Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Dio, I am unmoved. I stand by what I say.
For the record if you define a pacifist as one who desires peace, one who seeks nonviolent solutions where possible and one who seeks to sow seeds of harmony, forgiveness and love instead of kneejerk violent reactions, aggression and revenge, then yes I am a pacifist.
If you define a pacifist as one who seeks to avoid any use of force under any circumstance even at the detriment of ones family or people, then no I am not a pacifist.
I see no contradiction between my positional definition and the current course of events.
|
Fair enough, but the first definition of pacifism is awfully weak. It amounts to following pacific principles until they are put to the test.
So you are not really a pacifist then. My mistake.
And again, to clarify my position above, my chief objection to your long post is that it presents a false choice -- that we must either do nothing at all or agree with George Bush's approach. There are many other choices and possiblities, many of which involve the use of force, as I and others have argued from the beginning.
However, it is early on in the conflict. What happens out of all this obviously remains to be seen.