Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i am writing via cell phone. it requires me to edit and input words, sentences and other things that are missing. it is not perfect but people get the gist of
I wasn't suggesting you were grammatically incorrect. I only added the word "maintaining" because it is a verb that I think would more properly outline your motivations in terms of goals than the noun "peace" by itself.
There are NO animals that are pacifist. All animals defend themselves, their offspring, and their territory, if necessary. Most do not practice organized warfare since they don't become over-populated.
Humans become over-populated because of our success in growing surplus food. Natural territorial instincts evolve into organize large scale warfare.
Gandhi was defending his family and his territory with tactics (including rather benign psychological warfare). If you think Pacifism has ever meant Anarchy and Egoless Nihilism then I don't know what you are talking about.
You would only not get what I'm saying if you assumed otherwise of my intent or you've never been around animals. Most animals will run away unless they are hunting to gain something, defending something (such as young), or in a rut.
Few are the animals that will practice organized warfare only due to over-population. If they can organize, they will organize warfare weekly if they don't think it's hurting them.
Again: "if the warfare is not hurting them."
Warfare due to population hasn't been practiced by major factions of humans for a very long time. Humans and other animals have evolved to most often simply curve their breeding strategy and other motivations for warfare have to be highlighted for troop moral.
We will outbreed them just doesn't ring as desirable for many well-off females. And if things are not going well, the population should be naturally dying anyway from other direct causes like disease and famine, and no military in famine is going to be that strong.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 10-25-2018 at 08:40 PM..
You can afford to be a pacifist, because you are protected. Assuming you live in one of the advanced nations, there are huge arsenals waiting to defend you from outside invaders, if necessary. And police forces to defend you against internal enemies. And the national military will also fight internal enemies if needed.
If not for all that, you would be ready to fight, or give up and be killed.
That, or give up and join them. Plus, there is always the possibility that you can fight and die.
Ghengis Khan merely lowered their taxes to win over conservatives he conquered. And Israel was most often historically given up to their stronger enemies, only to have small factions slowly and often grow to test the limits of their sovereignty over and over again. If every Israeli had been constantly fighting, every Israeli would have to be killed by the invading enemy in order for the enemy to feel as though they've won.
And what did these "horrible way-of-life destroying invaders" do after the conquest? They had to quasi-adopt then fully readopt the cultures of the majority of people that gave up and joined them willingly.
I was once asked whether i thought might was right. I had to think about that one but concluded that it does no good being Right unless you have some Might to make it stick.
Right alone makes right. But right in some ways doesn't always make Might in every way. Might alone makes Might.
Or whoever attains the power after centuries of oppression....jacquerie!
Yes. We know what the problem is, but how to solve it? The league of nations and then the UN was tried, and I hardly need rehearse the patchy record it has, but it does seem as though it represents the idea of the solution rather than being the solution.
If you don't defend your beliefs against those who would force different beliefs onto you, then those who practice pacifism will either be wiped out or converted.
Because there will always be another, more militaristic group, that will see weakness and walk right in.
Now, the practice of pacifism can be a good thing if that ideology is only practiced in regards to aggression, but if it is practiced toward defense as well, pacifism actually becomes an evil ideology, not a good one.
For instance, standing by while someone is raped or killed because your pacifism doesn't allow you to do harm to another individual.
Yes. We know what the problem is, but how to solve it? The league of nations and then the UN was tried, and I hardly need rehearse the patchy record it has, but it does seem as though it represents the idea of the solution rather than being the solution.
Indeed, but the forum is there and newer perceptions of conflict resolution have a chance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But who gets to decide what's the Right?
