Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Pacifists ? Pah!

  1. Dec 12, 2003 #1
    With all of this talk of war and Iraq, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror. These activists may be alone or in a gathering...most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

    1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

    2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

    3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful

    4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a non-violent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

    5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

    6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

    7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

    8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

    Lesson over, class dismissed.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 12, 2003 #2
    Thank you adrian baker! that was funny, i need to remember that and try it. Do you mind if i email that out to a few pacifists i know? because thats just tooo funny!

    -Ty
     
  4. Dec 12, 2003 #3
    On the other hand, You forget that there are more than two sides to the issue. For instance, I don't have to hit you back if you hit me; I can put you in a jujitsu joint lock and drag you over to a cage. There is room between the two extremes for a more reasonable response than answering violence with more violence.
     
  5. Dec 12, 2003 #4

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Actually, they will most likely punch you back, pointing out that most of the anti-war campaigners are arguing against pre-emptive action against a country which has not attacked anyone, to illustrate the fact that violence begets violence, and to show that they are realists in understanding that human emotions are hard to control. Then, to demonstrate the important of multilateral action, they will band together and beat you senseless. Until the police arrive (and so illustrate the importance of an independent body), when the majority of onlookers will report that you were the aggressor, and no, they didn't have a look at the attackers' faces. (Thus illustrating the value of alliances in dealing with threats and intimidation.) Then you can ask yourself - who dealt with you better - the diplomacy and non-violent means of the police or the action of the mob?

    Remember that the primary argument is that we should not be just dealing with superficial details but addressing root causes. If the root cause is that you are an idiot, then a blow to the head is a medically certified cure.

    Of course, you may be barely conscious at the end, but hey! It's educational!
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2003
  6. Dec 12, 2003 #5

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If I recall correctly, you claim to be a teacher. That is a shame.

    1. The war on Iraq has nothing to do with retaliation for 9/11.

    2. Protesting of a specific war does not make one an ideological pacifist. One could favor the war in Afghanistan and oppose the war in Iraq.

    3. Most people do know how to react to peace protestors - either argue your points, or ignore them. Hitting them is both stupid and illegal.

    4. Even if you have discovered someone who does not believe in revenge, they will probably believe in self defense.

    For someone who claims to be a teacher, you show no signs of logical thought or rationality. You seem to have no clue to human nature, and no life-experience in the real world. I suppose you could try to excuse this post as humor, but that would require something to be funny.

    Njorl
     
  7. Dec 12, 2003 #6
    Conflict is the ultimate force of social evolution. It is the social analogue of biological Darwinism. As brutal as it may sound, the biological analogue weeds out the weak in favour of the strong - ruthlessly. Keep in mind that our concepts of 'ruthless' and 'brutal' is entirely arbitrary - they are human constructs of civilisation.

    In the long run, biological evolution prevents stagnation and improves the prospect of the species by ensuring the propagation of good genes, well adapted to the surroundings.

    The same is true for conflict on the social level. In whatever form - be it verbal debate to all out war - the better philosophy, approach or system will ultimately prevail. 'Peace treaties' (also in whatever form) only result in the avoidance of conflict or the postponement of the inevitable. They will result in a mixture of systems, some inferior, some superior. They will result in friction from the resulting jealousy, inequality and non-homogeneity of an imperfect solution. Remember mathematics - there is only one value at the optimum. Why wait? Surely sooner is better, when there is less of an ego to break (for the verbal arguments) or less blood to spill (for actual warfare).

    If all out war was declared after the acts of war Sept. 11 was, certain...anachronistic, and repressive, systems would be forced to adapt or face extinction. Of course the lessons will be painful. Of course we would rather they adapt. In fact, adaptation is a strength in itself. The stubborn and inflexible in belief would be weeded out by such conflict. Keep in mind, however, that we are going for the long term solution here - as biological evolution does. But the strongest system will prevail, and at the end of the day, our species will be better off with the benefits of a global, unified and optimum social system.

    Would one call me a warmonger? Perhaps. But I have the best interests of humanity at heart.
     
  8. Dec 12, 2003 #7

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Tyro,

    You are omitting the venues for conflict that favor the west most - cultural and economic. Violent conflict obscures these venues and plays into the hands of our enemies. While nations are at peace, economic and cultural pressures are most effective. It is when nations adopt a pose of open hostility that these advantages become liabilities.

    Do you know what the most powerful force likely to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons is? It is that young Iranian women want to wear jeans, and young Iranian men think they look good in them. Before the "axis of evil" speech, demontrations of over 50,000 young Iranians were common in Tehran. Now they are gone.

    Should we instead have war with Iran? Most of the Iraqis are glad to be rid of Hussein, but we are still having problems. In Iran, the whole population would hate us with every fiber of their being.

    Your biological alalogy was apropos. The dinosaurs, reliant upon size and strength only, died out. The subtler, more adaptable mammals thrived.

    Njorl
     
  9. Dec 12, 2003 #8

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    One of the greatest survival advantages of humanity is our unity whilst celebrating intellectual differences. Peace is more favorable to us than war.
     
  10. Dec 12, 2003 #9
    What has economic sanctions, isolation policies and social/cultural exports to certain turbulent countries gotten the West? September 11, the Bali bombings, continued terrorism in Israel, religious fanaticism/extremism. Thats what.

    Take Israel/Palestine. Just about everyone I know says that a diplomatic solution is not possible in the foreseeable future. The low intensity carnage of suicide bombers/terrorists and the Israeli reprisals continue to this day. If Israel finished the 6 Day War in 1967 in a more permanent fashion, there would be no more terrorism in Israel. Only an annihilated, assimilated or annexed enemy. This solution would no doubt have been violent and bloody, but it would have fixed the problem. For good. Instead, all we see is a steady stream of carnage and hostility because of the peace treaties that forced mutually hating parties to coexist. So now it looks like the end result might either be a conglomeration of systems leading to an inefficient solution (remember - there is only one optimum), or eventually, one side will get so polarised by the continuing violence that they decide to take the permanent solution. At which point, the level of carnage you can expect for a permanent solution in the past vis-a-vis one in the future would increase dramatically, since there would be more warm bodies to fight.

    In terms of the "most powerful force stopping Iran from building nukes", it depends on your definition of "powerful". If you are talking about "most easily achieved with minimal cost", then yes, it is cultural exports. But there are no guarantees it would fix the problem for good. Or that it may even work - you may just polarise the extreme factions to the extent that they forge ahead faster with their nuclear programme. If you are talking a permanent solution with no possibility of nukes ever being built there, then it is annihilation, annexation or assimilation.

    Your example of the size/strength of dinosaurs vs. the more adaptable mammals is an incorrect interpretation of what I am saying. In fact, it can be an EXAMPLE of what I am saying. By the strongest system, I am not only talking about brawn. I am talking about the collective whole - from social systems (e.g. democracy), to economic systems and cultural practices. Hence why you see us instead of large reptiles today.

    FZ+, intellectual differences are one thing. In fact, the system of espousing conflict as a means to determine the best solution is one which celebrates this. A perfect example of a system operating under this belief would be a large, pluralistic democracy with a multitude of beliefs, with each faction challenging the others in a perpetual struggle for ideological dominance. The President never becomes a dictator; his opinions are always challenged by others. A litigious society where inefficient aspects of it are brought before courts and the offending parties punished. A society that forcefully exerts its views, beliefs and system on others. Quite interestingly, one country rather fits that bill, and is currently the world's sole surviving superpower.

    Also, how do you determine which system is best? Democracy or despotism? An entirely every-man-for-himself system or one of significant welfare support? Religious pluralism or religious intolerance? What I am saying is that there is one way - for certain - of finding out. And it may well be in our species' long term interests to do so.

    Human society is collectively being weakened by fractious, anachronistic and inefficient systems. Time to show these systems the annals of history.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2003
  11. Dec 12, 2003 #10
    War is good for the Advance of Technologies, but in the long run what would you rather have, greater technology or world peace?

    I could see this thread was gonna end up like this as soon as i read the first paragraph!
     
  12. Dec 12, 2003 #11

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    WAS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  13. Dec 12, 2003 #12
    Yes. Of course. I just couldn't restrain myself from putting in my tuppence worth
     
  14. Dec 12, 2003 #13

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    IIRC, Gandhi and his followers engaged in something not too dissimilar to Adrian's 'lesson', something to do with salt and the British Raj.

    On the other hand, the modern state of Israel owes much to the actions of some folk who would, without a doubt, be classified as terrorists by Ashcroft today.

    Did the British in India and Palestein "strike back, VERY HARD"?

    Or maybe it was the British who were "a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people"?
     
  15. Dec 13, 2003 #14
    Be wary of trying to judge various sides of a conflict based on ethics and morality. Remember that suicide bombers die thinking what they are doing is right, and that they will go to heaven. Idealistic people with an easily affronted sense of morals/ethics are the easiest for people like brainwashing clerics to manipulate. Not only that, but even if you were (hypothetically speaking) morally perfect and impartial, the facts of the matter have been so badly distorted by politicians and the warring factions that you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.

    The most impartial and objective means of deciding who deserves to 'win' the conflict is who will contribute the most to humanity, and which side has done so in the past. With this logic, it is easy to determine who should 'win' conflicts.

    Israel should, over the Arabic countries/Palestine. Despite fighting a low intensity war on all fronts, Israel is still one of the world leaders in technology, and they are a democratic government. The only contribution Arabic countries have done for the world is oil, and anyone can operate an oil refinery. They haven't had any positive cultural exports or technological contributions.

    India should, over Kashmir and Pakistan. India is the worlds largest democracy, an emerging focal point for IT and a player in the world's economy. Similar issues with Pakistan as in the Israel/Palestine point.

    China should, over Taiwan. China's economy is a behemoth, they contribute to the production of many of the finished goods we see, they are the largest importers of steel. Taiwan's economy is also a major player in the world, but the comparison is still really a David & Goliath one.

    South Korea should, over North Korea. Pretty obvious, this one, I think.

    I, personally, don't bother with the semantics of who is a terrorist or not. Forgetting about something as whimsical and arbitrary as the human construct called 'ethics' and focusing on the objective points of the matter permits someone to view world conflicts with surprising clarity...
     
  16. Dec 13, 2003 #15
    Re: Re: Pacifists...? Pah!


    Dear me, what a wet blanket you are Njorl..... Are teachers only supposed to be left wing Politically Correct Pacifists? Is there only 'one' correct idealogy?

    A teachers job is to educate and make people THINK! Those children that grow up believing that there is only one world view tend to grow up as narrow minded people unable to cope with the complexities of life as it is.

    If my Physics Class argue that Religion is 'outmoded rubbish' as they do, I argue the other way. If they insist that God is the answer to Cosmological arguments, I argue not. If they are 'Green' I argue the other way, if they aren't I a become a Green. Have you never heard of dialogue Njorl? Perhaps you'd prefer the teachers they have in Catholic schools, or N Korean ones maybe?


    As for the second paragraph of yours, quoted above, I have laughed and laughed so much at what you wrote, it is hilarious... Your response is FAR funnier than the original piece I wrote... Priceless.


    What is sad though is that you think this reflects my world view when, as Jimmy P puts it...

    Lighten up man!!
     
  17. Dec 13, 2003 #16
    Adrian Baker

    If you can tell me what Iraq has to do with those terrorist attacks in the USA on 11/09/01, I might begin to consider you something more than an irrational, braindead imbecile.

    Thus demonstrating that you are indeed a savage.

    Or they may not.

    However, if they do opt for revenge, what has this got to do with Iraq and war? The USA did not attack anyone who attacked them. They attacke a third party which had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks against the USA.

    To use your imbecilic attempt at an analogy:

    1) You ask a peacenic about their views

    2) In the middle of their rant, you punch the person.

    3) The peacenic gets up, ignores you, and wanders off to punch some innocent person you've never met.


    Lesson over. Class dismissed.
     
  18. Dec 13, 2003 #17
    Listen very carefully people.......

    It was a JOKE.

    If you don't find it even mildy amusing, then fine, read another thread.


    If you want to discuss Iraq, Peace, Wars or whatever, why not pop up to the Politics section instead? We can have a debate there.


    If you wish to continue insulting me, that's fine too.


    Personally I'm a broad minded intellectual who doesn't need to insult those he disagrees with, I just discuss things with them instead.... But please, carry on your rants, it is SO much funnier than my 'Peace Activist' piece.

    Oh, and unlike some, I'm able to laugh at myself too.
     
  19. Dec 13, 2003 #18

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Once, a Mr Hussein of Baghdad decided to play on the US idea of freedom to bear arms. I don't think Mr Bush got the joke.
     
  20. Dec 13, 2003 #19

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Adrian, do you also make jokes about unprovoked violence and so on while going through the security check-in at Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted?
     
  21. Dec 13, 2003 #20
    Funnily enough no. I restrict myself to Discussion Forums that have an area for jokes and the like. Unlike the airport, such forums tend to have visitors expecting some amusement.

    Perhaps some of you 'so easily offended' types could give a list of topics on which jokes or humerous comment are allowed.
    (I bet none of you have ever made a disparaging comment about George Bush have you!)

    As I said, lighten up, or go to the politics forum rather than this one.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?