Jump to content

Death to Oxymorons


Peacockpenguin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, shit. This is annoying.

 

Now then, on to the far more important thing.

 

DEFINITION TIME

"Pacifism is a commitment to peace and opposition to war. Our ordinary language allows a diverse set of beliefs and commitments to be held together under the general rubric of pacifism. This article will explain the family resemblance among the variety of pacifisms. It will locate pacifism within deontological and consequentialist approaches to ethics. And it will consider and reply to objections to pacifism.

The word “pacifism†is derived from the word “pacific,†which means “peace making†[Latin, paci- (from pax) meaning “peace†and -ficus meaning “makingâ€]. Pacifism in the West appears to begin with Christianity. Perhaps the most famous use of the word pacifism is found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), where Jesus claims that the “peacemakers†are blessed. In this passage, the Greek word eirenopoios is translated into Latin as pacifici, which means those who work for peace. The Greek eirenopoios is derived from the Greek eirênê [peace] in conjunction with poiesis [to make]." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/

 

1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.

2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.

3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pacifism
 
 
1:  opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically :  refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2:  an attitude or policy of nonresistance https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifism
 
 
 
the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+pacifism
 

 

 

ON TO THE ISSUE

So. Fighting Pacifists. Is that an oxymoron? (I'm not defining fighting because if you don't know what that means you're beyond hope.)

Stanford's philosophy dictionary would say no, as one can still engage in something that they oppose. Additionally, we still have a commitment to peace, as we still want peace and aren't warmongering twats unlike Lord A-A-ron.

Dictionary.com's definitions pose only a problem with #2, as 1 is the same as above, and 3 is something we want but clearly something that won't happen. (Declaring war because of an oxymoron rather than asking for clarification shows your incompetence at diplomacy.)

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary also has a similar case for us, with opposition being violateable, considering you declared war on us. #2 provides a problem, again.

And Google's definition -- this war is unjustifiable. It's absolutely stupid. This could have been settled peacefully. 

 

So. Back to the the two #2s. Together, they say that pacifism is an act of refusal to engage in military activity due to beliefs, and that it's an attitude OR policy of nonresistance; that is, not fighting. And, many arguments: 1. More definitions lean to an opposition rather than outright refusal. 2. The first part of the definition has to do with an individual, not a nation, as a nation has overall principles but still has to engage in military activity of some kind, even if that activity is being curbstomped by another army, as that IS military. 3. We have an attitude of nonresistance but still will fight. 4. The entire definition has to do with the individual, as a nation only exists through resistance. Without resistance, nation becomes Somalia. Additionally, geography resists people and geography is part of a nation. 5. The game's mechanics literally have resistance, therefore we have to dismiss an impossible definition.

Now then. Organizations can't completely enforce ideals upon their members, however hard they try. (See: Martin Luther and that entire Reformation thing.) As long as one nation does not resist, the name is true. And, just like any other organization, we don't embrace all forms of it. Most people love democracies, but won't accept a democratic form involving only 20 people of an entire nation (Or say, security, but not Big Brother-esque surveillance.) We embrace a policy of non-aggression and diplomacy before hostile and violent action is taken. We want to negotiate for peace rather than fight it out to see who gets what. In short, we embrace pacifism. Not ultra-hardcore pacifism, but pacifism nonetheless. 

 

TL;DR

 

It's not an oxymoron you !@#$wit! Nonresistance pacifism applies to the individual, not the state; there are many forms of pacifism, you can't say the US isn't democratic because it's not a direct democracy, it's just slightly less than one. Plus, we still oppose war and think it's unjustifiable, but when something is started by another, it's not like we have a choice on participation. Finally, on fighting: Fighting could be debate and therefore non-violent. Even if it is violent, it's in reference to our willingness to fight in order to preserve our future peace and preserve our ability to negotiate. Concessions have to be made in order to preserve future value.

 

Thanks for reading, I know this is an absurd amount of text, but I'm bored and can't sleep.

 

.

.

.

 

k

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, shit. This is annoying.

 

Now then, on to the far more important thing.

 

DEFINITION TIME

"Pacifism is a commitment to peace and opposition to war. Our ordinary language allows a diverse set of beliefs and commitments to be held together under the general rubric of pacifism. This article will explain the family resemblance among the variety of pacifisms. It will locate pacifism within deontological and consequentialist approaches to ethics. And it will consider and reply to objections to pacifism.

The word “pacifism†is derived from the word “pacific,†which means “peace making†[Latin, paci- (from pax) meaning “peace†and -ficus meaning “makingâ€]. Pacifism in the West appears to begin with Christianity. Perhaps the most famous use of the word pacifism is found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), where Jesus claims that the “peacemakers†are blessed. In this passage, the Greek word eirenopoios is translated into Latin as pacifici, which means those who work for peace. The Greek eirenopoios is derived from the Greek eirênê [peace] in conjunction with poiesis [to make]." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/

1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.

2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.

3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pacifism

 

 

1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds

2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifism

 

 

 

the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+pacifism

 

 

ON TO THE ISSUE

So. Fighting Pacifists. Is that an oxymoron? (I'm not defining fighting because if you don't know what that means you're beyond hope.)

Stanford's philosophy dictionary would say no, as one can still engage in something that they oppose. Additionally, we still have a commitment to peace, as we still want peace and aren't warmongering twats unlike Lord A-A-ron.

Dictionary.com's definitions pose only a problem with #2, as 1 is the same as above, and 3 is something we want but clearly something that won't happen. (Declaring war because of an oxymoron rather than asking for clarification shows your incompetence at diplomacy.)

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary also has a similar case for us, with opposition being violateable, considering you declared war on us. #2 provides a problem, again.

And Google's definition -- this war is unjustifiable. It's absolutely stupid. This could have been settled peacefully.

So. Back to the the two #2s. Together, they say that pacifism is an act of refusal to engage in military activity due to beliefs, and that it's an attitude OR policy of nonresistance; that is, not fighting. And, many arguments: 1. More definitions lean to an opposition rather than outright refusal. 2. The first part of the definition has to do with an individual, not a nation, as a nation has overall principles but still has to engage in military activity of some kind, even if that activity is being curbstomped by another army, as that IS military. 3. We have an attitude of nonresistance but still will fight. 4. The entire definition has to do with the individual, as a nation only exists through resistance. Without resistance, nation becomes Somalia. Additionally, geography resists people and geography is part of a nation. 5. The game's mechanics literally have resistance, therefore we have to dismiss an impossible definition.

Now then. Organizations can't completely enforce ideals upon their members, however hard they try. (See: Martin Luther and that entire Reformation thing.) As long as one nation does not resist, the name is true. And, just like any other organization, we don't embrace all forms of it. Most people love democracies, but won't accept a democratic form involving only 20 people of an entire nation (Or say, security, but not Big Brother-esque surveillance.) We embrace a policy of non-aggression and diplomacy before hostile and violent action is taken. We want to negotiate for peace rather than fight it out to see who gets what. In short, we embrace pacifism. Not ultra-hardcore pacifism, but pacifism nonetheless.

TL;DR

It's not an oxymoron you !@#$wit! Nonresistance pacifism applies to the individual, not the state; there are many forms of pacifism, you can't say the US isn't democratic because it's not a direct democracy, it's just slightly less than one. Plus, we still oppose war and think it's unjustifiable, but when something is started by another, it's not like we have a choice on participation. Finally, on fighting: Fighting could be debate and therefore non-violent. Even if it is violent, it's in reference to our willingness to fight in order to preserve our future peace and preserve our ability to negotiate. Concessions have to be made in order to preserve future value.

Thanks for reading, I know this is an absurd amount of text, but I'm bored and can't sleep.

Can you write something like that about me? That was well put together
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This must be the first time i've seen one's admission of having an intolerance for words with more than two syllables become the CB for an aggressive war.

 

.... Or is there a hidden motive? Let's test who you are trying to imitate.

I see what you did there.

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you write something like that about me? That was well put together

What would I do it about? I need content to rant about first. 

 

This must be the first time i've seen one's admission of having an intolerance for words with more than two syllables become the CB for an aggressive war.

 

.... Or is there a hidden motive? Let's test who you are trying to imitate.

It's an intolerance of single-worded CBs, not 3+ syllable CBs. 

And I'm honestly unsure of who I might be trying to imitate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.