h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You never seem to mention pacifism in this text I think. Just a lot of forms of violence.

I saw an interview with Paul McCartney the other day. He talked about how he was a pacifist, but if somebody came and hirt his children he would resort to violence. And then afterwards go back to being a pacifist. I found that interesting, apparently being a pacifist is just those breaks you take in between violent acts then.

>You never seem to mention pacifism in this text I think. Just a lot >of forms of violence.

That's right! The text was never about pacifism, just about violence. The "pacifist" part of the title was added by the sub editor, who somehow read from the text that I am a pacifist.

>I saw an interview with Paul McCartney the other day. He talked about
>how he was a pacifist, but if somebody came and hirt his children he
>would resort to violence. And then afterwards go back to being a

I am a father myself. If anyone threatened my children, i would molest, kill, rape and even shout words not approved by the BBC to save my children. That a pacifist would stand there and watch such a scene is a myth, and pacifism deals with just that. What a pacifist would not do, is shooting someone because he or she wore a uniform originating from another country's army, or just happened to be from another country.

(Now, this is the part where you are supposed to say: "Yeah, but if you don't kill that soldier, he will come into your country, and go for your wife and children." Then I will go: "Well, but pacifism deals with that, too. The whole ideology is about solving conflicts in a non-violent way. When they occur, and way before they have gotten as far as the Middle East conflict.")

Tom

Pacifism as a national policy is a good way to get conquered, non violence only works when you have someone or thing that feels bad at killing tons of people. I'd like to have seen a pacifist demonstration against Stalin. Or perhaps one would like to remember Tianamin Square?

Ok, if you are a soldier in an army, would you go into another country and take someone else's wife and children? No? Well then why do we think they'll do that? They may conquer America (or whatever country it is that you worry about) but I seriously doubt they'd go after your wife and children... people across the world aren't as barbaric as that... that is just a phrase used to scare people to make them fight...

peace.

I still wouldn't like to trust in human nature....there have been many many peices of history.......that prove otherwise.....

True... human nature is not something to trust.

But alot of the way we are is formed by society preasures and expectations. And I don't think most societies are pressured to go and bother people's wifes and kids.

I not really trying to argue, just trying to offer a different opinion... (though I am reminded of the phrase "those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it")

peace.

You're right I don't know of any society that says go kill children.

offers Theory an

Ah, thank you... unfortunatly here in America I am considered "underage" so it would be illegal for me to accept...

peace.

Although I am afraid I dissagree with the "no society saying to go and kill children" blip... with abortion legal, anyway...

(depending on how you look at it, I suppose)

peace.

alas, that opens up another whole can of worms. you're correct again, in my opinon.

good, another Yank on here, there's far too few of us around eh?

No there's not

There was an episode in Poland or something where they did a civil disobedience thing against Hitler and it actually worked. But I do wonder how many did it and was killed.

But I prefer non-violent solutions as well, but ruling out violence seems like a bad idea. There are many countries that do say "go rape their women and kill their children." In older days that was pretty much the pay soldiers got, a right to rape and pillage. But don't you also think that most people, except the few that earn money on it, would prefer non-violent solutions? But there are many cases where you can't compromise and just have to do what you can to stop them.

"If you have to resort to violence you have already lost."

I also tend to agree with that... While I personally would not go to war and kill someone if I had the choice, there are times that violence is nessisary...

peace.

What about defensive martial arts and the argument that you are learning arguably violent means to prevent yourself from becoming aggressive? When I throw somebody across the dojo or pin them into a painful position so that they can't move, is that violence? What about the buddhist concept of paradox and its influence on martial arts? Is it the same as the justifications for a military or even nuclear deterrents or simply a form of self discipline which encourages peace?

That ain't violence, per se. Tis more of an art. (maybe why it is called Martial ARTS?)

peace.

What about the ART of war then? It is sort of violence, but the best way to deal with someone is if you can pacify them in that way. Hitting people usually just makes the madder.