8,452
edits
Talk:Restless Souls/Summary: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
Paradox-01 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Paradox-01 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 470: | Line 470: | ||
===Pacifism=== | ===Pacifism=== | ||
Pacifism | Pacifism is best to be understood as idea to preserve freedom - to prevent escalation - but not to end a current war. | ||
The later is more suitable for diplomacy. | |||
<!-- | |||
On a further general note: The longer the war continues the more hate is involved. The difficulty is then often to let the hardliners agree to peace when generally all others have grown tired of war. -- This scenario would feel like a dirty deal in case of the Russian Ukrainian war. The guilty is clearly on the Russian side. Nobody forced them to attack or to commit war crimes.--> | |||
Radical pacifists are imprisoned by their ideology and are willing to sacrifice the live of their own and potentially those of others. An aggressor could easily exploit their position | Moderate pacifists recognize self-defense as an instrument of damage containment. The usage of counter-violence is an investment into the future so that the aggressor gets discouraged in starting new conflicts. Own casualties can bring a persistent peace. On the net side more lives might be saved. | ||
At first sight radical pacifism is right when it says that denial of violence minimizes the number of dead. However, there is no guarantee that it stays that way. The ideology is defenseless against total dependency (modern slavery) and genocide. It relies on the mercy of a ruthless aggressor. Therefor it is dead born concept. | |||
Radical pacifists are imprisoned by their ideology and are willing to sacrifice the live of their own and potentially those of others. An aggressor could easily exploit their position. | |||
: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKzAdCGdbmg This topic is such a mood killer. How about this packed into comedy? Oh wait, this is still sad. Well, screw it...]<!--TFS - Android 16's speech--> | : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKzAdCGdbmg This topic is such a mood killer. How about this packed into comedy? Oh wait, this is still sad. Well, screw it...]<!--TFS - Android 16's speech--> | ||
===Moderate pacifism combined with radical self-defense=== | ===Moderate pacifism combined with radical self-defense=== | ||
The entire population is defending its country. Nobody flees. Everyone is helping. In | The entire population is defending its country. Nobody flees. Everyone is helping. In real life this is unrealistically to achieve - due to human instinct to leave the war zone. In theory it would maximize the chance to successfully fight back the aggressor: | ||
* The aggressor faces so much resistance that winning the war might simply become impossible. | * The aggressor faces so much resistance that winning the war might simply become impossible. Also, the huge resistance means own immense casualties. Are the war goals worth that much trouble? | ||
* The killing of huge numbers of people and children renders an early moral defeat of the aggressor. The justification of own goals stand against mass murder and possibly genocide. The support for the war would drop. It demoralizes own soldiers and population very fast. | |||
* The killing of huge numbers of people and children renders an early | * The aggressor would be faced pretty early on with the crime of attempted genocide. A international like-minded community of states couldn't ignore that as the continued war tells them that they are next to be attacked. For damage containment they would to participate in the war - in one way or another - and make sure the aggressor does not win. | ||
* The aggressor would be faced pretty early on with the crime of attempted genocide. A | |||