Well that was unpleasant.

[Viceroy]

But in this case giving the money is not standing up for yourself so that point is also moot Spaniard.

[Spaniard]

I never said give him money as a solution to the OP. I even gave an example of how I removed myself from a similar situation without having to resort to violence or giving the person money. My comment is in rebuttal to this idea that if you don't act like Rambo whenever you're confronted with a potentially dangerous situation that you're suddenly some meek, docile, sheep. It's absurd to put the blame on the pacifist, that they're somehow empowering aggressive types, for the violence that happens in the world.

[Viceroy]

But you argued that death was essentially the solution given by returning aggression, I can assure you that most fights do not involve one guy ending up as a corpe, that in itself is an absurd representation of the situation. Pacifism will not protect you from violent intent, pacifism in my experience has led to terrible lapses in foresight and preparation for the very worst human nature has to offer. What we are saying is that aggression can be noble and dignified the same way pacifism can be noble and dignified, aggression and pacifism can also be the refuge of cowardess. As people are multi-faceted and inclined to incredibly complex behaviour.

 

Still the point I made earlier is that when presented with a risk/reward situation each person will weigh it differently. You might see more profit in avoiding the conflict, whereas I see little profit in that and would rather test the antagonist to see if they are willing to back down first if the risk to them increases. I am not advocating violence and certainly not murder or death, what I am advocating is attempting to shift the antagonists perception away from 'reward' and more towards 'risk' in the hopes of disparaging him.

 

In my own life and circumstances this has served me well, it may well fail for you, it may well be exactly as effective in the greater scheme of things. But calling it 'self-harm' and 'matching crazy with crazy' is not exactly a balanced view of things, it is very far from crazy, it is a well considered and viable defense mechanism (as is pacifism) found throughout the entire animal kingdom, not just humanity.

[Rathlord]

I know plenty of soldiers who would agree with me. So moot point. Also, a lot of soldiers have done terrible things and violence tends to bring the worse out in people, just like war. This idea that you can't stand up for yourself without being violent is both sick and balantly untrue.

Sorry, but fringe cases and personal anecdotes do not a point prove. Further, you still are not understanding the difference between dignity and right/wrong. There is no correlation.

In addition, I NEVER claimed that "you can't stick up for yourself without violence." Please don't put words in my mouth- I'm fact, I wa directly defending the right to pacifism a few posts back.

What I don't agree with is your claim that violence is always undignified. It shits on a million heroes throughout the course of human history. It's disrespectful of others' points of view (when I've been expressly defending the right to defend yourself in the way you see fit) and it missed the entire concept of dignity.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide whether a person is dignified or not. That's not how that works. I get the distinct impression you don't even know what the word means.

[Xydonus]

I know plenty of soldiers who would agree with me. So moot point. Also, a lot of soldiers have done terrible things and violence tends to bring the worse out in people, just like war. This idea that you can't stand up for yourself without being violent is both sick and balantly untrue.

 

 

 

If Ireland relied on pacifism, we would still be under British rule.

 

Peaceful protests wouldn't have earned our independence.

[Spaniard]

 

I know plenty of soldiers who would agree with me. So moot point. Also, a lot of soldiers have done terrible things and violence tends to bring the worse out in people, just like war. This idea that you can't stand up for yourself without being violent is both sick and balantly untrue.

Sorry, but fringe cases and personal anecdotes do not a point prove. Further, you still are not understanding the difference between dignity and right/wrong. There is no correlation.

In addition, I NEVER claimed that "you can't stick up for yourself without violence." Please don't put words in my mouth- I'm fact, I wa directly defending the right to pacifism a few posts back.

What I don't agree with is your claim that violence is always undignified. It shits on a million heroes throughout the course of human history. It's disrespectful of others' points of view (when I've been expressly defending the right to defend yourself in the way you see fit) and it missed the entire concept of dignity.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide whether a person is dignified or not. That's not how that works. I get the distinct impression you don't even know what the word means.

 

Who said I was even writing about you, Rathlord? The only thing I directed toward you was the fact you said , "many soldiers would disagree with you." It's ironic you're trying to teach me about proper usage of personal anecdotes when you were violating your own lesson. I , on the other hand, was using a personal anecdote to contradict a claim KeepBro, and others, were saying as if it was always true. When contradicting such generalization, a personal anecdote is fair game.

 

My rebuttal was directed to KeepBro. He was saying pacifism leads to more violence because you're allowing bad people to run amok, and I gave a personal example that contradicts his sweeping generalization. That is a completely valid claim to make on my part.

 

Personal attacks do your argument no justice, and my point was exactly that when I said your claim is moot. You were the one using opinions from individuals (IE, soldiers) as some sort of proof that violence is dignified. I met your claim with an equally valid and true statement. There's nothing dignified about violence or war, and there are many veterans that would agree with that point. Violence is not a thing to be respected, even when it's done from necessity. Thus, violence is not dignified. I have a sneaking suspicion you resort to petty insults when you have no real argument to stand on. It's highly ironic that you claim it's disrespectful for me to voice my opinion when that's exactly what you claim these soldiers are dying for; the right for each and every person to voice their opinion. In fact I bet you most soldiers and veterans, even the ones that would agree with you, would be open to such a discussion rather than be outraged because someone is voicing their opinion. The people that get outraged by such opinions are politicians who rant and rave about heroes yet do nothing for them, politicians that don't acknowledge them and don't help them once they're used, maimed, and back home.

 

Also, I never once claimed that being a soldier is not a dignified profession, it certainly can be, but in no way will I say that violence is dignified. Remember, you were the one that brought up soldiers, not me. Nothing you've said, in anyway, proves me wrong. Violence is undignified, even if it's done for the "right" reasons.

 

 

I know plenty of soldiers who would agree with me. So moot point. Also, a lot of soldiers have done terrible things and violence tends to bring the worse out in people, just like war. This idea that you can't stand up for yourself without being violent is both sick and balantly untrue.

 

 

 

If Ireland relied on pacifism, we would still be under British rule.

 

Peaceful protests wouldn't have earned our independence.

 

Many great things have been done through peaceful protest and pacifism. Nonviolent revolutions are highly effective and, to cite an often ignored figure, I'd ask you to do some research on Cesar Chavez.  Who knows where Ireland would be if it had relied on peaceful protest? The answer to that is no one, unless you claim to be a seer which makes you full of malarkey. What I do understand is the nature of violence, and I do understand that it's often self-destructive. Violence is a last resort, not a go to action because you're too scared to accept the reality of life: it's fragile and no gun or knife will ever change that fact. You will be surprised by the power of words, and that's where true confidence comes from, not from some hunk of metal that brings only death and destruction. You can kill a person in a gunfight, but words can never be destroyed, they outlive all of us as long as there are people brave enough to repeat them and carry on the good fight. You can not beat fire with fire and you can not end a cycle of violence with more violence.

 

 

But you argued that death was essentially the solution given by returning aggression, I can assure you that most fights do not involve one guy ending up as a corpe, that in itself is an absurd representation of the situation. Pacifism will not protect you from violent intent, pacifism in my experience has led to terrible lapses in foresight and preparation for the very worst human nature has to offer. What we are saying is that aggression can be noble and dignified the same way pacifism can be noble and dignified, aggression and pacifism can also be the refuge of cowardess. As people are multi-faceted and inclined to incredibly complex behaviour.

 

Violence will not protect you from violent intent. Can it? Sure, but so can pacifism. One action feeds the cycle of violence, the other attempts to shatter it. One action is much more likely to instigate more violence than the other.

 

I've been in many fights before and so I know that many fights don't involve someone dying, but what I do know is that they're pointless. I grew out of it and I realized that there are better ways to deal with aggressive individuals, and violence should only be a last resort.

[MashPotato]

Everyone settle down (and this is addressed to a few of you).

[Rathlord]

Personal attacks do your argument no justice, and my point was exactly that when I said your claim is moot.

 

At no point did I levy any personal attacks against you. Please don't put words into my mouth (part 2).

 

 

You were the one using opinions from individuals (IE, soldiers) as some sort of proof that violence is dignified. I met your claim with an equally valid and true statement.

 

In this case, you're wrong, because dignity isn't something that you can just paint an entire generalized situation with. You said, and I quote "There's nothing dignified about violence." This is an absolute. In cases where you're making an absolute claim, any one single point of evidence proves it wrong. My claim, on the other hand, was that there were many who would disagree. This is not an absolute, thus personal anecdotes have no bearing. Your claim that some soldiers agree with you does not destroy the veracity of my claim.

 

 

There's nothing dignified about violence or war, and there are many veterans that would agree with that point.

 

A statement with no justification, and another personal anecdote.

 

 

Violence is not a thing to be respected, even when it's done from necessity. Thus, violence is not dignified.

 

And thus is the crux of my point: you do not understand what the word "dignified" means. Dignity is "the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect." Fighting to protect one's loved ones and rights is worthy of both honor and respect. If you disagree with this, then you're saying that what soldiers throughout time have done (this isn't an "our American boys are so great" speech, I'm talking about everything from the barbarians to today) while fighting for what's right is actually not worth respecting or honoring. Memorial Day in America is all about honoring what soldiers do- employing violence for the sake of those they love. Saying that this isn't honorable is disrespectful and sad.

 

Your argument hinges upon a simple misunderstanding. You hate violence, thus you must paint everything to do with it as evil. That is not correct. Violence is terrible; but it can also be worthy of respect. Being horrible does not preclude respect. Fighting for people who can't fight for themselves is inarguably respect worthy. You're just blinded by your hatred of violence, and it's keeping you from seeing the point and making you lash out against it. 

 

 

I have a sneaking suspicion you resort to petty insults when you have no real argument to stand on.

 

Please keep your suppositions out of this debate. This adds nothing to this discussion and is simply flaming. Please don't.

 

 

It's highly ironic that you claim it's disrespectful for me to voice my opinion when that's exactly what you claim these soldiers are dying for; the right for each and every person to voice their opinion. In fact I bet you most soldiers and veterans, even the ones that would agree with you, would be open to such a discussion rather than be outraged because someone is voicing their opinion.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth (part 3). I never said it's disrespectful for you to voice your opinion. I said your opinion is disrespectful. These are two incredibly different things. Soldiers fight for the right to voice an opinion, which you're welcome to. But just because, for instance, America is a free country and has the right to free speech does not mean that people don't have idiotic things to say. So, again, please don't slander me by putting words into my mouth. I'm not outraged that you're voicing your opinion. I'm debating because your opinion is disrespectful and I disagree with it.

 

 

The people that get outraged by such opinions are politicians who rant and rave about heroes yet do nothing for them, politicians that don't acknowledge them and don't help them once they're used, maimed, and back home.

 

I... don't know how to respond to this. It would appear that this isn't aimed at me, but I'm from a military family and have had family members die in active duty for what it's worth; I'm not sure whether you're trying to insinuate something hateful about me or just posting off-topic.

[Spaniard]

Reread what i wrote because you missed it completely and im currentlu in bed typijg with my phone, i work jn the morning and wont be abld to properly respons till tomorrow. I was referencing the VA and how it's a huge debacle. . . .I'm also from a military family, Rathlord. And guess what not all soldiers are combatants and i can both respect a soldier and find violence undignified. Im sorry you cant wrap youre around that fact. I never insinuated those whom perpetrate violence are evil, and I am not putting words into your mouth anymore than you are in mine. I know very much the definition of the word dignified and I will repeat my statement, violence, in of itself, is not dignified. That is not a disrespectful opinion, it is an opinion on violence, so that's ludicrous for you to claim it's disrespectful when I'm not making any judgements on people who feel violence has its place . . . . No one will ever have my respect because they hurt someone, but that doesn't mean that same person can't have my respect for a different reason. So no, it's not a disrespectful opinion. And not nearly as disrespectful as you have been by calling my perfectly legitimate claims as idiotic.

[Rathlord]

For bonus points, I can also prove you wrong with a single sentence of your own, without any supposition or opinion on my part:

 

Violence is undignified, even if it's done for the "right" reasons.

 

I'll prove you wrong here with pure definitions of words and facts, no opinions at all. Let's dissect this statement.

 

A statement | Violence is undignified | and a qualifier | even if it's done for the right reasons |.

 

Let's define undignified, since that seems to be a stumbling point for you. For clarity's sake, and because it's the most technically correct definition, let's take it as "lacking in dignity" and thus define dignity. Let's check Wikipedia for this one, as it's definition is a bit more tailored to this kind of discussion. Dignity: "Dignity is a concept used in moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions to signify that a being [or concept, in this case] has an innate right to be valued."

 

So to prove you wrong, we need to prove that violence in any single case, ever, has had an innate right to be valued.

 

Luckily, I don't have to delve into any deep argument about what would qualify it for having a right to be valued; you've already jumped that process due to the second part of that sentence.

 

Your qualifier (even if it's done for the right reasons) can allow us to factually shorten your original sentence to this: Violence can be done for the right reasons (sometimes).

 

So let's take a soldier for any given cause that you believe in. I don't care what it is- fill in the blank. Surely you must believe in a cause that's been fought for in the course of human history.

 

So let's look at this hypothetically (but also very real) soldier:

 

1) He is committing violence to protect something (an idea, a person, a place) that he loves

2) Committing violence can be done for the right reasons, and thus he is committing violence for a justifiable and correct reason

3) In doing so, he has done something "of value." He has protected (or tried to) something that you admit is "right".

 

Since he has done said act of violence to protect something of value, he has also acted in a way that has value (and since value is defined by people, not science in this case, as long as someone was grateful for what he did, it was valued). Since that act of violence was done "in the right" as you so clearly stated, the clear and obvious conclusion is that his act of violence has value. By the definition of dignity, since his act had innate value, it was dignified. Since it was dignified, it was obviously not-undignified.

 

Thus, you proved yourself wrong in a single sentence of your own writing, with pure semantics.

So no, it's not a disrespectful opinion. And not nearly as disrespectful as you have been by calling my perfectly legitimate claims as idiotic.

 

Please stop lying about me or I'm going to have to ask another moderator to step in. Lying about another member of the forums isn't lovely and is against our rules.

[Spaniard]

For bonus points, I can also prove you wrong with a single sentence of your own, without any supposition or opinion on my part:

Violence is undignified, even if it's done for the "right" reasons.

I'll prove you wrong here with pure definitions of words and facts, no opinions at all. Let's dissect this statement.

A statement | Violence is undignified | and a qualifier | even if it's done for the right reasons |.

Let's define undignified, since that seems to be a stumbling point for you. For clarity's sake, and because it's the most technically correct definition, let's take it as "lacking in dignity" and thus define dignity. Let's check Wikipedia for this one, as it's definition is a bit more tailored to this kind of discussion. Dignity: "Dignity is a concept used in moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions to signify that a being [or concept, in this case] has an innate right to be valued."

So to prove you wrong, we need to prove that violence in any single case, ever, has had an innate right to be valued.

Luckily, I don't have to delve into any deep argument about what would qualify it for having a right to be valued; you've already jumped that process due to the second part of that sentence.

Your qualifier (even if it's done for the right reasons) can allow us to factually shorten your original sentence to this: Violence can be done for the right reasons (sometimes).

So let's take a soldier for any given cause that you believe in. I don't care what it is- fill in the blank. Surely you must believe in a cause that's been fought for in the course of human history.

So let's look at this hypothetically (but also very real) soldier:

1) He is committing violence to protect something (an idea, a person, a place) that he loves

2) Committing violence can be done for the right reasons, and thus he is committing violence for a justifiable and correct reason

3) In doing so, he has done something "of value." He has protected (or tried to) something that you admit is "right".

Since he has done said act of violence to protect something of value, he has preserved that value (and since value is defined by people, not science in this case, as long as someone was grateful for what he did, it was valued). Since that act of violence was done "in the right" as you so clearly stated, the clear and obvious conclusion is that his act of violence has value. By the definition of dignity, since his act had innate value, it was dignified. Since it was dignified, it was obviously not-undignified.

Thus, you proved yourself wrong in a single sentence of your own writing.

So no, it's not a disrespectful opinion. And not nearly as disrespectful as you have been by calling my perfectly legitimate claims as idiotic.

Please stop lying about me or I'm going to have to ask another moderator to step in. Lying about another member of the forums isn't lovely and is against our rules.I'm not lying I misunderstood what you said, just like you've done to me many times. Pointing out a misunderstanding and using that to disprove a multitude of things can also be construed as being dishonest. Repeatedly claiming someone is lying, as in purposefully telling someone a lie, is not lovely to me; you misunderstood me a few times just as I misunderstood you twice.

[Rathlord]

Repeatedly claiming someone is lying, as in purposefully telling someone a lie, is not lovely to me; you misunderstood me a few times just as I misunderstood you twice.

 

 

I'm not a mind reader. I can't tell when you misunderstand me. The fact remains that your statements were lies, plain and simple. Whether you meant to or not is irrelevant; read better next time. I don't feel I've misunderstood you at all, and I haven't been disrespectful to you a single time, whereas you've accused me of several untrue things, including that I would "resort to petty insults" because I disagree with you.

 

I think my case has been made here. Have a great day.

[Keepbro]

I have always found elephants to be very dignified.

 

I wonder if military elephants are therefore doubly dignified?

[EnigmaGrey]

Offtopic

Fight, fight, fight, fight.

[Walther]

TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES

[Kitt Frostpaws]

I have always found elephants to be very dignified.

 

I wonder if military elephants are therefore doubly dignified?

 

Only if they are tusked with the highest of duties.

 

Offtopic

Fight, fight, fight, fight.

Our moderators everyone! Hehehe.

[nasKo]

Quoting both of you, so you get a notification.

In case it isn't settled yet, please take it to PMs from here, guys

Thanks to both of you <3 xoxo

[Xydonus]

[Spaniard]

Are you not entertained!?!?!

Days like these I dislike being a responsible adult that must go beddy bye at an early time.

[nasKo]

I smell fuel. If I hear one single flick of a zippo, I'll close this thread

[Gotanychange?]

Spare any change?

[Rathlord]

Spare any change?

Keepbro, always the jester

[DoctahWong]

I smell fuel. If I hear one single flick of a zippo, I'll close this thread

*Is lighting a zippo lighter*

 

What?, you can do tricks with a zippo!

[Spaniard]

Spare any change?

Omg, a homeless person! Where's my gun!?!?

[bvhv]

we better Chang the subject