Seriously thoughtful Unbelievable! (not allowed to show the flag)

[Halk]

Originally Posted by astra

Are you pacifist?

He's gone into a great deal of detail about what his beliefs are. As I understand he's not a pacifist in the purest sense of the word.... I think it would be polite to read the several paragraphs he's gone to the effort of typing rather than ask for a one word answer instead

[astra]

Originally Posted by Halk

He's gone into a great deal of detail about what his beliefs are. As I understand he's not a pacifist in the purest sense of the word.... I think it would be polite to read the several paragraphs he's gone to the effort of typing rather than ask for a one word answer instead

Are you his solicitor?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Halk

That is something I can agree with.

As far as WW2, it's an example I picked because I felt it was far and above the conflict where most people would feel it was necessary to become involved. As far as the boat to France, I meant it simply as the nearest Nazi held place to GB.

Sparrow - You have defined the very essence of the problem. I could, with very strong conviction, argue against either a yes or a no answer... and indeed against a maybe!

omk3 - That's a very interesting proposal. I think I might end up on a very small island as the only person in my country...

Perhaps this will help explain things.

As a UK subject would you join the war effort if...

1. Nazi Germany invades the UK
2. Nazi Germany invades France
3. Nazi Germany invades Poland
4. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to invade the UK
5. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to invade the France
6. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to invade Poland
7. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to annex a small part of Poland

I hope it's not too much of an assumption to say that we would all join the war effort for 1, but that by 7 most of us would not.

My point is that if we don't do number 7 because 80% of the population object... then do we do 4 when 50% object? Can we do 2 when 5% object?

If we go to war when 5% object then why is it fair for members of my family to die, but members of another family who disagree with the war not to die. Surely everybody must sacrifice, and put themselves at risk of death for it to be fair.

If we force people to fight when they object to it then are we not monsters on the same level as the Nazis? Or is exiling and deporting them, and directly putting them into Nazi hands an equally cruel or even worse act?

If we don't go to war because 15% object and 85% want to, then how is that fair on the 85%? Won't they then argue that war is inevitable and more loss of life will occur because of waiting? Or would they argue that by not going to war we are permitting the Nazis to murder at will across Poland, France, etc.

It's one of those philosophical/moral dilemas with no right answer that everybody agrees with. If we don't stand together and form some sort of government then we'll be killed/stolen from etc one by one. If we do group together then we need to make some form of compromise.

My point, if it is at all clear, is that there are no simple answers.

Definitely no simple answers, but I think anything we can do to reduce unnecessary fear and violence at any level is not only right, but worthwhile in the long run.

The hypothetical on WWII are extremely hard to answer. At what point is war truly war? At what point is it merely a matter of defending yourself or dying? Too many questions, not enough answers, and lets face it even during WWII Britain had to conscript people, despite the overwhelming and immediate pressures that were faced.

So I suppose the question, at least in my mind, becomes at what point is an armed struggle unavoidable and which side do you then choose if any? Of course if the mainland of your country was attacked by a military force then it would certainly be more of a cut and dry choice. I imagine that many of the citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan are facing this very choice as we speak. But what if you couldn't do this, what if the sensible option was to form a resistance or a guerilla movement under the noses of the invading forces? I think I'd be part of that, myself. Violence towards people is not within my natural urges, but violence toward property I would not flinch at performing.

There's my answer. Whatever I did I would do my utmost not to directly or indirectly hurt another human being. I would resist an oppressive force, but only in so much as my ability to disrupt and halt their means of progression. I would never touch a gun or a bullet.

In the end I believe it is always fear and horrible greed that puts us into wars. The same fear I'm sure a great many of the German public felt during the reign of the Third Reich. A fear that may have turned them away from doing the right thing in relation to the concentration camps, but in no way excuses what we did to Dresden or what the Americans did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

We should learn from all these mistakes and see that these wars are preventable, that the only people who benefit are the people making money, everyone else is left devastated on both sides.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by astra

Are you pacifist?

I try to be, that is an essential part of my philosophy, but it is not a total part of my philosophy. I am old enough and have experienced enough to see that sometimes, rarely though, a violent reaction works over a non-violent reaction. But, and I say this through personal experience as well as observation and reading of history, violence always triggers more violence. It does not solve problems, it creates more.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I try to be, that is an essential part of my philosophy, but it is not a total part of my philosophy. I am old enough and have experienced enough to see that sometimes, rarely though, a violent reaction works over a non-violent reaction. But, and I say this through personal experience as well as observation and reading of history, violence always triggers more violence. It does not solve problems, it creates more.

So, when you walk on a street with your parents or your wife and some yob attack them, you are going to stand by and let them violate your elder parents, or your wife?

[omk3]

Oh, you had a point with those questions! Good to know. But they are already answered if you read above. And no, I'm not Moejoe's solicitor either.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by astra

So, when you walk on a street with your parents or your wife and some yob attack them, you are going to stand by and let them violate your elder parents, or your wife?

I did answer that above, but seeing as I've had my nose broken a total of 7 times, five of those through violent attacks, I think I'm qualified to answer this.

If a group of yobs attacks and beats you, there is very little you can do to fend them off. You may swing and punch and kick, but unless you're professionally trained to deal with such a situation, and even then, you will have little to no chance. Life is not a Chuck Norris movie, you don't get to (except on rare occasions) walk away from these kinds of incidents as a winner. It is almost exactly the same as trying to beat up an out of control car that's mounted the pavement or fend off a tornado. Now, that's not to say that in the heat of the moment I wouldn't DEFEND myself, it's just to say that nine times out of ten I would cross the road to avoid the situation.

Now if it was one person, no matter how big and there were three of you in the family, elderly or not, you'd have a chance to subdue the attacker just by physical presence alone, without violence.

Saying all that, these are not microcosms of global conflicts. They are everyday street brawls, fights and scuffles. They happen quickly, mostly without warning, and the assailant is gone just as quickly without any further incident. Violence is everywhere, avoiding that violence is a trait of evolution, a tactic to outlive other, less intelligent animals (hopefully).

[recluse]

I was called away. Sorry.
Humanity unified for the betterment of humanity is a beautiful ideal.
Sadly, those who reach a position of influence and power, no matter what their belief system, almost always revert to the same sins of greed and avarice.
I doubt that is going to change in our lifetime.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by recluse

I was called away. Sorry.
Humanity unified for the betterment of humanity is a beautiful ideal.
Sadly, those who reach a position of influence and power, no matter what their belief system, almost always revert to the same sins of greed and avarice.
I doubt that is going to change in our lifetime.

Then we strip away the power. Also, it has to change because the power structures we have in place; religion, politics, capitalism are rapidly failing.

[Halk]

Originally Posted by recluse

I was called away. Sorry.
Humanity unified for the betterment of humanity is a beautiful ideal.
Sadly, those who reach a position of influence and power, no matter what their belief system, almost always revert to the same sins of greed and avarice.
I doubt that is going to change in our lifetime.

But I'm different. When I have the entire world in my grip, one of my first actions as High King of the Earth will be to abolish poverty.

And of course when that fails I won't accept that I did it wrong. I'll accept that I can improve my efforts, then I'll start to identify why they went wrong, and who is at fault. I'll sort them out, and as I do that more of them will come out of the woodwork, and I'll sort them out, and their sympathisers and indeed anyone who gets in my way. After all I'm getting rid of poverty and these people that stand in my way are trying to perpetuate poverty. I'll have to do some things that are a bit shady, and that I hadn't initially planned for, but it's all worth it in the end. Politicians and leaders who start to unite people against me... well, I can justify imprisoning them, or them having accidents because they're going to pervert people's minds against the state and the good work I'm trying to achieve. It's actually a benevolent thing to have them put to death. When the people start to lose faith in me... I'll seize on to one of their ideas of who is at fault, and I will turn the heat up on that group of people. They're at fault slightly already, so it is justified, and by uniting the people against a common enemy we can again work together towards the goals I set out....

The above is how I imagine a dictator goes from good to bad... and despite deep down believing that I would be a benevolent dictator, logic tells me it'd be one little step wrong at a time as far down that path as I let myself go.

As far as humanity united.... in order to do so we need to compromise. And that means compromising on our ethics and morals. Thus, anyone who is unwilling to compromise on ethics or morals isn't really wanting to unite together, they're wanting people to unite behind them. That's a difficult thing to accept, but sadly it's true.

As for astra the heckler... I could see that one coming. Barging into the thread in the middle of a discussion to bait someone into a points scoring situation.... there's no high score table on internet forums, please don't try to win!

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Halk

But I'm different. When I have the entire world in my grip, one of my first actions as High King of the Earth will be to abolish poverty.

And of course when that fails I won't accept that I did it wrong. I'll accept that I can improve my efforts, then I'll start to identify why they went wrong, and who is at fault. I'll sort them out, and as I do that more of them will come out of the woodwork, and I'll sort them out, and their sympathisers and indeed anyone who gets in my way. After all I'm getting rid of poverty and these people that stand in my way are trying to perpetuate poverty. I'll have to do some things that are a bit shady, and that I hadn't initially planned for, but it's all worth it in the end. Politicians and leaders who start to unite people against me... well, I can justify imprisoning them, or them having accidents because they're going to pervert people's minds against the state and the good work I'm trying to achieve. It's actually a benevolent thing to have them put to death. When the people start to lose faith in me... I'll seize on to one of their ideas of who is at fault, and I will turn the heat up on that group of people. They're at fault slightly already, so it is justified, and by uniting the people against a common enemy we can again work together towards the goals I set out....

The above is how I imagine a dictator goes from good to bad... and despite deep down believing that I would be a benevolent dictator, logic tells me it'd be one little step wrong at a time as far down that path as I let myself go.

As far as humanity united.... in order to do so we need to compromise. And that means compromising on our ethics and morals. Thus, anyone who is unwilling to compromise on ethics or morals isn't really wanting to unite together, they're wanting people to unite behind them. That's a difficult thing to accept, but sadly it's true.

As for astra the heckler... I could see that one coming. Barging into the thread in the middle of a discussion to bait someone into a points scoring situation.... there's no high score table on internet forums, please don't try to win!

No high score table? I was lied to! I demand a high-score table be introduced, with flashing lights and my name in ten foot high letters that sparkle majestically!

[recluse]

Then you must be patient. Hold your beliefs close to your heart and teach them to your children. What you suggest, at this point in human development, will result in a bloodbath of monstrous proportions. And the victor will not be the builder of the new Eden.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by recluse

Then you must be patient. Hold your beliefs close to your heart and teach them to your children. What you suggest, at this point in human development, will result in a bloodbath of monstrous proportions. And the victor will not be the builder of the new Eden.

I neither have nor do I want children, and I certainly do not want anything that is associated with any bible to come to pass (taking that a little too literally I know, but that damn book and its siblings have caused more harm to this world than anything).

I take my comfort in the movements of the Spanish prior to and during the Civil War. Yes, the Spanish Civil War was lost to fascism, but it was a close call, and now we're ready all across Europe for the last days of Capitalism, a much better position than the Spanish ever saw. It won't be bloody though, far from it, Europe is about to enter a prolonged period of economic austerity that will prime us for the changeover from top-down, capitalism where the rich have all and the poor provide that for them, to a more equal distribution of wealth and a return to a more community driven lifestyle.

The violent revolution isn't needed any longer, this is happening across the board - from Open Source software, to file sharing to our very social ways of communication and our newly found concern for the environment. Capitalism cannot survive in the post-scarcity world, a branch of anarchism just might have a chance.

It'll be fun to watch the worm turn.

EDIT: Saying all that, I would not want to be in America when Capitalism fails, unless you're in Oregon (you'll be safe there). Your country is too dependent upon the myth of the West and the individual over all. It might very well be a bloodbath over there when everyone is playing the 'me-first' game. Plus, guns, we don't have that many of them and we don't like them that much either.

[Sparrow]

I have some sympathy with the philosophy of anarchy (what little I know of it) - but then it occurs to me that we live in societies that were spawned from anarchy, and something similar would re-emerge if anarchy came to pass again.

Was it Proudhon (? or Kropotkin) who said "Once all men were free, until a fool said 'This is mine', and a bigger fool believed him." It'd happen again.

[recluse]

Sorry.
How about Utopia?
Stalingrad?
There is a point here.
We are arguing over place names.
Two people on the Internet.
There are others who will argue.
Out in the world.
Where violence is the norm.

I have no faith in humanity.
My money is on the rats.

Nice to chat with you minus the namecalling.