I always hear people say things like, "I support the troops, but not the war."
This way, even though they are opposed to the war for whatever reason, they can still act patriotic and show empathy towards people who are fighting and risking their lives for their country.
But I don't really see how this is possible. Aren't troops a very important part of warfare? By actively supporting troops, are you not actively helping the war effort?
And yet, just a few days ago a fellow student said that it is one's duty as an American to show support for the troops, no matter how you feel about the war. And everyone in the class nodded in agreement.
I personally am an uncompromising believer in pacifism. How can I possibly support someone who volunteers to go to another country and kill people, and gets paid to do so?
In other words, can someone support an individual soldier when they oppose the entire concept of the military?
i was asking more for the op.... but thanks tho...
i've seen a few articles saying that people people aren't allowed to officially do that... but i've heard of a few recent cases where it has.... and as for the speeder. I just got all of my facts straight. and i apologize for using this example... the kid told the guy that he wanted to go into the airforce and that the infraction on his record (i'm told that so many mph over the limit = a felony....) would possibly keep him from that goal. the officer then said... if you give me proof of enlistment w/in a certain amount of time then i'll tear your ticket up... i don't even know what happened to that kid in the end... were friends but haven't heard of anything since he did what he did... its similar but not the same concept. and just b/c things aren't technically supposed to happen doesn't mean that they still aren't done under the table. ....and it didn't really do my brother any good b/c he's back now and already has a few more dui's and other things...
even without that part of my discussion the longer passage still stands by itself w/o it just the same.
a more real example based off of the play ground one... if left alone and Saddam had more of the people in his country and those surrounding killed (lets make up a number ( the general concept is all that needs to get across))and the deaths totaled around to some number like 1000 per year.... and now that he is no longer around the number looks something like 200 per year (all numbers made up)... of if through the duration of his life another 2,000 innocent people were to be killed and now that he's no longer here that is now 2,000 (most likely lots more if he himself had started a war) people that won't have died due to him being alive... something like that , in the mind of some of our military people, would be justification enough to use violence... b/c being pacifist and leaving him alone would, in their minds, left more people dead than what overthrowing him and rebuilding his country took.
Assumptions assumptions assumptions. Not to mention the amount of people killed during the war itself.
From my own stories I can tell you that cops are actually might easier on you when they find out that you're in the military.
My friend has avoided tickets many times once the police see he is in the Marines. They usually just say, thank you for serving the country, but try to not speed like that. Good luck, bye.
My friend has avoided tickets many times once the police see he is in the Marines. They usually just say, thank you for serving the country, but try to not speed like that. Good luck, bye.
doing what must be done is also just as honorable.
But as a pacifist, I believe that violence is NEVER "what must be done."
As per your bully example:
Who is the bully? How do we define bullying, and at what point does it merit retaliation?
But more importantly, how is violent retaliation any different from bullying itself? You say there is alternative to violence in your example, but that is not necessarily true. I believe that humans are intelligent enough to come up with nonviolent solutions to all problems.
Part of that entails taking responsibility for the future of the world. While it might be extremely hard to stop the bully peacefully now, if the other children had been watching for signs of violence a long time ago, they could have stopped the problem before there ever was a bully.
The same is true for wars. I can't think of any wars that started for "immediate" reasons. In other words, wars are the products of many years of conflicts. If we dealt with those conflicts when they happened, we could potentially avoid the war altogether.
people aren't allowed to officially do that.
Yes, that's true. Which is why I asked for sources. Though I do believe that exceptions are made. However, the military takes the following stance on the issue: Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.. -Army Recruiting Regulation 601-210
And as for my age, I'm old enough to be drafted, if there was a draft.
Yes its possible to only support soldiers not war.Since all soldier dont like battleling, they just have to do it.So if you support troops, you support people who are fighting for their lives, not goverment who has started that war.
The same is true for wars. I can't think of any wars that started for "immediate" reasons. In other words, wars are the products of many years of conflicts. If we dealt with those conflicts when they happened, we could potentially avoid the war altogether.
well too bad, because it never will stop and the worlds not gonna just hold hands and make everything OK. war is always gonna happen.
I personally am an uncompromising believer in pacifism. How can I possibly support someone who volunteers to go to another country and kill people, and gets paid to do so?
This statement was made in the OP.
For some reason, people love to think that they are being very attractively stoic for saying "I will not listen to reason, because I know that what I know is right" or something to that effect.
Never is this idea more prevalent but in the idea of faith as a positive trait. Why should this be?
Socrates (I think) said to "Know that you know nothing." People are often very presumptuous, I find, in their confidence that they are correct, and they are very often mistaken.
Socrates (I think) said to "Know that you know nothing." People are often very presumptuous, I find, in their confidence that they are correct, and they are very often mistaken.
Socrates said so many things, that the best way to refute something Socrates said is to use something else Socrates said/did. For instance, Socrates was a pacifist. He refused to use violence against those that were trying to kill him. You know, the whole hemlock thing? (This same strategy works for things said by Shakespeare, any philosopher ever, and the bible. People/books are prone to contradictions.)
My belief in pacifism is based on the fact that people do not have to harm each other. This means that violence is optional. Which is true. The "faith" aspect comes in when I claim that eventually humanity as a whole will choose nonviolence. Because, really, there is no evidence to back this claim up.
The main reason that I believe violence still exists is because other people believe that it is still necessary (I'm looking at you, locoace). In other words, pacifism will be unrealistic as long as people believe that pacifism is unrealistic. Because I believe pacifism is a good thing, I can do nothing but support it. To do otherwise would make me part of the problem.
A conditional pacifist makes about as much sense as a conditional vegan. Therefore, in order to be a pacifist, I have to be an uncompromising pacifist. This doesn't mean I don't constantly question myself. It just means I always get the same answer.
Einfach, for future reference, cynicism + name dropping will get you nowhere. You have to have actual arguments. For instance, you say I will not listen to reason, but you never state what the reason is that I should be listening to.
Socrates said so many things, that the best way to refute something Socrates said is to use something else Socrates said/did. For instance, Socrates was a pacifist. He refused to use violence against those that were trying to kill him. You know, the whole hemlock thing? (This same strategy works for things said by Shakespeare, any philosopher ever, and the bible. People/books are prone to contradictions.)
My point was not that Socrates is always right. My point was that your statement in the beginning needed more backup than just "I believe it, and there's nothing you can do to change my mind".
My belief in pacifism is based on the fact that people do not have to harm each other. This means that violence is optional. Which is true. The "faith" aspect comes in when I claim that eventually humanity as a whole will choose nonviolence. Because, really, there is no evidence to back this claim up.
Pacifism precludes self-defense. It forces one never to defend themselves with force. This is not realistic.
However, the idea of it is good. I feel that a superior alternative to Pacifism is "Non-Aggression".
A conditional pacifist makes about as much sense as a conditional vegan. Therefore, in order to be a pacifist, I have to be an uncompromising pacifist. This doesn't mean I don't constantly question myself. It just means I always get the same answer.
Bad Analogy: claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren't. For example, "The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also."
Or, "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is."
Or, "We have pure food and drug laws; why can't we have laws to keep movie-makers from giving us filth ?"
From http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#correlation
But as a pacifist, I believe that violence is NEVER "what must be done."
Then perhaps you should be supporting the troops most of all. The world isn't made entirely of pacifists, and if it were we wouldn't need a military. However it is not, and if you didn't have those willing to stand up in defense of you and your nation you likely wouldn't have the freedoms you enjoy today.
Furthermore violence is not a matter of necessary and unnecessary, it's a biological trait of our species and all of our relatives. We are a species who has become the dominate animal on earth BECAUSE we are violent, and very good at being so.
Pacifism, while a noble position, is unrealistic because it demands that all humans defy their most basic animal nature, and we simply are not yet at a stage in our evolution where this is even remotely possible.
A vegan who sometimes eats meat is not a vegan. A pacifist who sometimes commits violence is not a pacifist. Get it? I'm not saying that pacifism is legitimate because veganism is legitimate, I'm just comparing two things that only make sense when they are adhered to absolutely.
All of your bad analogies involve examples that go from one correct similarity to a false one. I only have one (correct) statement in analogy. I'm not claiming that pacifism and veganism are "higly similar", just that they are similar in one particular way.
I feel that a superior alternative to Pacifism is "Non-Aggression".
Given that all of our wars are due to problems that have been decades in the making, the concept of "self defense" is redundant. Every party involved can claim to be acting in self defense. Non-aggression is, in my opinion, just an excuse to be aggressive. The "it's okay because they started it" argument is ridiculous.
"I believe it, and there's nothing you can do to change my mind"
But the validity of pacifism is not the issue here. The issue is that I, as a pacifist, am expected to support American soldiers simply because they are American soldiers. I hardly think being a pacifist makes me a traitor to my country, yet many of my peers believe that not supporting our troops is one of the worst things an American can do. I believe I have explained why I cannot make an exception for American soldiers, given my stance on pacifism.
While I don't think that anyone should support the troops (because I don't think there should be a military at all, not because I hate all soldiers), I'm not trying to argue the validity of pacifism on this thread.
I don't think that anyone should be required to do anything that they do not agree with. If you do not support the military then that is your personal choice and you are fully entitled to feel that way. However I fail to see how one can logically deduce that pacifism demands that you refrain from lending your support to those that serve in the armed forces.
Certainly wars are not purely self-defense, and are unnecessary, however the fact is that they do happen. If one nation refrains from forming a capable military, for whatever reasons they choose, they will make themselves targets for those who have chosen to arm themselves. The military is a necessary deterrent more than anything, although it is often used for political and social gain.
Furthermore, I can tell you from experience that the last person in a country that wants to go to war is the soldier. Who do you think it is that is placing their life at risk? Surely not the pacifist at home who protests, or the politician who orders the military to war. It is the common soldier. No one would rather see a lifetime of peace than those who have the most to lose from war.
