Pacifism is Morally Indefensible
many ordinary people, the sort called on to fight, or their families, probably a majority of people, would consider the end of war to be a moral good - SBF
War is bad.
Refusing to stop an aggressor is also bad.
How many ways are there to avoid the actual topic?
Realistically not everyone opposes war - a key admission.
If everyone was 100% pacifists there'd be no war but we live in the real world. Unfortunately there are usually some scum who want to wage war.
In 1982 Argentina invaded the Falklands. They wanted a war. Thankfully our military saw them off.
Today we have bloodthirsty, retarded jihadis seeking to wage war to implement Sharia. Hopefully our military will crush these bastards, too.
Owning a firearm and shooting a burglar would get you in front of a JC
In this country it would get you in front of a judge and then on remand awaiting trial. It's happened, infantile or not.
I see the 60s for the US as a 1950s baby boomer as a time of hope brought on by civil disobedience where people question their government and refuse to accept the values that they have been indoctrinated with from the public school systems. To me this is a good thing for the human race.
As an interesting aside, from watching the excellent Ken Burns documentary series on Vietnam:
First, the war was started by the government under false pretences by president JFK who "wanted to look strong" and despite intelligence saying they should get out (an intelligence officer, one of the first casualties wrote "the British and French are finished in Indo-China, and we should leave too"). Seriously, hundreds of thousands of people died because some womanizing asswipe thought a battle would win him election points. I'm glad he got his brains blown out - it should happen to more of them.
The protests for the war only started when the draft was expanded to include less-poor, university people. Prior to that they were all flag-waving and for it ... when it was sending the poor to fight and die.
The bottom line is - if you want to be a pacifist, you need to take more of an active, engaged and informed role in politics. Standing on the sidelines while things are set in motion and then refusing to get involved isn't good enough - you should have been involved earlier to prevent them if you genuinely care about life. Likewise, don't claim moral superiority for refusing to carry a gun or to kill when your blind following and tacit support of politicians beating the drums of war allows pointless wars to happen (just to stroke some grinning buffoon's ego).
Vietnam was no WWII. It was completely pointless and unnecessary. But not fighting in WWII wasn't an option (Switzerland just wasn't invaded 'yet', they certainly would have been at some point but were not strategically important)
Which is not always the best thing to do
It is sometimes better to submit to rape, heh? Also, consider HIV and Hepatitis.
a particularly selfish form of hypocrisy to expect others to defend you when you are unwilling to
Based on Christianity it is forbidden for JW to go to war. How is that hypocrisy for an individual? Or for the church?
The bottom line is - if you want to be a pacifist, you need to take more of an active, engaged and informed role in politics. Standing on the sidelines while things are set in motion and then refusing to get involved isn't good enough - you should have been involved earlier to prevent them if you genuinely care about life.
Another broad stroke or painting with a wide brush statement. I'm not a political involved person I have very little interest in it, only around election time does my interest go up a little, and times of say national crisis. But I do agree if a person feels strongly about an issue they should take the kind of action you describe be it protesting in the streets and what not. Civil disobedience or non compliance is also another course of action too.
Or just educating yourself on issues and then voting, so it doesn't come to violence of any kind. Vote for people who are less likely to start wars for political purposes or to make money.
I agree with the education part but one must recognize the trouble of government inspired propaganda getting in the way of ones education or biasing one's education, as well as news media bias.
I would not rely too heavily on an education one gets free from the government and mandatory for it's citizens along with it's pledges of allegiance to the state.
I do think that forums like this one where people can argue over things can be one form of education, along with some personal research in which one tries to deal with personal biases and not just use cherry picking to win an argument. That's the benefits of pro and con discussions as I see it. Long gone are the days of WT indoctrination where everyone speaks in agreement to a central organization.
@ the States, the way the law is crafted, once a person uses deadly physical force or offensive force, he stops being the victim. If the prosecutor doesn't get him, a civil lawsuit for using excessive force will, and if not, then vengeance from the family of the dead or injured person. It is not only cheaper but healthier in the long run for a victim to part with the most valuable of possessions to armed robbers vs killing or seriously injuring such assailant.