A belated response to Mr Orwell

[Patroklos]

Jesus, I try to meet you halfway...

There is only one type of Pacifist by definition, and then everybody else who claims they are but fails to reach that definition because of some inreconcilable trait in their character, of various types. Which is exactly what I said above before foolishly agreeing with your generalization for the sake of arguement.

Its not my definition, it is Websters.

[Alexander's Horse]

We don't use Webster's - too many spelling mistakes.

[Whaleboy]

Again this falls down to semantics, its far far safer to use the familial definition of the word (peace lover/anti war in this case) than a more precise imperative that the dictionary cannot hope to account for (lest we favour Kant). My approach gives us a far broader definition of the word pacifist and an individualist label thereof.

So people who think the cause is worth supporting, just as long as someone else takes the risk, are cowards.

Your view taken from your own perspective, without the full understanding of that person who makes that decision, yet you purport your own subjective (and necessarily flawed most reasonable people would say) opinion as an objective statement? Made worse still by your use of a concept (cowardice) that is inherently fallacious anyway! See my previous post.

What is your argument Pat?

[Patroklos]

It is strung out and repeated over the last three pages. Primarily that most who believe themselves Pacifist and who protest against the violence or others are no such thing. They are just people who haven't had something that they are willing to use violence to preserve violated or threatened.

Pacifists hate violence period, offensive or defensive. Furthermore they will not be allow themselves to be gouded into it for any reason at all. If you have any value for which you are willing to fight whether it be home, life, family etc. you are just maybe a more peacable guy than most, but not a pacifist.

And it is not normally the peace mongers who label themselves this way, but rather the war mongers who want to paint them in a bad light because they don't agree to using violence for THEIR values.

[Whaleboy]

It is strung out and repeated over the last three pages. Primarily that most who believe themselves Pacifist and who protest against the violence or others are no such thing. They are just people who haven't had something that they are willing to use violence to preserve violated or threatened.

So if a certain value they hold and value to a sufficient degree is threatened, they will fight for it? I agree, but I do not believe that is a refutation of the notion of pacifism. Pacifists believe in non-violence, and as a result, their primary target are those who instigate it... namely the warmongers. In other words, they will be inherently opposed to the proposition of a war, particularly if their home nation (for example) is the aggressor. Such is the case with the Iraq war in Britain. I would be pissed off if we engaged with someone who started on us, less pissed off, particularly if I felt threatened, but the key distinction is individual and ideological interests. You'll find that among many liberals, who'll find a logical/philosophical distinction in things that appear simplistically to others as hypocritical, for example, Lennon speaking of "no possessions" and living a millionaire lifestyle. The arguments against that are easily refutable of course.

Pacifists hate violence period, offensive or defensive. Furthermore they will not be allow themselves to be gouded into it for any reason at all. If you have any value for which you are willing to fight whether it be home, life, family etc. you are just maybe a more peacable guy than most, but not a pacifist.

Again you should consider that distinction. Remember that a true (semantic) pacifist (not a familial pacifist though both are valid as under that term imo), will not fall in love, so to speak, with material and immaterial notions such as a nation or a politic so that they would wish to fight for it. Others that do you might describe as "weekenders", who will be pacifist for all intents and purposes with one relevant issue. The hardcore will always be anti violence, and you may note that this hardcore is far bigger compared to most comparable movements, like anti-globalisation for example. I find your blanket definition to be somewhat opaque and irrelevant, it would seem that most people on this thread agree that pacifism is not a hypocritical philosophy.

And it is not normally the peace mongers who label themselves this way, but rather the war mongers who want to paint them in a bad light because they don't agree to using violence for THEIR values.

I will quite happily describe myself as pacifist (not "a pacifist" but only because I don't like labels ), I see no negative connotations there and would take it as a compliment if someone concurred with my assessment. Pacifists are often described as cowards though, which is an emotionally charged word that most shy away from, I accept it however, in full knowledge that cowardice is a concept that holds less water than a sieve. In terms of exposing my country to danger? Well I suggest that in this day and age, it is leaders pursuing aggressive foreign policies and practices that almost seem designed to incite anger that are exposing us to danger, and hyping up that danger to the populus in order to bring the people behind a particular banner, thus making it easy for them to apply more power over us. Things really don't change .