What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones
Join...
...Conservation Club!
Help protect and own one
one of the world's oldest
and rarest trees...
..::Legend::..
Black= Mastered
Green= Learning
Orange= Struggling
Red= May never master but having fun
This list is by no means comprehensive
from the mind of... Eric | 9:19 PM
12 Comments:
I'm sorry, I found nothing relevant at the link, just Lone Ranger's place with no posts about pacifism that I could see. Am I missing something?
There are two links here. The title,
"What Passes For Pacifism in the World Today"
will take you to the relevant article.
Thanks.
So, she doesn't really fall under the heading of "pacifist," does she? Your complaint here is with the Nobel people, not with pacifism.
And rightly so. Nobel did damage to the word "peace" long before giving Arafat the prize - they gave one to war-monger Kissinger back in the 70s, recall.
On the other hand, while this woman is clearly no pacifist, isn't wanting to kill the people that you consider a threat something that you support? I understand that you disagree with whom she thinks a threat is, but don't you support the notion of "killing the enemy"? If so, then why do you have a problem with what she said?
I think the point isn't that this woman is obviously NOT a pacifist, but as this post's title implies... This is what passes for pacifism in today's world. A world in which the Nobel Prize is considered the penultimate award, carrying with it all the prestige and honor anyone could wish for. This is what the world calls pacifism. Besides which there were more examples of Neo-Pacifism in Ms. Malkins article than the aforementioned murderer at heart.
My problem with her statement finds it's basis in her inability to differenciate between those who try to make the world a better place and those who want only to kill Jews.
I know, I know... you'll argue that Hezbollah ALSO wants to make the world a better place. I can't argue with that; it's what they believe. But you have enough sense to see that their philosophy and culture is at complete odds with the rest of the world. No nation will ever be able to coexist with Militant Islam, for their brand of peace is steeped in evil... and yes, that's my own personal belief; very subjective, I agree, yet based on all I've seen and read these last 45 years, it's also quite objective.
I don't believe that the Nobel prize has EVER been about pacifism, just peacemaking. There's a difference.
This woman's comments are not what passes for pacifism in the world. The world for the most part knows (or thinks it knows) what pacifism is about and would know that her saying she'd like to kill Bush isn't in the realm of pacifism.
I maintain your problem isn't with pacifism, it's with the Nobel people.
Yes, I do have a problem with the Nobel 'People', but that only scratches the surface of a far greater problem. It's the attitudes and beliefs that allow these 'People' to accept and award poor examples of brotherly love. It's the attitudes and beliefs that allow peace advocates to declare that it serves a soldier right that his family is murdered while he is away serving his country.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the attitudes and beliefs of today's new man that such people can stand against something they feel is utterly wrong while displaying the very same evils themselves.
What disturbs me about all this is their apparent blindness to their own hypocrisy. This is the very same blindness that protests the execution of convicted murderers while demanding their right to murder their unborn children... Their INNOCENT children. All without the slightest sign that they recognize the contradictory nature of the positions they hold so dear.
This is First-Class Ignorance.
Ahhh, but there is always plenty of ignorance to go around, no? It is not merely the plight of the "liberal," but is the condition of humanity, right?
Shall I offer examples of those saying they speak for conservatives making ignorant statements? Hypocritical statements?
"Shall I offer examples of those saying they speak for conservatives making ignorant statements? Hypocritical statements?"
If you really want to go in that direction. But first let me say that it seems as though you think I'm unaware of the human condition... That has been the whole point of this post. I haven't singled out one political party... only the so-called peace-mongers. And despite your own preference for, and advocation of peace, your comments here and elsewhere reveal your own penchant, albeit via the natural expression of our shared human condition, to be as bloodthirsty as the rest of us... but I'm not pointing my finger at you either. I know you mean well.
Hence all the implications in those five little words, "I know you mean well..." Which is the crux grammata of human dissent. I DO know you mean well. We just dissagree on which dog to kick along the way.
Go there if you wish. Forgive me if I choose not to follow. I'm well aware of the shortcomings of those I look to for leadership.
One thing more. My posts on this blog, for the most part, and despite my finger often pointed at political and ideological foes, expend a lot of effort in pointing out the shortcomings of the Human Condition; which know no political affiliation. My main focus has always been ideological, which admittedly, often shares an uneasy border with with politics. And all this may sound like a cop-out, but in fairness to myself, if you were to distill all my distaste and abhorrence for Liberalism and the political party that most clearly espouses its tenets, you would find it all boils down to a base revulsion to the darkness in men's souls.
Well stated, mostly. I would love, however, to know what you mean by this:
"your comments here and elsewhere reveal your own penchant... to be as bloodthirsty as the rest of us..."
Also, you stated:
"That has been the whole point of this post. I haven't singled out one political party... only the so-called peace-mongers."
But in your singling out of "peacemongers," you've singled out a few examples of those who claim to work for peace who've misbehaved.
The VAST majority of pacifists (at least the faith-based pacifists that I am most familiar with) do not call for the assassination of Bush, nor applaud when a soldier's family dies. You're setting up a strawman "peacemonger" to kick down that is not representative of the whole, and I object to that.
No, you didn't single out a party, but you unfairly singled out a group. Which is why I asked if you'd want me to select the few poorly behaved conservatives (or warriors) to represent the whole. I hear you saying, No. So I'd hope we can agree not to lump the bad in with the good and speak ill of a whole group because of the behavior of a few.
As to the first: You've had a few things to say here and elsewhere that do not cast, to my mind, a very pacifistic reflection. But that's not to say you aren't consistently pacifistic.
As to the other: No, these morons do not represent what pacifism should and does stand for. However, they are often the public face of the peace movement because they ARE so outrageous. These people have co-opted an otherwise worthwhile cause every bit as much as... well, I'm not going to go there. Suffice it to say, these kooks make all the noise, so naturally they garner most of the Media's attention.
Peaceful Muslims need to take back their religion every bit as much as genuine advocates of peace need to take back their movement.
Oh, and who are you hiding from beneath/behind that snow covered... tree? Snowball wielding Ring Wraiths?
I'm on top of the world in that pic, looking down on creation. All is love and harmony...
As to my not casting a pacifist reflection, I'd genuinely like to know. I suspect that you have read me standing up strongly for what I believe and perhaps condemning strongly those who I believe to be advocating injustice or war crimes and confused a strong stand against (or for) something as not being pacifistic.
Jesus was meek, not milquetoast. I think we often have a poor idea of what it means to be a peacemaker.
But then, I reckon that's obvious...
Post a Comment
<< Home