Thalmor Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post James XVI Posted January 5, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted January 5, 2017 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.We have members like Kastor in this alliance, two syllables is a lot 8 Quote THE Definitive James: KastorCultist, Co-leading Roz Wei Empyrea The Wei, former TGH warrior, Assassin, and a few more. Player of this game for more time than I want to think about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonnorman Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James II Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 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. Quote "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonnorman Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 What would I do it about? I need content to rant about first.Youve got me there, i guess ill just have to leave that at the compliment aimed at your lengthy post lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelson Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 -snip- We indeed have a few warmongers. 1 Quote https://i.imgur.com/Jg0gWBo.mp4 You're actually reading this?"Trade-ever trade and the increasing of their fortunes- seems to have occupied their minds above all else."[/center] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 brb forming War Doves here 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.