Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (31002)	10/5/2001 5:17:56 PM
From: Poet	Respond to of 82486

Now that's a great editorial. I can think of a few people who need to read that....s-l-o-w-l-y.

To: Lane3 who wrote (31002)	10/5/2001 5:35:30 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It's a valuable commentary, but he slides over certain things. First, one must consider the difference between the pure pacifist, who refuses to engage in war under any conditions, including, for example, those British pacifists who refused to fight Hitler in WW II, and the situational pacifist, who, for example, declared that the Vietnam War was wrong and wouldn't participate in it, but who would have participated in WW II if called on, or would have fought to defend our nation if it had been invaded. IMO, pure pacifism is a personal philosophy. I don't see any responsible basis for arguing that total pacifism is a legitimate basis for national policy. Pacifists are perfectly entitled to give up their lives for their beliefs. They are NOT entitled to ask that I give my my life for their beliefs. Therefore, pure pacifists should not be advocating the adoption by government of their principles, but should be content to live their own lives according to their beliefs. Sort of like the Shakers, who were perfectly entitled to be celibate, but who had to recognize that if the entire world were celibate, that would be the end of the human race. So the only legitimate basis for the "peace" marches going on today, I believe, can be based on situational pacifism. That while war in some situations may be necessary and legitimate, bombing Afghanistan today would not be. That's not so much a pure philosophical position, as a pragmatic argument based on philosophical underpinnings. And those who hold it should be prepared for others to disgree, sometimes vehemently, with their interpretation of the right course of action to take today.

To: Lane3 who wrote (31002)	10/5/2001 5:59:41 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Sometimes I smile when I read the various responses to a particularly timely piece. I'll bet if we posted anonymously, each of would be able to identify each others' responses. What are your thoughts about that piece, BTW, Missy?

To: Lane3 who wrote (31002)	10/5/2001 7:18:33 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Further reflection on the article has raised a question for me: can a pacifist also be a patriot? Or are the two mutually contradictory? I suppose it depends on how you define patriotism. And also whether one can be a good citizen without being a patriot. For the dictionary, a patriot is a person who "loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests." Can that defense be merely verbal, or are there times it has to be prepared to be physical? Is a universal objection to a country taking up arms in its defense even when attacked consistent with defending the country? Certainly our country would not exist if pacifism had governed our society in the 1770s; perhaps we would eventually have gotten free of Britain without armed struggle, but it seems hard to imagine how. Could one have been both a patriot and a pacifist in 1776? Seems hard to imagine, since there would be no United States to be a patriot of/for if there had not been armed struggle. It is a challenge for me to imagine a definition of patriotism applicable to our situation today which encompasses pacifists. It is difficult for me to see that objecting to our country defending itself by ways including the use of force against people who are sworn to a holy war to destroy us can be considered patriotic.

To: Lane3 who wrote (31002)	10/5/2001 10:59:13 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Hi K, I read your essay, from the WP, you posted tonight with great interest and very... c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, I might add.. .. with all the contradictions of a simplistic argument.. By that I mean, not looking at another way FIRST of achieving a solution .. A peaceful solution is always IMO more long lasting. Like Clearisil on a pimple never works in the long term, but only covers it up.. But maybe looking for the underlying cause might.. Like too much Chocolate, like too much Oil... I don't know... It also points out a SI maladay... taking the easy way out and becoming a "cheerleader" to violence when your ass or those close to you, or others far away,, are not on the line.. So I will side with the current administration, meaning in my mind, Colin Powell, for looking for a more LONG TERM peaceful solution.. And therefore will NOT look to the "fat soft under-belly' of the US as expressed by many members of SI, literally and figuratively, I might add, for advice.. I will never look for blood as a knee jerk reaction First, but I will,, if only ALL else fails. So I guess I am a situational pacifist.. c