Why the opposition to pacifism?

[mrapplecastle]

I sure am glad I dont have john busting my balls, it looks painful. Hugs! 

[John Shaw]

As a small addendum to this whole mess -

Here is the newest thread by Pizzly.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=35052.0

I'm starting to think there might be no actual orange in this oh-so-yummy soda.

[BonerJoe]

Soda? But it's not made of beans.

[Turd Ferguson]

As a small addendum to this whole mess -

Here is the newest thread by Pizzly.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=35052.0

I'm starting to think there might be no actual orange in this oh-so-yummy soda.

Guy seems like the type that just says emo-wit type shit in an attempt to be clever/ironic/deep

Complete the image with the Hello Kitty lunch box and pink belt, walking down the street holding a length of yarn with a tree limb tied to the other end......... or whatever. Like, "hey, look at me, im doing something strange.......... im artsy, im a poet"

[alaric89]

I don't think Pizzly is a troll. I have tried to pick a fight a couple of times, and no bites. He and Dale have more than pacifism in commen I find that interesting. Not judgemental or anything just curious if gays have a tendency to strive for true pacifism http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=23483.45 (truth is I don't deal with openly gay people very often in my day to day, the ones I have met are shocked at my "I could give two shits about it" attitude and seemed a little intimidated by me) *
*Libertarians are fucking rare in Norway.

[Turd Ferguson]

I don't think Pizzly is a troll. I have tried to pick a fight a couple of times, and no bites. He and Dale have more than pacifism in commen I find that interesting. Not judgemental or anything just curious if gays have a tendency to strive for true pacifism http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=23483.45 (truth is I don't deal with openly gay people very often in my day to day, the ones I have met are shocked at my "I could give two shits about it" attitude and seemed a little intimidated by me) *
*Libertarians are fucking rare in Norway.

Yeah, he seems to be posting coherent arguments on subject at the moment. Maybe he has learned to stay out of certain arguments and go with what he understands............ maybe hes not a troll.

[Cognitive Dissident]

...for some reason, when I read his posts it sounds like

this voice

in my head...

[Turd Ferguson]

LOL

[Pizzly]

[MacFall]

If every single human were a pacifist, then pacifism would make sense. If every human were capable of being convinced of the wrongdoing of their actions, and more importantly, if they cared, then pacifism would still be a defensible position. But in the real world, there is such a thing as pure evil. There are such things as people who kill because they like it. If everyone who had the basic human ability to make moral decisions chose pacifism, then the ones who are left - the truly evil cases, the ones who are more like animals than humans, would simply kill until they got too physically tired, or bored, or ran out of victims. How can absolute refusal to defend the innocent against initiatory force be anything but an anti-life view? How can one claim to be in favor of innocent life if one would not end that which would destroy innocent life utterly if it had the power to do so?

[MacFall]

Do you guys realize how similar these tactics are to those of many statists?

Describe elaborate problem that no one has a perfect solution for-- crime, traffic accidents, drug abuse, war.

Therefore -> THE STATE. (Which has drastically failed to solve these problems as well)

So if I don't have a perfect answer for some carefully contrived problem (like whichever graphically depicted rape scenario), I have to accept your solution exactly as presented, even though it's clearly not a perfect solution either?

We're not arguing from effect here; we're arguing the validity of moral principles. If you can't take a moral principle to its absolute theoretically possible extreme (which means it can be absurdly unlikely, but still theoretically possible) without contradicting yourself, then the principle is false.

Pacifism (defined as absolute refusal to use force in any scenario) is inconsistent whilst one is protected from the violent by those willing to use defensive force, unless the pacifist also disapproves of the choice of others to use violence on his behalf. And in that case it is no longer a "personal choice" but an absolute moral proposition. And as an absolute moral proposition, it would result in all those persons capable of choosing pacifism dead at the hands of those pathological cases who are not so capable. In other words, the persistence of the principle depends upon its violation in some cases.

That is a contradiction, and it renders the proposition false. But there is no such contradiction in proportional, defensive force as permitted by the non-aggression principle.

[MacFall]

Eric. EricFromMichigan on the boards. Massive troll. He used the same methods as this dude, and the same methods as Nathyn.

Wait... Nathyn was on here? Holy crap, I've been dealing with that jackhole since 2003 on the Protest Warrior board, back in my neocon days. He followed some of us to a smaller forum when PW went down, and I bet $20 he found his way to this bbs when a few people from that site started coming here.

[Ecolitan]

I think it is about the commonly perceived definition: I think many people see pacifism not in the non-aggression principle way (self defense = OK) but in a way that says that you must remain a victim/nonviolent/weak in the face of trouble. I might include myself in one of those people who define "pacifism" that way. I may also be drunk.

that's because any other way to use the word "pacifist" is fucking retarded.

NOT agressing against people is what the overwhelming majority of people believe in.  NOT defending yourself is what a very few people believe in.  No need to make a word for the overwhelming majority, you can just call them people who aren't intensionally criminal.

–noun
1.
a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.

emphasis added by me

[Dalebert]

But in the real world, there is such a thing as pure evil.

I don't believe in evil.  But obviously you do, so if that's what you believe then perhaps your other beliefs that derive from that make sense.  I know that violence is not the only deterrent for anti-social behavior so I reject the notion that "evil" will overwhelm the world and wipe out all the peaceful people if it's not destroyed.

[MacFall]

Okay, fine - forget "evil" and just go with pathologically violent people who lack the moral capacity to choose to be peaceful. They DO exist, as a matter of fact, no matter what you call them.