Christians and the military.

Originally posted by divegeester
Likewise.

How is what I'm proposing naive? Or ignorant?

Your assumption that somebody who has made the choice to follow a pacific path has done so because they are either an idiot or a coward is either naive or ignorant. I know personally a number of avowed pacifists who I can assure you categorically are lacking neither in intellect nor in bravery.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Your assumption that somebody who has made the choice to follow a pacific path has done so because they are either an idiot or a coward is either naive or ignorant. I know personally a number of avowed pacifists who I can assure you categorically are lacking neither in intellect nor in bravery.

You are misrepresenting both what I'm saying and I suspect pacifists.

I am being (in all my posts in this thread) very specific about what level of cognitive process (or lack of it) in this context that I define as idiocy and cowardice.

Firstly: Deciding that you are not going to defend your family when they are threatened is cowardice. Being a pacifist as in being against war in the general sense is a freedom choice and completely distinct.

Secondly: Adopting the cowardly position (as I describe above) purely because your religion tells you is idiocy.

Thirdly: Supporting that mindset because a single verse "turn the other cheek" is included in your book of faith is idiotic and pathetic.

I wholeheartedly support an individuals right to be anti-war or indeed to be pro-war; if that same person, whether pro or anti war, will not defend their family in immediate danger, then they are a coward.

Originally posted by divegeester
You are misrepresenting both what I'm saying and I suspect pacifists.

I am being (in all my posts in this thread) very specific about what level of cognitive process (or lack of it) in this context that I define as idiocy and cowardice.

Firstly: Deciding that you are not going to defend your family when they are threatened is cowardice. Being a pa ...[text shortened]... e prop or anti war, will not defend their family in immediate danger, then they are a coward.

I am referring to pacifism defined as the belief that violence in any form is unjustifiable. This concept is central to buddhist thinking.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I am referring to pacifism defined as the belief that violence in any form is unjustifiable. This concept is central to buddhist thinking.

I see. That is of course a religion imposing it's view, the same way the OP indicates that the Christian religion does?

I certainly do not agree with that premise by the way; that violence in any form is unjustifiable. It could lead a person to stand by and watch whilst their family is murdered. That would be cowardice in my view.

Edit: and irrespective or whether it was 'justifiable' or not (whatever that means!); if I was in that situation where violence was the only option to defend my loved ones, then I would use it. I guess this an example of why I think Buddhist thinking is flawed.

Originally posted by divegeester
I see. That is of course a religion imposing it's view, the same way the OP indicates that the Christian religion does?

I certainly do not agree with that premise by the way; that violence in any form is unjustifiable. It could lead a person to stand by and watch whilst their family is murdered. That would be cowardice in my view.

Edit: and irr ...[text shortened]... es, then I would use it. I guess this an example of why I think Buddhist thinking is flawed.

It most certainly is not a 'religion imposing it's view' in the way that christianity does. Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. Further, it may well be that most buddhists would also resort to violence if it was the only option to prevent violence being inflicted upon their family, they are, after all, human. That in no way obviates the validity of the principle of non-violence. It in no way reveals a flaw in buddhist thinking. And it in no way justifies the use of the terms 'idiot' and 'coward' to categorise proponents of pacifism.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It most certainly is not a 'religion imposing it's view' in the way that christianity does. Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. Further, it may well be that most buddhists would also resort to violence if it was the only option to prevent violence being inflicted upon their family, they are, after all, human. That in no way obviates the ...[text shortened]... justifies the use of the terms 'idiot' and 'coward' to categorise proponents of pacifism.

If violence is "unjustifiable in any circumstance", how can the circumstance of defending ones family be an exception. And if as you say it is an exception, then surely the statement "in any circumstance"is flawed and therefore stems from flawed thinking.

Religions are philosophies and philosophies become religions - not realising this is perhaps the naivety to seem keen on accusing me off my friend.

For the final time, I'm absolutely not stating and never have stated that pacifists are cowards.

Originally posted by divegeester
If violence is "unjustifiable in any circumstance", how can the circumstance of defending ones family be an exception. And if as you say it is an exception, then surely the statement "in any circumstance"is flawed and therefore stems from flawed thinking.

Religions are philosophies and philosophies become religions - not realising this is perhaps t ...[text shortened]... he final time, I'm absolutely not stating and never have stated that pacifists are cowards.

It is not an exception. That violence would also be unjustified, but it would be an entirely understandable failure I think.

The nature of the philosophy of buddhism discourages it's adoption as a religion. Blind acceptance of buddhist thought is contrary to buddhist principles.

When you say that if somebody does not resort to violence to protect their loved-ones when they are threatened then they are cowards, you are explicitly stating that pacifists are cowards.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It is not an exception. That violence would also be unjustified, but it would be an entirely understandable failure I think.

The nature of the philosophy of buddhism discourages it's adoption as a religion. Blind acceptance of buddhist thought is contrary to buddhist principles.

When you say that if somebody does not resort to violence to prote ...[text shortened]... ey are threatened then they are cowards, you are explicitly stating that pacifists are cowards.

It is not an exception. That violence would also be unjustified, but it would be an entirely understandable failure I think.

Then the "central teaching" as you describe it, that "all violence is unjustified under any circumstance", must be flawed concept. You cannot teach that something is unacceptable under any circumstances and then allow circumstances where it is acceptable and exchange the word justifiable for "understandable". You either stand by what you believe to be right or you don't.

The nature of the philosophy of buddhism discourages it's adoption as a religion. Blind acceptance of buddhist thought is contrary to buddhist principles.

Then why are you quoting the "central thinking" of the philosophy/religion to make such a determined effort to prove me wrong? Why not use your freedom within the construct?

When you say that if somebody does not resort to violence to protect their loved-ones when they are threatened then they are cowards, you are explicitly stating that pacifists are cowards.

No, you are trying to make me say that to support your position. I am not discussing the nature of pacifism; you are aligning a potential pacifist position with my statement on cowardice. If the person who decided to not defend their family happens to be a pacifist then so be it, they are a coward. Being a so called "pacifist" is not a position worthy of exemption from doing what is right. And that by no means degrades the value of pacifism per se.

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]It is not an exception. That violence would also be unjustified, but it would be an entirely understandable failure I think.

Then the "central teaching" as you describe it, that "all violence is unjustified under any circumstance", must be flawed concept. You cannot teach that something is unacceptable under any circumstances and ...[text shortened]... om doing what is right. And that by no means degrades the value of pacifism per se.[/b]

Then the "central teaching" as you describe it, that "all violence is unjustified [b]under any circumstance", must be flawed concept. You cannot teach that something is unacceptable under any circumstances and then allow circumstances where it is acceptable and exchange the word justifiable for "understandable". You either stand by what you believe to be right or you don't.[/b]

If the concept appears flawed to you then I'm afraid this is simply down to my inability to correctly transmit it to you. I do not 'allow' circumstances where violence is acceptable! The words 'understandable' and 'acceptable' are not interchangeable.

Then why are you quoting the "central thinking" of the philosophy/religion to make such a determined effort to prove me wrong? Why not use your freedom within the construct?

I am not trying to 'prove you wrong'. Our opinions differ, that is all, and I fully accept your right to an opinion different from mine. I am simply trying to appraise you of reasoning whereby somebody might opt for a non-violent approach due neither to idiocy nor cowardice.

No, you are trying to make me say that to support your position. I am not discussing the nature of pacifism; you are aligning a potential pacifist position with my statement on cowardice. If the person who decided to not defend their family happens to be a pacifist then so be it, they are a coward. Being a so called "pacifist" is not a position worthy of exemption from doing what is right. And that by no means degrades the value of pacifism per se.

I am not trying to make you say anything! If you choose to define 'pacifist' as somebody who eschews violence only when his or her nearest and dearest are free from threat then you will inevitably find yourself in disagreement with those who interpret the word differently from yourself, particularly if you adopt such pejorative terms as 'idiot' and 'coward' to describe people whose views differ from yours.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]Then the "central teaching" as you describe it, that "all violence is unjustified [b]under any circumstance", must be flawed concept. You cannot teach that something is unacceptable under any circumstances and then allow circumstances where it is acceptable and exchange the word justifiable for "understandable". You either stand by wh 'idiot' and 'coward' to describe people whose views differ from yours.[/b]

[/b]Look my friend, I'm not defining pacifism - you are. I'm neither defining what Buddhism teaches; you brought both concepts into the debate I'm just pointing out the flaws in both which are obvious.

I stand by my statement that a person who decides not to defend their own family is a coward, and if they choose to do that because of a religious (including Buddhist) instruction/teaching then in my opinion they are also idiots.

I do not generally describe people who's "views" differ from mine as idiots so stop trying to blow it out of proportion; however people who would "act" as I've described above are imo cowards and they are idiotic.

Originally posted by divegeester
Look my friend, I'm not defining pacifism - you are. I'm neither defining what Buddhism teaches; you brought both concepts into the debate I'm just pointing out the flaws in both which are obvious.

I stand by my statement that a person who decides not to defend their own family is a coward, and if they choose to do that because of a religious (in ...[text shortened]... er people who would "act" as I've described above are imo cowards and they are idiotic.[/b]

Look my friend, I'm not defining pacifism - you are. I'm neither defining what Buddhism teaches; you brought both concepts into the debate I'm just pointing out the flaws in both which are obvious.

You are choosing to subscribe to a definition of a word which differs from that to which I subscribe. You appear to be respectful of pacifism according to one definition, but disdainful of it according to another. Both definitions are 'correct', depending upon which dictionary you refer to.

I am not trying to define buddhism. I am trying to point out to you that to dismiss anyone who follows a course of action that you do not understand as an 'idiot' or 'coward' betrays, in my opinion, either ignorance of the principles involved or naivete in the belief that you have a complete understanding of the issue.

What you perceive as 'obvious flaws' do not appear so to me.

I stand by my statement that a person who decides not to defend their own family is a coward, and if they choose to do that because of a religious (including Buddhist) instruction/teaching then in my opinion they are also idiots.

And I stand by my statement that your statement is naive and ignorant.

I do not generally describe people who's "views" differ from mine as idiots so stop trying to blow it out of proportion; however people who would "act" as I've described above are imo cowards and they are idiotic.

I don't know what you think I'm 'blowing out of proportion'. Are we not simply debating an issue? You have an opinion which you have stated clearly, I disagree with your opinion and have tried to explain to you why, which explanation you have rejected without, apparently, reasoned consideration. Instead you cleave to an emotive example which to your mind justifies violent response. I have agreed with you that a violent response might be likely in this situation, however I do not agree that this necessarily makes it right. You then resort again to the use of derogatory terms to describe a position differing from your own. You may feel that my use of the terms 'naive' and 'ignorant' are also derogatory, in which case I apologise. My intention in using these terms was merely to make you think about your position, not to create in you the animosity which they have evidently engendered.

You are, of course, entitled to view anybody as 'idiotic' or 'cowardly', but in doing so you are making an assumption that you understand their motivations. Can you not conceive that it may be possible that you do not actually understand them?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]Look my friend, I'm not defining pacifism - you are. I'm neither defining what Buddhism teaches; you brought both concepts into the debate I'm just pointing out the flaws in both which are obvious.

You are choosing to subscribe to a definition of a word which differs from that to which I subscribe. You appear to be respectful of pacifism a e that it may be possible that you do not actually understand them?[/b]

You cannot convince me by using more and more words, that a person who refuses to defend their own family is not a coward; it's an indefensible position whatever their spurious motivations.

Obscuring the matter by introducing the 'pacifism' ideology and the wonderful contradiction you used from Buddhism, does not really support an argument against the above statement.

The fact that you think me naive and ignorant doesn't move me I'm afraid; and whilst being a nice but slightly pompous in-game insult, the comment is actually completely irrelevant to the topic.

Originally posted by divegeester
You cannot convince me by using more and more words, that a person who refuses to defend their own family is not a coward; it's an indefensible position whatever their spurious motivations.

Obscuring the matter by introducing the 'pacifism' ideology and the wonderful contradiction you used from Buddhism, does not really support an argument against the ...[text shortened]... lightly pompous in-game insult, the comment is actually completely irrelevant to the topic.

Fine.