Pacifists are traitors, not to mention idiots. Violence is both omnipresent and necessary. That said, the Ukraine brought the war on themselves, via the crossdressing jew comedian who serves as their current head of state attempting to annihilate Russian speakers in their east. 100% avoidable.
Absolute pacifists, perhaps. But there's nothing wrong with desiring peace, or trying to avoid pointless or non-beneficial violence.
Violence is both omnipresent and necessary.
Universally, yes. Doesn't mean every occurrence or proposal of violence is good or just, just because violence as a concept is universal and often necessary.
Saying "Violence is bad" is stupid. Saying "This violence is bad" is, more often than not, a correct statement.
Those who deny the necessity of violence try to make themselves good by being harmless. There is a very important distinction between the peaceful and the harmless, for the peaceful are capable of violence and make the choice to not be so. The harmless are weak and 'will suffer what they must' per Thucydides.
This isn't to say that peace is bad. As you say elsewhere, there's a difference between starting fights vs. ending them. The strongest and most morally warranted peacemaker is a veteran, who knows both the how and the cost of violence.
It may be semantics but it also looks why you started talking past each other, pacifist is by definition an exclusively absolute term. If you believe in using violence in any circumstances at all you're no longer a pacifist.
Everyone else is just different flavors of more or less violent.
The Ukrainian people didn't bring the war upon themselves. They are a puppet state for greater powers. They have little control over their own country. America/NATO is more responsible than any Ukrainian.
By that logic, the CIA coup never would have happened if we Americans had fought harder to have a less corrupt government. I get what you are saying, but this line of thinking ends up outsourcing blame for things the ruling class does onto the plebes.
Pacifists are traitors, not to mention idiots. Violence is both omnipresent and necessary. That said, the Ukraine brought the war on themselves, via the crossdressing jew comedian who serves as their current head of state attempting to annihilate Russian speakers in their east. 100% avoidable.
Absolute pacifists, perhaps. But there's nothing wrong with desiring peace, or trying to avoid pointless or non-beneficial violence.
Universally, yes. Doesn't mean every occurrence or proposal of violence is good or just, just because violence as a concept is universal and often necessary.
Saying "Violence is bad" is stupid. Saying "This violence is bad" is, more often than not, a correct statement.
Desiring peace and being a pacifist are very different things. Pacifists reject the necessity of violence.
Yeah, "Peaceful" just means you don't go around starting fights. Doesn't mean you aren't willing to finish one that someone starts with you.
A pacifist won't even defend itself, thinking that he has the higher moral ground ... as his head gets lopped off by his enemy.
I seem to recall Futurama nailing this. "Stop, you cannot pass!" "You're pacifists, what are you going to do to stop us?"
Those who deny the necessity of violence try to make themselves good by being harmless. There is a very important distinction between the peaceful and the harmless, for the peaceful are capable of violence and make the choice to not be so. The harmless are weak and 'will suffer what they must' per Thucydides.
This isn't to say that peace is bad. As you say elsewhere, there's a difference between starting fights vs. ending them. The strongest and most morally warranted peacemaker is a veteran, who knows both the how and the cost of violence.
Sic pacem, para bellum.
It may be semantics but it also looks why you started talking past each other, pacifist is by definition an exclusively absolute term. If you believe in using violence in any circumstances at all you're no longer a pacifist.
Everyone else is just different flavors of more or less violent.
The Ukrainian people didn't bring the war upon themselves. They are a puppet state for greater powers. They have little control over their own country. America/NATO is more responsible than any Ukrainian.
The CIA coup that installed zelensky absolutely would never have succeeded if the people had fought it.
By that logic, the CIA coup never would have happened if we Americans had fought harder to have a less corrupt government. I get what you are saying, but this line of thinking ends up outsourcing blame for things the ruling class does onto the plebes.
I agree. The American people sat by and permitted a takeover.