would not be in the mess we are in now. However, we are in this mess, and we do have to work through it.Just my two cents and my 19 year experience as a member of the US armed services. I will get off my soapbox now.

Is it always? I do not conur. If we (collective we, not just the US) did not stop Hitler and Japan, how many more humans would have died, been enslaved, and have their freedoms taken away. Diplomacy did not get anywhere with either Japan or Germany. When a county or regime is hell bent on genocide the only recourse sometimes is meeting force with brute force. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Pacifism is good as long as it is tempered with a healthy dose of reality and understanding of human behavior. I would rather be a pacifist than a war monger, but not at the expense of the defense of myself and my fellow human beings against those who wish to harm us.There is a time to stand up and defend those who cannot. We just have to be careful not to adopt the vary behaviors we are defending against.

How do you feel about:

quote:

---

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

---

Eh?

It's an unending chain. Would there have been a Hitler without the Treaty of Versailles that concluded WWI? And who is to make these calculations that fewer die if we oppose violence with violence? One could argue that fewer would have died in WWII if no one had opposed Hitler militarily. Maybe out of Hitler's conquests would have emerged a truly unified Europe in many ways superior to the current confusion of many sovereign powers using a unified currency. Maybe if Germany hadn't been on a war footing Hitler's final solution would have sputtered out. Who can say?But even if we can never predict the future nor the outcomes of "what ifs", if nothing is more sacred than human life then taking up arms is always the wrong answer.--Percy

I think I already answered this when I said my position introduces quandaries for which I have no solution. Though idealistic goals, unless pacifism and non-violence are completely embraced we will far too often seek answers in violence.Concerning Ecclesiastes, I believe that's Old Testament. But it's never a permanent fix, is it. We've been killing ourselves since the beginning of time, and it hasn't seemed to diminish the need. We've seen where violence leads, it's the world we live in now. It's time to give peace a chance.--Percy

Hi CS,That's one of my favorite quotes, but I'm advocating pacifism and non-violence, not inaction.--Percy

Omigod, Godwin strikes again!--Percy

Of course some lives are more sacred than others. One's own life is most often the most sacred life. Beyond that, it is the quality of a life that is often more important than the life itself. Even the potential quality of a future life is often more important than preservation of an existing life.The universe is a violent place and life itself seems to require some violence in order to exist. Competition seems to be the natural order of things and peaceful co-existence is more accurately described as detente. Peace only arises when it is realized as the best chance for your own survival as opposed to some altruistic sentiment.

I can see this in principle, it's a familiar situation with the elderly, but how does one balance the equation between quality of life and life itself? How does one compare current situations against future possibilities? Yes, I think this accurately explains world history.--Percy