Skip to comments.Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality (This is SENSATIONAL!!!)
Posted on 07/24/2006 10:42:24 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
click here to read article
The story left out all the demands that we talk to the Thug, and that it is someone else's fault that the thug needed to rob people to live because of the terrible politics of someone else.
David Brooks said leftists should invent "Pacifist Toothpaste - it doesn't kill the germs in your mouth, it just asks them to leave."
I think she was saying that to Jack, and definitely not Tony.
Why did he change the ministers story? It actually went like this:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didnt speak up,
because I wasnt a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didnt speak up,
because I wasnt a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didnt speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
Pacifists believe that violence is not the only way to solve problems. Pacifists believe that violence is not the optimal way to solve problems. I'm sure most people, pacifist or not, would agree that violence is indeed neither the only way nor the best way to solve anything. The kicker is that pacifists will actively pursue nonviolent resolutions even in dire situations.
Dunno, but I've heard others change it in various ways as well...I wonder if people tend to forget the religious connotations when repeating it?
why does this remind me of Mike Dukakis ?
Or any other Dem, come to think of it.
Mr. Raymond Kraft said all that needs to be said on the subject of pacifism. Excellent post, Aussie Dasher. Thank you.
But when confronted with an objectively non-negotiable situation in which violence is to be used against the pacifist, the mere delays while the pacifist tries to accept the fact that he must fight or die will cost lives and treasurer. It is the inability to recognize when the jig is up in a timely fashion that gets everyone into hot water.
I know of very few ewho actuually look to violence as a first resort, either. But those who advocate pacifism often have no realistic and workable solution to a problem when there are people opposi9ng them that would like to kill them.
The other side of the coin is to decide if there are any values so impiortant that it is a good choice to defend them, even at the risk of personal harm or death to the pacifist or the country.
John Kerry is a great example...he claims that there would be no war in the mid-east if he were president, but I have never heard him encourage anyone in power to adopt the pacifist plan that he would have used to accomplish this miraculous feat.
He either has not plan, or he is hiding it to use it for his own political gain if he assumes power. I would hate to tyhink that is the case, and prefer to assume he has no plan at all.
In effect, he is claiming what you are claiming about pacifism...that there are other ways to solve the probvlem without a resort to violence. What is the way, Johnny boy? Save some lives and tell us, and do so quickly.
The New Living Version?
"I'm sure most people, pacifist or not, would agree that violence is indeed neither the only way nor the best way to solve anything."
BS, a lot of people disagree with you. Violence is a very good and expedient way to solve some problems, save lives, time and money right away.
If Hitler had been shot in the head for about 15 cents back in 1939, the world would have been spared a lot of lives and misery. Same for Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Kim Il Sung, Chavez and a whole lot of Iranian mullahs etc. The list is long.
Nothing like shooting the right son of a bitch in the head at the right time to save a lot of lives.
Let's kill a large portion of the Islamofascists right now and save a lot of time, money and misery or would you rather wait till they nuke NYC?
Sorry, but violence works and if done the right way it's cost effective and moral.
It's missing the required "I's be robbin' cause it's BUSH'S FAULT!(tm)!"
Pacifism is a way of rationalizing cowardice and spinelessness. Guess that's why it's so popular with liberals.
Pacifist or not, its a dumb idea have a shoot out with a mugger. Yeah, you might win, but you might loose. The $50 in your wallet along with the 20 minutes it will take to cancel your credit cards arent worth taking that sort of chance. Its one thing if you feel your life is in danger, but playing hero can have tragic results.
I would rather have a shoot out with a mugger than be empty handed and shot by an armed mugger. It's called leveling the playing field.
Boy, had this article been published on any of NZ's MSMs it could easily be deemed the most "offensive" article of 2006 by a majority of Kiwis! I think the reactions will truly show how left-leaning mainstream NZ really is.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.