Question for Pacifists...

Pacifists are the parasites of freedom. No one can be a pacifist without someone else willing to bear their burden of defending freedom because make no doubt about it, where ever it is possible, some tryant wants to tell everybody what they can or can not do or say. As to violence being too often a first resort, this simply is not true. The exact opposite is the case. The USA, just like many individuals, is too slow to resort to violence. Consider the embassy bombings in the 90's, the first World Trade Center attack, the attack on the USS Cole and many more unprovoked aggressions against the USA. All these were met, not with swift, righteous, massive violence but with reason and attempts at diplomacy and somewhat limited retaliation. The result of these attempts at reasonableness was to cause radical Muslims to think they might get away with 911. This is because violent prone people think that way! Besides, enjoying violence, violent prone people really enjoy getting away with it! As long as they get away with it, they do even more. Every time. Tryants, despots, and their ilk are encouraged and emboldened by diplomacy, compassion, reasonableness, and people who would do anything other than use violence to oppose them. So, while violence should not be the first resort to most problems, it should always be the first resort to an act of violence committed against you or your country. If you want the total amount of violence to remain at a minimum you must respond violently to a violent aggressor, because otherwise that aggressor will just keep a comin' ! Thousands of years of history teach this lesson. The nation ready to go to war, whose neighbors know it and believe it, never has to go to war. Peace thru strength is not just a cliche.

There comes a point that each person has to realize that no violence is not the answer in most cases but sometimes it is the only answer. I would rather have my daughter kill the rapist defending herself. She has the right to self preservation and if it takes killing her attacker to do so than I would stand behind her all the way. I agree with you that if no one is willing to stand and fight than that opens the path for the tyrants to take over.

Hello ParaTed2k, I appreciate the spirit of this discussion but what you are doing is you are asking for objective answers to subjective issues/truths. I’ll explain… I don’t think any body with human heart will opt for allowing rape over killing in self defense… no father who is in his senses, will. However, seeing the tone of question alongside other question as well as what followed, I can safely assume that you had some target in mind when you started this discussion. IF that is the case then I would submit that you may not know the full story and may be basing your assumptive questions on exceptions, rather than rules, which may happen due to judicial inadequacies and that happens in every country in this very category. Plus, there are countries on this planet where rape is so rampant and law is so inadequate to deal with this plague and the aggressors that there may be some people with great human hearts wanting to take over those countries and free the enslaved women. Your second question is even more subjective! Theoretically it is great to deal with the tyrant with violence but how to determine who the tyrant is and who will decide about that? That’s where the subjective part comes and that’s what is practically important. If honestly applied on the basis of humanely acceptable agreed upon definitions, I can assure you that some big powers will be needed to be taken out, on priority basis, before the attention is turned anywhere else. We may then have a world war! What you said in last paragraph, I see it being said on both sides of a conflict and both take it right. So, while I totally agree on standing against a tyrant, you will find a lot of difference among people about who that tyrant is!

Well I suppose I don't fall so much under the distinction of pacifist as much as I do a non-confrontationalist. I don't like fighting and try to avoid both physical and verbal confrintation as much as I can. Don't get me wrong I do enjoy debate but thats more intellectual then it is fighting. I don't like arguments and such things ( meaning the "angry debates") Now that being said.. I will defend myself and my family if pushed to that point. Just because I don't like to be violent doesn't mean I can't fight nor does it mean I won't stand up for myself. In other words never mistake my kindness for weakness, nor my willingness to walk away for meaning I can't kick someone's a$$ if need be. :)

I'm not really sure what a pacifist is, but i dont think i like this pattern of thinking. I would rather she killed everytime, i think you will be forgiven for doing wrong at times, and i think when someone is forcing themselves onto you, you should do anything in your power to stop them.

Violence and aggression is acceptable only in the most extreme circumstances. You (not you personally of course) rape my daughter I will hunt you down together with her uncles and when we find you we will........... sit you down, ask you what you hoped to prove by committing this heinous act and make sure that your sorry a*se is locked up for a long time. I won't commit any act of aggression against you, I pity you, you are sad, mentally ill. George Bush and Tony Blair fall into that category so far as I am concerned. Sad men that lashed out without thinking through the options. 7/11 was a major criminal act against not only the US but the West. Our response has been to alienate and marginalise the Muslim World. Exactly what the terrorists wanted. Good US and British boys and girls are now getting killed as a result of this short sightedness. We may have might, but it doesn't make us right. And before anyone calls me a pacifist (which actually takes courage in times of conflict), I did my years with the military and firmly believe in them. It's their masters that frighten me.