Heroes live, cowards die : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
| 14 |
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I'll try (note 'try') to keep it brief.
I agree with:
Violence /= courage
Non-violence /= cowardice
Pacifism can = courage
I disagree with:
Willingness to do violence = weakness
The idea that pacifism has any chance of thriving without those willing to do violence for righteous causes.
Fact is, pacifism has two possible forms, one of which is courage, the other of which is cowardice. Some do no violence out of conviction, others do no violence out of fear. In either case, pacifism when confronted with violence will either break, run, or die unless there is someone, a warrior or a soldier, willing to do violence to protect the pacifist.
Mother Theresa wasn't harmed because she was holy? THAT is bullshit. Maybe some, possibly even most did not harm her because of her aura of sanctity, but there are always those who will do violence no matter unless counter-motivated through fear. Perhaps she never would have countenanced violence to protect her life, but whether she willed or no, the threat of violence against those who would do violence to her is a big factor in why she lived as long as she did.
"If you would have peace, prepare for war" isn't a bullshit saying, nor is "walk softly and carry a big stick". These are adages for those who don't want to do violence, who want peace, but are willing to respond with like as necessary to defend themselves and others.
Some would rather die than fight. That IS courage, I won't deny. Many would rather flee than fight. That's cowardice. Personally, I'd rather fight than die, or fight than flee; If you think this makes me a coward, then to hell with you.
(no subject)
When you say: "there are always those who will do violence no matter unless counter-motivated through fear" I disagree with you, not on the basis that I know you're wrong, but on the basis that I don't know you're right. But that's another discussion.
(no subject)
Thing is, I know I'm right. I know people who are violent by nature, held in check only by fear of imprisonment or death. If you don't know people like that, then you are fortunate and possibly sheltered. If you are a pacifist, then I hope that the police, myself and my fellow soldiers are able to afford you the luxury of never having to face violence. If we fail in that, then I hope you've the courage of your convictions, because they will be pressed unto death.
(no subject)
Ralph, It's Ben's LJ, man. He's allowed to go rant without first verifying Ron's meaning.
General: In a perfect world, violence would be abhorrent. But so long as there exist men who will do violence for less than noble causes, violence will remain a necessary and vital tool to protect and promote peaceful society. It should not always be the first resort, but likewise sometimes it should be, even must be.
Ron's comments: I gives a damn about. I haven't bothered reading the spawning discussion, my responses are purely based on things said in this thread. For the record however, I agree with what Ron said in general terms, and say that it was either unfortunately phrased, or deliberately phrased to be inflammatory, and I can't blame anyone for reacting badly; But I can and do hold people responsible for holding views I feel to be wrongheaded, just as I would expect any decent human being to do.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I am not ready to make the judgment of a person I know, "this person is violent by nature, held in check only by fear of imprisonment or death." There may well be people who I do not trust not to be violent, and around whom I would desire some kind of protection. There are definitely people my wife knows or knows of (she's a social worker and deals with mentally ill people all day and has come into some dangerous situations) whom I would not trust not to be violent. I'm not going to go a step further and say they're "violent by nature" and decide that the reason they're not violent at any given moment is fear of punishment. I do not know that to be true.
I don't think that I would trust fear of retaliation to protect me from a person whom I feared would be violent. Fear isn't very good at restraining people, as far as I can tell. I'd much rather remove myself from the presence of someone whom I did not trust not to kill me than rely on his fear of punishment or retaliation to protect me.
I think there are people whom we know of no better way to restrain from violence than by force, and I'm quite happy to have that force used as a last resort. I'm *glad* when serial killers, child molesters, whatever, end up in prison. I do not know a better way to protect people from them. I wish I did, but better to use force than nothing.
But restraint by force is not the same thing as threat of punishment. I accept the former when we cannot think of any better option (though I'd prefer we try to think of better options). I am not convinced threat of punishment actually works.
Those are just the way I see things right now -- I may have changed my mind in a year's or a decade's time. It happens. But that's the way things look to me right now.
(no subject)
The point I'm making is the same made about nonviolence in Vincent's blog: that it is a response to violence that doesn't allow the aggressor to gain that power. Real nonviolence says, "Do what you want, it doesn't matter. You have no power over me, even if you beat or kill me." Violence = power. Remove power from the equation and the whole idea that violence is necessary for a peaceful world goes right out the window.
In fact, your assertion that pacifism either breaks, runs, or dies without a soldier to protect it is disproven by numerous historical examples wherein pacifism/pacifists did none of the above. Ghandi's nonviolent protests being the most obvious example of such, and others detailed in (again) the discussion at Vincent's blog.