quote:Originally posted by Mucus: There are many types of pacifism, but AFAIK, in the most strict schools, such as some in Buddhism or Gandhi, the answer is yes.
I certainly have not reached that level of enlightenment. Are you allowed to at least duck? Or could that be interpreted as a form of aggression?
If that's the case then I would probably have to entirely abandon the 5 d's of dodgeball. Those of course being dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.
posted
I think ducking would be akin to running away which should certainly be acceptable. As for dodge-ball, I recommend that you track them down yourself to ask a specific question Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ScottF, there's this cute scene in Kenshin (an anime) in which Kenshin allows a glass to hit him in the head, because ducking would have allowed the glass to hit a woman he was sitting with. Contrived, but still cute.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened or how to keep it from happening. I am working through my email list apologizing. Particularly to the ex boyfriends that got the Viagra ad. *wince*
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Weapons are simply tools that are designed for a task, owning them makes you no more violent than someone who owns a #2 pencil
I didn't argue that owning a gun makes someone violent. I said that it's an extension of the belief that using violence can be acceptable.
At least in my case, it's an 'extension of the belief' that being prepared to defend yourself — and having the tools around to do so — is perfectly reasonable.
It's also an extension of the belief that shooting cans is fun.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: No worries. I know someone else that sent me some of those emails recently, on Hotmail too. *shrug*
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:At least in my case, it's an 'extension of the belief' that being prepared to defend yourself — and having the tools around to do so — is perfectly reasonable.
I think you are avoiding the obvious. Owning a gun for self defense necessarily implies you believe there are circumstances which would justify you in killing another human being.
It also necessarily implies that you either have not rationally considered the risks, or you have weighed the risks and consider those risks worth the benefit of gun ownership.
Statistically, it is many times more likely that your gun will be used to kill or injure you, your loved ones or your friends than that you will ever fire it in self defense. Every gun owner I know (and I lived in Montana where that is just about everyone), believes they are much more responsible than the average gun owner so the statistics don't apply to them. That's not rational,
I can see rational arguments for owning a hunting riffle or a shot gun. I can't find any rational reasons an ordinary citizen should own a hand gun or an assault riffle. If you believe that the fun you have shooting cans is worth the risks inherent in owning a gun, you are probably underestimating the risks, greatly.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:At least in my case, it's an 'extension of the belief' that being prepared to defend yourself — and having the tools around to do so — is perfectly reasonable.
I think you are avoiding the obvious. Owning a gun for self defense necessarily implies you believe there are circumstances which would justify you in killing another human being.
Where am I avoiding that? Yes. There are circumstances which would justify me killing another human being, and that's when they're trying to kill me.
HOWEVER
Owning a gun does not in and of itself necessarily imply any such circumstance. You don't have to kill someone in order to defend yourself with a gun; most usage of guns to defend yourself do not result in anyone being shot. Also, you can own a gun for sport which doesn't involve killing people.
quote: If you believe that the fun you have shooting cans is worth the risks inherent in owning a gun, you are probably underestimating the risks, greatly.
I've spit out whole comprehensive essays on here about the subject of gun ownership. You can assume I know a few things about guns and am not underestimating any risks.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened or how to keep it from happening. I am working through my email list apologizing. Particularly to the ex boyfriends that got the Viagra ad. *wince*
Try changing your password. Something (I'm guessing) similar happened to me, and a much more secure password eliminated the problem.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think you're reading a lot of things into my posts that I'm not actually saying. But I will answer your question:
quote:3. Fine, you wont make a direct statement against me then let me ask you another question. Have you ever been attacked? (Edit. and I dont mean in a fight, actually attacked) and if you have would defending yourself have made you a less peaceful person?
I'm not sure what you mean by "attacked but not in a fight," but my answer is no, I haven't been. If "defending" myself includes running away, dodging attacks, trying to talk my way out of the situation, blocking blows, etc., then I don't think defending myself would make me a less peaceful person. If it involves inflicting violence on the person attacking me, then I believe it does make me a less peaceful person.
quote:Does pacifism dictate that you cannot harm/kill anyone under any circumstance?
Mucus is right; there is a number of different types of pacifism.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: ETA- from the article you listed it says that the European immigrants took 3-4 generations to get to the level of middle class, including a college degree, so it looks like Mexican immigrants are not that far behind the European immigrant's rate.
But what was America like back then? Was a high school education available to all? Was there discrimination against non-Protestants? Were there welfare benefits? Immigrants today simply have a far greater chance to become upwardly middle by the second generation as evidenced by Asians. One merely hopes that Mexican-Americans will achieve. Asians already do. Why not prefer the latter and restrict the numbers of the former? [/QB]
quote:The Republican party History? It wasn't a democrat that freed the slaves and democrats opposed the civil rights act.
Without touching the rest of your post, I just want to point out the colossal irony of this: yes, many Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act, which was pushed through by other Democrats who disagreed with them. This schism was exploited by Republicans, who deliberately recruited the disaffected Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act.
For as long as I have been alive, at least, the Republican Party has been the party opposed to the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, and basically anything with the word "rights" in it that doesn't have to do with firearms or estate taxes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Republican party History? It wasn't a democrat that freed the slaves and democrats opposed the civil rights act.
OK kids, time for another round of 'Call the BS!' with our recurring star, malanthrop! In this hour's episode, while away from hobnobbing with Jamaican neighbors who don't recognize their skin color and making vast sums of money many, many hours a week more than lazy, smug liberal Democrats, malanthrop has suggested that it was democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Movement, obliquely suggesting that Republicans ought not be tarred with that, Democrats should!
Who'll win this round of spot the BS! Prizes and participation may vary.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
"On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation."
Of course Byrd...the grand poohah of the kkk, wasn't a Republican. Unfortunately, dems elevated this civil right's act filibusterer,....to speaker of the house. Which party was "more for it"...not suprisingly...the party of Lincoln.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dante, I guess its just not something that can be described or learned, it just has to happen to you. By attacked, I mean beaten like a cross-eyed dog by too many people to run away from and with things that you cant block for no reason at all. Overwhelming odds that you can only hope to survive, very few pascifist come out of a life like that and even then most suffer for it. One thing is for certain, I dont think that I would feel remorse for what happens to a violent malicious person who hurts innocent people.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mal: You've been answered on this point, (Republican and Democrat role reversals from Lincoln until today, as well as Democrats and Republicans in the modern era specifically) before. If you want to disagree with it, that's fine, at least say so, presenting reasoning is even better. But don't just ignore posts like Tom's and then restate this same idea again and again. That isn't discussing in good faith.
You can have controversial unpopular ideas, that's OK. I am not saying you as a general rule do not discuss your ideas, but occasionally when you are talked to a stand still, you disappear, and then reappear stating the same things as if nobody had ever discussed the matter with you. Don't do that please.
Thanks for visiting Hatrack, I hope you won't take my above comments as an invitation to just stop posting.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
AH, I am very glad that I've never had to deal with that sort of situation; I can only imagine how terrifying it would be.
I have been in a few situations that could have turned quite violent, but luckily I (or someone else) was able to difuse them before they reached that level. Of course, that was before I became a pacifist, so I probably still would have considered violence a viable last resort.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Who'll win this round of spot the BS! Prizes and participation may vary.
Like, what do I do? copypaste his entire posting history? what prize is worth that?
You know, JB took an unprecedented step here in dealing with mal. You could try not throwing that in his face.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't even see that, but at the same time, I'm not trying to throw anything in his face. It's a semi-serious response to a joke.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
