Talk:Restless Souls/Summary: Difference between revisions

Talk:Restless Souls/Summary (view source)

Revision as of 09:43, 23 April 2022

584 bytes added , 23 April 2022

m

no edit summary

Paradox-01

8,452

edits

@@ Line 478: / Line 478: @@
 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.
+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 through becoming a money bleeding "satellite state") and genocide. It relies on the mercy of a ruthless aggressor. Therefore 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.
+Radical pacifists 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-->
 ===Moderate pacifism combined with radical self-defense===
+How much effective could that be?
 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. 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 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. This would have to happen as soon as possible in a war. The later it happens the less shocking impact it gives.
+** As the war continues soldiers get used to war crimes. Killing can be perceived as fun.
+** When Putin honors the war crimes in Bucha as "heroism" and "courage" we may see it as a cynical, barbarian doing but in a rationalized view it is logical: He believes he depend on the terror acts and cannot tell his troops that they did wrong and decrease their moral even further. Russian soldiers are dying for him after all.
 * 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.