The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Society & Lifestyles:
History

Pacifist Response to Hitler

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...5 6 7
Erimitus On July 01, 2021




The mind of God, Antarctica
#91New Post! Dec 20, 2018 @ 15:48:49
**Hijack Alert**

I ain't got nun ah dat fancy store bought edjumacation. What, if you don't mind, is the difference between England and Britten?
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#92New Post! Dec 20, 2018 @ 16:10:07
@Erimitus Said

**Hijack Alert**

I ain't got nun ah dat fancy store bought edjumacation. What, if you don't mind, is the difference between England and Britten?


I found this helpful



I believe Britain = Great Britain

So England is a country located in Great Britain
Erimitus On July 01, 2021




The mind of God, Antarctica
#93New Post! Dec 20, 2018 @ 17:39:55
@mrmhead Said

I found this helpful



I believe Britain = Great Britain

So England is a country located in Great Britain



Got It. Thanks
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#94New Post! Dec 21, 2018 @ 00:43:52
@Leon Said

Hitler is used as an example of when I believe violence may be necessary. Indeed, if the bar is lowered from that extreme, I would otherwise be inclined to agree with the alternative solutions you vouch for. It would be extreme, in my opinion, to apply such solutions to all situations, hence the need to bring up examples where it may not work and/or be reasonable.


That's kind of the rub though isn't it? Necessary? I don't quite know about that. Very many things in this world are called necessary. Very few of them actually are.
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#95New Post! Dec 21, 2018 @ 02:26:40
@Erimitus Said

**Hijack Alert**

I ain't got nun ah dat fancy store bought edjumacation. What, if you don't mind, is the difference between England and Britten?



@Erimitus Said

Got It. Thanks


So it wasn't necessarily a Hijack. It was more of a sidebar.

shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#96New Post! Dec 23, 2018 @ 12:28:11
@mrmhead Said

I found this helpful



I believe Britain = Great Britain

So England is a country located in Great Britain


The first two maps are good. The third is highly contentious. A great many people in Éire take considerable offence at their country being included in the "British" isles...as Éire afterall is not British.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK):
The UK refers to the POLITICAL union between England, Cymru/Wales, Alba/Scotland and Northern Ireland. The UK is a sovereign state, but the nations that make it up are also countries in their own right. These countries however are NOT sovereign states.

Great Britain:
This is the official collective geographical designation for the landmass encompassing England, Alba/Scotland and Cymru/Wales and their associated islands. Here it is important to note that GB is NOT a sovereign state. Note too that GB does NOT include Northern Ireland. Therefore GB should NEVER be used interchangeably with the 'UK' as they are two very different things.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#97New Post! Dec 24, 2018 @ 15:14:17
@nooneinparticular Said

No, it was more designed to second guess the weights we place on all casualties. You say you have no sympathy for aggressors. Fair enough. Personally I view the unnecessary deaths of any person a waste, including aggressors. I acknowledge wholeheartedly that this is purely a personal feeling and consequentially it is of little use in a discussion of differing opinions. The main point I was trying to make, however, was that the death of a loved one touches many, and that damage carries on. Whether it be our own or the enemies, that damage carries on. You seemingly don't care about the damage caused to an enemy. Fair enough. But what of the damage caused to us in the process?


I may have misrepresented myself, but I did not mean that I have no sympathy for an aggressor. I have a smaller degree of it than I do for the person being targeted by the aggressor. I think that is a sound stance.


Quote:
Just as pacifism must face the realities of the world and adapt, so too must the concept of a principled war. When you talk of evil that must be stopped, that is a casus belli based on principle. The problem being that waging such a war leaves no room for it's calculus. If we argue that 'one of the gravest evils' is to allow atrocity, then what do we make of the world we have now? In which atrocities go unstopped because the calculus of war deems it not worth the cost? If we argue that such calculus should not stand in our way, then the inevitable situation is one in which we wage ideological wars, regardless of their costs and our ability to end them. If we argue the opposite, that ultimately such calculus is more important than the reason for the war in the first place, then the principle we hold so dearly is simply an excuse. A convenient moral shield and nothing more. This is evident in how the world has treated the word genocide since WWII. Redefining upon redefining so the world is allowed to officially wash it's hands of tyrants.


But doesn’t that argument in and of itself seem to suggest that war is the only valid reaction to atrocity? Acting on atrocity does not (I think in most cases should not) equate to waging armed conflict. We can act on atrocities and try to stop them as best as we can without having to calcutle the cost of warfare, but I think it’s also unrealistic to assume that such actions will always be sufficient.

Should a formidable military force enjoy impunity for violating treaties and killing innocents? Simple enough question, and I believe the answer is no, but where we stick is on the question of what action is appropriate. When that same force has shown time and again that they will not listen to diplomacy and will continue ignoring agreements and slaughtering civilians, I don’t believe it is moral to do nothing...and diplomacy that has already failed is tantamount to nothing.

Quote:

The problem with war is that it ceases to be a personal conflict and becomes a national endeavor. If you wish to save someone at the risk or cost of your own life, that is your decision to make. The reality of war, however, is that we risk not ourselves, the people far away from such conflict, but others. We risk the lives of people we will likely never meet to save or help people we will likely never meet. We ask the families of people we will likely never meet to sacrifice their sons, daughters, lovers, and parents for OUR ideals. For OUR goals.


What is your opinion of a police officer defending a person’s right to peaceable assembly and free speech in the face of a violent opposition? Should a racist police officer have been expected to defend a civil rights assembly in 1964? He is after all a police officer by choice and sworn to uphold laws that he may or may not agree with. Should he simply stand aside if someone else decides he does not like what the assembly has to say and becomes violent? They aren’t HIS ideals or HIS goals are they? So those assembling shouldn’t expect him to place himself in danger to protect or save them from violence? Assuming a voluntary military, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make the analogy. I also think it’s interesting to note that most people who make the argument you’re making don’t seem to be a part of a voluntary military and those that are a part of one largely don’t seem to have the issue you’re raising. At least not as far as I can tell.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#98New Post! Dec 24, 2018 @ 21:08:19
@Eaglebauer Said

But doesn’t that argument in and of itself seem to suggest that war is the only valid reaction to atrocity? Acting on atrocity does not (I think in most cases should not) equate to waging armed conflict. We can act on atrocities and try to stop them as best as we can without having to calcutle the cost of warfare, but I think it’s also unrealistic to assume that such actions will always be sufficient.


It is reckless to engage in a war without an understanding of what you wish to achieve because of it, how much force you will need to do it, and what the field will look like afterwards. The realities of war do not change simply because we wage a 'noble' one.

Quote:

Should a formidable military force enjoy impunity for violating treaties and killing innocents? Simple enough question, and I believe the answer is no, but where we stick is on the question of what action is appropriate. When that same force has shown time and again that they will not listen to diplomacy and will continue ignoring agreements and slaughtering civilians, I don’t believe it is moral to do nothing...and diplomacy that has already failed is tantamount to nothing.


Are your principles worth someone else's life? I fully admit that sometimes, no matter what the other party asks of you to end conflict, it is something that you are either unwilling or unable to give up. The question we should always ask ourselves, however, is 'Is this worth my life? Theirs? An innocent's?' The thing about fighting based on principle is that it never ends. Even almost 80 years into the future, Nazism and other white supremacy doctrines are still causing problems. Americans like to say that you can never kill the idea of freedom because someone else will always want it. That same principle applies to every other doctrine.

War is not a game. It is not pageantry. It is not two armies lining up in rows to civilly kill each other away from others. War is ugly. It devastates land and cities. It causes famines. It takes the lives of innocents in the name of collateral damage. It leaves a lot of angry orphans looking for answers. It deserves the consideration of the massive weight of it's consequences, and that means that we cannot afford to engage in wars of ideology where we ignore the calculus of war.

Quote:

What is your opinion of a police officer defending a person’s right to peaceable assembly and free speech in the face of a violent opposition? Should a racist police officer have been expected to defend a civil rights assembly in 1964? He is after all a police officer by choice and sworn to uphold laws that he may or may not agree with. Should he simply stand aside if someone else decides he does not like what the assembly has to say and becomes violent? They aren’t HIS ideals or HIS goals are they? So those assembling shouldn’t expect him to place himself in danger to protect or save them from violence? Assuming a voluntary military, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make the analogy. I also think it’s interesting to note that most people who make the argument you’re making don’t seem to be a part of a voluntary military and those that are a part of one largely don’t seem to have the issue you’re raising. At least not as far as I can tell.


There is a difference between choosing to die for another and being expected to die for another. Should we expect a police officer to die for another? What of all these incidents of accidental shootings, in which the officer believes themselves in danger and thus justified in shooting a suspect? Should they instead not have done that, and risked their own lives in order to better understand the situation at hand? Same with soldiers. Think back to Benghazi. Remember how some people believed that we should have sent more troops into Benghazi in order to help the ones already being attacked? Would that have been the right call?

Police officers and soldiers trust their superiors and commanders not to send them to their deaths without an extremely good and practical reason. Yes, they acknowledge that they can die in the line of duty and they each deal with that reality in their own ways. However, that does not mean that they agree personally with the reasons for every action. I think the reason we don't see much soldier or police outcry in regards to wars or laws is because, at the end of the day, a very large percentage trust their superiors to look out for and protect them, no matter what.
gakINGKONG On October 18, 2022




, Florida
#99New Post! Dec 26, 2018 @ 13:44:10
I think they should put him on trial for all the shenanigans.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...5 6 7

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Food & Drink
Thu Jun 19, 2008 @ 23:40
7 1636
New posts   Random
Sun Oct 25, 2009 @ 23:40
16 1625
New posts   Random
Tue Oct 22, 2013 @ 19:37
57 2282
New posts   Rants & Raves
Fri Jul 09, 2010 @ 09:55
2 536
New posts   Random
Tue Aug 12, 2008 @ 23:45
33 1645