Pacifists

[prose]

This thread is making me feel violent....

I generally don't go wild and start hitting people, and I am opposed to people who do. I don't like violence, but I believe that it is necessary sometimes.

[Winchester]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1261062' date='Apr 30 2007, 07:03 PM']In our global, modern world war- as we typically define it- is not nessecary. While there are sitiuations such the one in Darfur, (which the Right has ignored) which do require military intervetion, dilomacy is much better option than bloodshed.[/quote]
Which the right has ignored. Yeah, Alec Baldwin and the Leftist millionaires are busily arming themselves to go help. They're really breaking their backs to deal with it. We use diplomacy quite often. Iran--not a smoking crater. S. Korea, still a peninsula, not an island.

And a few pages back, I see the same attitude of shifting blame. If "we" hadn't screwed up, the Nazis wouldn't have been a problem. You mean if we had attacked sooner, or helped them ship out the unwanted peacefully? Do you ever blame the actor, or do you always shuffle it to those around? The Nazis were the fault of the Nazis. They didn't seek justice or the betterment of Germany, they sought pure power for themselves.

[ruso]

Catholicinsd, you are a good kid, a little wild, but good person, you do not change, And you never leave the church, we needed "crazy people" like your

[catholicinsd]

Thanks Ruso.

[Didymus]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1259386' date='Apr 28 2007, 11:50 PM']2 wrongs have never made a right, Didy.[/quote]

but that still doesnt answer my question. You mention how we're in an age where diplomacy theoretically is the end all. But radical islam is not in our age. There are groups bent on killing us, and diplomacy has not solved it, as they dont want us on their 'side' so much as they want us dead.

btw, you mention our own disputes with Iran as being 'wrong' even so much as to make it equal to Iran's deliberate aggression towards us. Can you not see the difference between the US's weapons threat (as we are a democracy looking to establish peace in parts of the world) and Iran's weapons threat (as Iran has already made it obvious that they want to take innocent lives and contribute to those likeminded)?

On Darfur, I believe their is much fault in the authority figures of this country (regardless of stance and party) for neglecting the state of aggression there, but that really does not add or subtract from anyone's arguments on this particular thread as to whether or not we are pacifist.

[N/A Gone]

I love it when people sit and debate the war and ethics involved.

Raise your hand if you have seen combat?

Maybe us guys should just argue about child birth? We are almost as qualified

[Didymus]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1262626' date='May 2 2007, 03:42 PM']I love it when people sit and debate the war and ethics involved.[/quote]

what are you referring to, exactly?

[Red Knight]

For the pacifists out there:

[url="http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/10/quote-of-the-day-39/"]Why pacifism doesn't work[/url]

Red

[bonoducchi]

Just a thought on the cheek argument. Turning the other cheek doesn't mean you allow yourself to get beat up. The Scripture actually says "turn and offer him your left." Touching the left side of the body was a no-no, so it would make the person ritually unclean, requiring ritual bathing, which i believe cost money. The attacker probably would think twice about touching you on that cheek. I think the story really means for us to find a creative way to stop your aggressor and cease continuing violence. Just a thought.

[MissScripture]

There was a thread on turning the other cheek a while back.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=54834&st=0"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...=54834&st=0[/url]

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1272413' date='May 13 2007, 01:34 PM']Just a thought on the cheek argument. Turning the other cheek doesn't mean you allow yourself to get beat up. The Scripture actually says "turn and offer him your left." Touching the left side of the body was a no-no, so it would make the person ritually unclean, requiring ritual bathing, which i believe cost money. The attacker probably would think twice about touching you on that cheek. I think the story really means for us to find a creative way to stop your aggressor and cease continuing violence. Just a thought.[/quote]


[quote name='MissScripture' post='1272498' date='May 13 2007, 05:50 PM']There was a thread on turning the other cheek a while back.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=54834&st=0"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...=54834&st=0[/url][/quote]

Right on. I didn't know that about "offering the left cheek". Imagine not touching someone's left side though... how does that work in a crowded street?