1
   

Take Up The Sword You Young Progressives

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 12:21 pm
Got me. Alright, how about anti-progressives. That should be easily derived by starting with the accepted definition of progressives used in this thread.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 12:24 am
NeoGuin wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
NeoGuin wrote:
Saw a shirt that said:

"Peace takes courage too".

And perhaps we progressives see no cause nobel enough to take up arms (Including Imperialsim).

If the electoral process seems to fail, I fear in 20-30 years we could see progressives taking up arms:(


Perhaps you (current) progressives do see no cause nobel enough to take up arms, in which case I strongly suggest that you consult your opthalmologist. Your predecessors had no such failure of vision.


Our predecessors also did not have technology that can make thier voice heard.

Anyhow, could taking up arms be a way to "Cull the herd"?


Oh yes, that must be it. The Lincoln Brigade really only wanted to express their abhorrence for all war, but because the internet wasn't available to them, they took up arms against Franco and his thugs in Spain.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 12:30 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Walter, I do not quarrel with the notion that one can be a conscientious objector and still be willing to defend his/her person and/or loved ones, etc. And I will accept that you equate conscientious objector status and pacifism as the same thing.

My comments were purely to demonstrate that we all draw a line someplace. You questioned me including the Nazi extermination of the Jews in the example. With that history behind them and in the national conscience, do you think most Germans would now look the other way and allow that to happen? I don't. So does it violate the pacifist's convictions against war to physically act to stop such inhumanity to man?

If the French got a burr under their saddle and decided to invade Germany and take it over today, would the German pacifists just put their hands in their pocket and passively allow it to happen? I bet most wouldn't.

I think we all draw that line someplace--we all might draw it in a different place, but we all draw it.


A "true pacifist" is a person who will not resort to or support violence for any reason. The rest of the so-called pacifists simply hold differentiated political positions.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 12:38 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Got me. Alright, how about anti-progressives. That should be easily derived by starting with the accepted definition of progressives used in this thread.


A foolish question, irrespective of your terminology.

Of course there are causes for which conservatives will not fight. Your question reveals a simple minded assertion that conservatives (or unprogressives or anti-progressives if you like) are synonomous with war-mongers.

This is as ridiculous as asserting that liberals are synonomous with pacifism. Now, I appreciate that many, if not most, liberals would endorse such an assertion (and perhaps your foolish one as well), but it remains ridiculous neonetheless.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 02:22 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
A "true pacifist" is a person who will not resort to or support violence for any reason. The rest of the so-called pacifists simply hold differentiated political positions.


Totally agreed - you are referring here to what historic time again? :wink:
0 Replies
 
gravy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 02:46 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Has pacifism trumped idealism?


Depends on whether by idealism you mean a messianic hijacking of reality to forge a diversionary cause for action, and by pacifism you mean resistance to pander to this alternative-reality idealism.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 03:01 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
A "true pacifist" is a person who will not resort to or support violence for any reason. The rest of the so-called pacifists simply hold differentiated political positions.


Totally agreed - you are referring here to what historic time again? :wink:


Any and all - a timless concept.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 03:03 am
gravy wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Has pacifism trumped idealism?


Depends on whether by idealism you mean a messianic hijacking of reality to forge a diversionary cause for action, and by pacifism you mean resistance to pander to this alternative-reality idealism.


Obviously, I don't subscribe to such facile definitions.

There's been enough glib responses to the question, how about something of substance?
0 Replies
 
gravy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 03:49 am
There was no glibness intended in my entry, only an attempt to ascertain the statement behind the questions.

The Lincoln brigade? wasn't that formed to help thwart the next rung in an incidious expansion of a messianic ideal?

Reluctance to pick up arms for an ideal can alternatively be explained (instead of chicken-pacifism) as questioning the veracity and intentions of the protagonists, or opposition to the subversion of said ideal.

It is important to understand the statement behind the question, like what pacifism is trumping what idealism?

With respect, it would help if posts would further elucidate points, instead of being seemingly dismissive responses.

(edited for clarity)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 08:37 am
Without having done any research on the academic quality of the site this was copied from, this does seem to be a reasonable condensed explanation of the Lincoln Brigade:

Quote:
During the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), 2,800 American volunteers took up arms to defend the Spanish Republic against a military rebellion led by General Franco and aided by Hitler and Mussolini. To the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, which fought from 1937 through 1938, the defense of the Republic represented the last hope of stopping the spread of international fascism.


http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/abe-brigade.html

The point being that some who fight are every bit as idealistic as the true conscientious objector. As far as the definition of a pacifist being one who will not fight no matter what the cause or provocation, I can't imagine that. Do such people actually exist?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 08:49 am
Foxfyre wrote:
As far as the definition of a pacifist being one who will not fight no matter what the cause or provocation, I can't imagine that. Do such people actually exist?


Well, as a Christian, I really belief, Jesus was one of them - the most truely in fact.

One of the more famous US-Americans (besides Martin Luther King) is Jane Addams.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 08:54 am
No, Jesus wasn't even one of them. When sufficiently provoked, he took a whip and drove the corrupt money changers from the temple grounds. I will not believe that Martin Luther King was the sort to not defend his family, loved ones, the innocent from harm if these were threatened. It has been a long time since I've read about Jane Addams, but I recall that she was a proud and courageous woman. What makes you think she would not defend a child or loved one threatened by harm?

Advocating social change by peaceful means is not the same thing as being a pacifist if we go with Finn's definition. And I thought you agreed with Finn's definition.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 09:00 am
<Can't remember that I've been often in agreement with Finn, but when you say so :wink: >

Well, actually, I really tend to prefer as definitions the 'Jesus-like' one.

Beides, I think, there no movement/idea/idal/law/etc which is followed 100% by humans - and Jesus was as a human being on earth.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 09:17 am
Walter writes
Quote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Quote:
A "true pacifist" is a person who will not resort to or support violence for any reason. The rest of the so-called pacifists simply hold differentiated political positions.



Totally agreed - you are referring here to what historic time again?


So if you are backing off your total agreement, here, then how do you define 'pacifist' and how does that differentiate from 'conscientious objector'?

Ghandi might be considered to have been a pacifist, though I cannot even be sure he would not have physically intervened to save a loved one. There is a difference between a conviction not to defend oneself and being unwilling to confront evil, even with deadly force, that threatens innocents. I believe just about everybody can be provoked to violence given the right incentive. Those who cannot, I can neither fathom nor really respect.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 09:29 am
A conscious objector certainly mustn't be necessarily a pacifist - quite different to the other around.

You can be against the draft by different objections - from religious over political to "I just want to do something different" [okay: that must be written differently :wink: ] up to general pacifistic ones.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 07:47 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Got me. Alright, how about anti-progressives. That should be easily derived by starting with the accepted definition of progressives used in this thread.


A foolish question, irrespective of your terminology.

Of course there are causes for which conservatives will not fight. Your question reveals a simple minded assertion that conservatives (or unprogressives or anti-progressives if you like) are synonomous with war-mongers.

This is as ridiculous as asserting that liberals are synonomous with pacifism. Now, I appreciate that many, if not most, liberals would endorse such an assertion (and perhaps your foolish one as well), but it remains ridiculous neonetheless.


So we are both ridiculous. Thank you for acknowledging it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 12:20 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Got me. Alright, how about anti-progressives. That should be easily derived by starting with the accepted definition of progressives used in this thread.


A foolish question, irrespective of your terminology.

Of course there are causes for which conservatives will not fight. Your question reveals a simple minded assertion that conservatives (or unprogressives or anti-progressives if you like) are synonomous with war-mongers.

This is as ridiculous as asserting that liberals are synonomous with pacifism. Now, I appreciate that many, if not most, liberals would endorse such an assertion (and perhaps your foolish one as well), but it remains ridiculous neonetheless.


So we are both ridiculous. Thank you for acknowledging it.


Touche
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/15/2021 at 12:12:16