humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Brad Harrington wrote:

> Anybody that would stand by and let their wife and children be raped and
> murdered *deserves* Bubba's big schlong up their ass, of course.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this straw man especially after I
just finished saying I wouldn't stand by. There is a big range of
actions between intentionally killing someone and stopping them (and
again... there is no guarantee that someone using leathal force would
actually be successful.

There exists this [wrong] assumption that leathal force is something
eternally necessary. I don't see why it needs to be so if technology
allows individuals (and even groups) to be subduded with non-leathal
alternatives.

For instance.... if the American government fought the WoT using only
non-leathal foce terrorism would be virtually eliminated. By being the
bully it is simply creating more terrorists and undermining it's own
interests.

>When the threat is life-endangering, lethal force is not only warranted
>but desirable.

The use of lethal force is evil when non-lethal alternatives are
available. Unfortunately much like slavery, child brides, and stoning
was once considered both moral and legal...... the evil of war will
continue until enough of humanity understands it's an irrational way
to go about things.

>Then one never needs to look over one's shoulder and worry about that
>particular threat ever again.

There are these things called mental health institutions and prisons.
Several countries in the world already have done away with the death
penalty (and some even have police that don't usually carry guns). The
world did not end and virtually all these nations have far lower
murder rates/crime than countries that do have death penalties. (I
have lived in two of these countries)

It is my belief non-violent government leadership breeds less violent
citizens and violent government leadership breeds violence citizens.
Monkey see... monkey do. (Of course American passports are welcomed
all around the world so you must know better then I)

>> Mais naturellement. He's a pacifist donchaknow.
> Potroast wrote:
> Yeah...me and Einstein (who also called himself a pacifist
> donchaknow).
>Brad Harrington wrote:
>Which is a shining example of how someone can be an absolute
>genius in the realm of physics, and yet have their head completely
>up their ass when it comes to social interactions.

Or perhaps Einstein was indeed the brilliant one and self-righteous
blood thirsty savages who are quick to pull out their pea shooters are
the problem. If he didn't know what he was doing as you claim....why
did the Israeli government offer Einstein the presidency? They could
have offered it to Rand no?

> Counter to your claim I wouldn't stand still. While I am indeed a
> pacifist the term does have some range.
>Not much: Merriam-Webster defines "pacifism" as follows:
> "opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes,
> specifically, refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds;
> an attitude or policy of nonresistance."

Sure there is (as there is with all words....some more than others)

Answers.com
"The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled
peacefully."

Dictionary.com
"refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or
beliefs."
"the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be
adjusted without recourse to war"

Cambridge Dictionary online
"the belief that war is wrong, and therefore that to fight in a war is
wrong"

Even Merriam-Webster online says....
"strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war"

Putting aside I don't believe in the death penalty... I call myself a
pacifist chiefly because I don't believe war is even close to the
optimal manner to deal with disputes. Group massacres of civilians and
uncertain outcomes are hardly about individual justice and improving
the world. I really don't care if my ancestors found raping and
pillaging pleasurable. Time to move on.

> (Bats, tazer, fists, some future
> technology.... etc.) It should also be noted there is no guarantee an
> attempt to use lethal force would work for certain. And if it didn't
> suffice... I would die. We all have to die one day but at least when I
> look back at my life I can take pride that I lived a civilized life.

>Hardly what I would refer to as "civilized."

The guy that doesn't kill is uncivilized... and the the guy that gangs
up with the collective to mass murder is the civilized one?

On the flip side.. I often view those prone to using lethal force akin
to religious extremists that like to lop of limbs to "solve"
stealing... that like to hang people to "solve" drug use..... that
like to stone people to "solve" rape. (An extreme overreaction that
brings unnecessary suffering into the world... and suffering is evil
in my book)

>Those who claim that "violence never solves anything" should tell it to
>the Carthaginians.

And what exactly did you think it solved? Did it save the Romans? Did
the will-to-power mentality save the Greeks of antiquity? Attila?
Napoleon? Hitler? Stalin?

Rabid use of violence only works for awhile... until you make enough
enemies.... then your interests are pouched as the very same methods
your nation once used... are used against you. It's only a matter of
time.

This is why it is better to use non-leathal force. When the winds of
change come it will be less unpleasant. (especially you). In the
nuclear age this is especially important.

> Even in the western world I find many modern ideas of crime &
> punishment quite privative (other than some places like Norway) I have
> few doubts one day enlightened men will look back at our savagery in
> horror and disgust.

> In your world, there won't be any enlightened men; they will have all
> been murdered by the valueless thugs.

In my world enlightened men would keep the valueless thugs in check
with force... just not lethal force. Thugs won't enjoy much moral
support against an enemy that refuses to kill them. This makes it
difficult for them to acquire the reigns of power. Without that moral
support even the largest armies can lose wars.

>>> Potroast wrote:
>>> I view all wars as immoral. There are no "just wars"in my book...
>> Brad Harrington wrote:
>> Then your view is more than a bit addled; it means that you see no
>> difference between murder and self-defense, between the American
>> Revolutionary War and, say, the nonsense we pulled in Iraq. So, if
>> a gang of thugs kick in the door of your house and start raping and
>> killing your wife and children, can we safely assume that you will just
>> stand there???
> No. You're jumping to an incorrect in conclusions that there is only
> the war opinion. . I view non-lethal force as the ideal. We aren't
> there yet.... but I believe we will be one day.

>>You are dodging the question.

No I didn't. I said I would use non-leathal force to stop an attacker.
Police in many countries already use non-lethal alternatives more than
their guns. Expect this trend to continue both for military and
civilian uses.

>>>Do you believe that the American Revolutionary War was unjust? You said
>>>that there are *no*
>> just wars... So, if you don't believe that, are you therefore
>> recommending that we should
> still be a colony of England??

Different time. We were once apes too. Does this mean we should go
back to swinging off trees and throwing feces at each other? I think
there is room for some improvement no?

> And if you don't believe that a society of people have the right to terminate
> the existence of a repressive gov't and set up a better system, how are we to
> ever arrive at this "ideal" state you continue to pontificate about??

A. This ain't the 17th century. No one could overthrow the American
government using force... you've given them entirely too much
firepower. They'd wipe the floor with anyone that tried.

B. I've heard there are these things called "elections" as a peaceful
alternative though.

C. Who said "ideal"? Just because I think one day war will become
obsolete doesn't mean people won't have other problems. Smallpox was
finally cured too. Utopia didn't arrive but things continue to
improve.