Letty, there's always room for you. But you should give the knitting to spendius
But to the point; I have never seen pasifism as something docile and passive. That is why I think the term is so inappropriate. To be a pasifist, as I understand it, means that you will rather die than defend yourself. If that's the case, then pasifism is just foolish, a denial of life and what it demands of you.
I'm no pacifist, I just trust in karma.
What I am talking about is letting the message come across clearly that "I will not reach my goals through violence and dishonesty". It is a personal principal. Our enemy has never been the muslims, regardless of what people around me say. Our enemy is what we fear the muslims might do.
In my experience we have a way of making our fantasies come to life. That's how we've achieved the technological standard of the modern world. But this is also true of our fears. We make them real. The simplest example is the little child who is sitting over his homework telling himself that it's too difficult, because he is afraid he won't understand. The fear of not understanding blocks understanding. Similarly, the fear of what we might see prevents us from seing the true picture. That's why we think our violence has served us.
This subject is really much bigger. A large part of my conviction not to hurt anyone is the knowledge that in so doing I hurt myself. To come to blows is to succumb to my manhood, to the state of animal, a step down from humanity. When you let someone coax you into this you've already lost.
Also, there is the issue of values. My set of values are perhaps different than those of a person willing to use violence. Maybe he's able to get what he wants at the time by force. But I do not seek temporary things, and only temporary things can come of violence. Say you want land, so you invade. Say all goes well, you kill the owner and take it for yourself. So far so good, but then you die. What will happen to the land? It will still be there, oblivious as ever to you and everybody else. You cannot take it with you. So, in taking the land you actually traded something everlasting for something temporary, you traded your humanity for property. It's like buying a safe with the money you were going to keep in it.
Funny that you remembered that bit about the car spendius, but I don't see the relevance. Temper and aggression are not strictly negative impulses. Gandhi, for instance, had one hell of a temper. Also, "when it comes to matters of honor," said gandhi, "I would advocate the use of force rather than to be dishonored". He also said that he didn't think his non-violence policy would work on hitler. At least not by the time the war was on.
I used the word disgust about those who are capable of killing in the name of ignorance, and it needs no tempering. It is disgusting. But it refers to the acts, not the actors, so to speak.
