SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (176485)8/14/2006 8:51:02 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793552
 
How would anyone know....?

I appreciate the problem you describe. It seems to me that the solution is the same as for any communication effort. First of you, you listen carefully. You look for nuance and context. And, when in doubt, you ask for clarification. What you don't do is assume either the worst or some dichotomous counterpoint to your own position.

As for the current specifics, I think that pacifists would use either that term or something like "non-violent." It's pretty easy to identify a pacifist from a few sentences. So when folks say they are anti-war right now, they are talking about the Iraq war. The WOT isn't really a war from a pacifist POV because it isn't inherently violent so there should be no confusion there. No one opposes the essential notion of the WOT.

Here's a context check for you: kittenwar.com <g>



To: KLP who wrote (176485)8/14/2006 10:02:09 AM
From: Mary Cluney  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793552
 
So do the people who say they are "anti war" mean they are "anti-ALL-war" ???

This problem exists for people who are not "anti war". Do they mean they are "pro-ALL-war" ???

I think most people are anti war. For some people, they will go to war at the slightest provocation. There are probably as many people who will not go to war for any reason. Most people will fall in between and that in itself covers a lot of ground.