rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,690
slyc_willie said:
Fair enough.
Defense of pacifism--some varieties, at least.
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
Fair enough.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Pacifism equates to stagnation. Stagnation of ideas, of cultural and technological growth, and of the human race as a species. Being a pacifist is like saying, "I'm happy where I am and I don't want to try to make myself better."
there's no evidence for this, but it's a provocative view. i guess each war, lately, generates lots of technological goodies. further, wars are often *followed* by some good things, e.g. Hiroshima is not such a bad place to live, i suppose--at least compared to Baghdad or Darfur. i see no reason, however, to think war is good for (productive of) advancing the 'human race' as a species.
what we are talking about is organized violence; while it's occasionally necessary for defensive purposes, it has to be the NONpreferred alternative in most cases, in view of the dreadful cost
(e.g. look at the 'cost', in Iraqi lives, of the US using military means to 'save' iraq, build a more just society, --assuming those are actual and viable goals).
since you aren't saying your claim about stagnation is right, i take it that it could be wrong as far as you're concerned. since it doesn't seem to rest on evidence, it's a possibility worth considering, no?
there's no evidence for this, but it's a provocative view. i guess each war, lately, generates lots of technological goodies. further, wars are often *followed* by some good things, e.g. Hiroshima is not such a bad place to live, i suppose--at least compared to Baghdad or Darfur. i see no reason, however, to think war is good for (productive of) advancing the 'human race' as a species.
what we are talking about is organized violence; while it's occasionally necessary for defensive purposes, it has to be the NONpreferred alternative in most cases, in view of the dreadful cost
(e.g. look at the 'cost', in Iraqi lives, of the US using military means to 'save' iraq, build a more just society, --assuming those are actual and viable goals).
since you aren't saying your claim about stagnation is right, i take it that it could be wrong as far as you're concerned. since it doesn't seem to rest on evidence, it's a possibility worth considering, no?
Similar threads
