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.
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.
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.