Skip to comments.
The Anti-Gun Male
Jewish World Review ^
| 8 March 2002
| Julia Gorin
Posted on 03/08/2002 5:46:12 AM PST by babyface00
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
To: rmvh
If you decide you would like to engage in a dialog please communicate in a clear manner so that reasonable people may understand your meaning. Each of your pictures with the accompanying comments are cryptic to say the least. I could well have hit the abuse button on your last post as it was a decidely ad hominem attack. You advance no logic and discuss no points raised and seem to reply on posting pictures that are actually irrelevant to the thread.
61
posted on
03/08/2002 2:46:19 PM PST
by
harpseal
To: Noumenon
. It's a desperate excuse required to evade the truth of their own cowardice. I disagree a little bit. I've always thought of noisily enunciated nonviolence (not the principled kind described in various truly pacifist personal acquaintances), the kind that people like to announce with bullhorns at political gatherings, was always a claim on leadership by moral one-upmanship.
Then there is political nonviolence, on the model of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, which isn't truly pacifist but is instead a form of passive aggression -- and very aggressive at that, since it requires for its operation successfully provoking the very worst in someone else, with attendant bad consequences for other people.
I think of political nonviolence as a kick-your-sister-under-the-table aggressivity, the object of which is to call down external powers on your chump. Nothing pacifistic about it; its intention is to make things worse for everyone, in order to make things better for yourself.
To: daviddennis
Bro, don't sweat it. Did you have fun shooting or not? You can correct your grip, and that unfortunate scrape/cut won't happen again. If you enjoyed that day's shooting, by all means, welcome aboard...good to have you as a fellow gun guy.
I love taking novices to the range and watching their frowns of uncertainty and trepidation turn to smiles of enjoyment and accomplishment. I had a girlfriend once who supported the 2d Amendment, but "didn't trust guns". I talked her into going to the range with me one day, where I introduced her the .45, the 9mm, and the .357 revolver. I created a monster! She was a natural, and by day's end she was even outshooting me with the .357 Rossi. Much of folks' distrust and lack of understanding of firearms could be fixed with a simple day at the range.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
63
posted on
03/08/2002 3:00:41 PM PST
by
wku man
To: lentulusgracchus
I understand the distinction that you're making here. The pacifism to which I refer is that of the individual who believes that there is nothing worth fighting for. Who would trust their life to a true pacifist? I maintain that true pacifism is morally and philosophically indefensible.
64
posted on
03/08/2002 3:04:50 PM PST
by
Noumenon
To: muir_redwoods
Most pacifists really aren't. They just claim to be because they think it sounds ethical and helps feed their illusion of moral superiority. Einstein, one of the most famous pacifists of the 20th century, recanted and urged America to attack Germany when it was
his people being attacked.
A true pacifist rejects all violence, for any reason. I have a rather disgusting thought experiment to smoke out fake pacifists.
You are tied up in a chair, looking through a one-way mirror. Under one finger is a button. On the other side of the mirror is your young child and a sadistic pedophile. If you push the button, he will die painlessly and your child will be saved. If you don't, you get to watch your child brutalized and killed.
If you refuse to push the button, you are a true pacifist.
If you push it, you aren't a pacifist, you are just posing as one. Any argument you have with Attilla the Hun or General Patton is not with the idea of violence as such, it is whether it is appropriate in a particular case.
65
posted on
03/08/2002 3:18:33 PM PST
by
Restorer
To: harpseal
I could well have hit the abuse button on your last post as it was a decidely ad hominem attack. You advance no logic and discuss no points raised and seem to reply on posting pictures that are actually irrelevant to the thread.Emotional comment? Pomposity seeking to impress?
Oh!! Please do hit the abuse button as it may make you feel more secure.
66
posted on
03/08/2002 3:41:36 PM PST
by
rmvh
To: rmvh
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what both harpseal's posts and the article are saying. Neither are in support of any anti-gun agenda.
To: Noumenon
I maintain that true pacifism is morally and philosophically indefensible. I agree. The pacifist does not rise to meet the need of others who depend on him for help in extremis, and therefore he privileges his own moral imposture over the dire need of others.
To: babyface00
Brilliant article!
To: Tomalak
Claiming that people who disagree with you are somehow psychologically flawed is a nasty trait of the Liberal Left that good men should not seek to imitate. Oddly, you just did the same thing, and so did Gorin in the article -- and you're both right. Another way of putting it is, people on the Left like to accuse other people of having psych problems, and so tell on themselves.
To: harpseal
Pacifism is a self delusion that by moral condemnation without action to back it up will change reality.Pacifism on a Chrisitan principle ("turn the other cheek to him") doesn't seek to change reality--it seeks to preserve one's soul. There's something to be said for Nietzsche's aphorism: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
That said, I think Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords for a reason.
71
posted on
03/08/2002 11:15:27 PM PST
by
Pistias
To: harpseal
while I may fault their[combat medic's]
logicWhy?
72
posted on
03/08/2002 11:25:33 PM PST
by
Pistias
To: Noumenon
"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay -- and claims a halo for his dishonesty".
Robert Heinlein
To: lentulusgracchus
Ghandi isn't a very good reference for the power of non-violent action. He is quoted (though I can only paraphrase) as saying the of all of the tryanical acts perpetrated on a subjugated people that depriving them of arms was the blackest.
That particular quote indicates to me that Ghandi used non-violent means to acheive his ends as more of a recognition of reality and proceeding to work with what he had than the inherent non-violent person that modern thought tends to portray him as.
That is not to say that he wasn't courageous and brilliant. The Indian people had already been disarmed, so armed conflict simply wasn't an option. Ghandi recognized this and managed to sour the British on the idea of an occupied India anyway. If arms had been readily available, I suspect that the history of Indian freedom from British rule might be different.
Knitebane
To: Knitebane
Very good point. The Congress Party didn't mind secretly conversing with the Japanese while the war was on, but Congress finally decided that Japan would lose the war.
You're probably right about Gandhi's resort to non-violence as being more practical than ideal. Some people who've tried to profile Gandhi psychologically think he really was an idealist, however.
To: babyface00
I have a word for guys like that...is begins with chicken.
To: babyface00
I have a word for guys like that...is begins with chicken.
To: babyface00
I have a word for guys like that...is begins with chicken.
To: Dan from Michigan
There's a bug somewhere. It kept saying invalid request.
To: Pistias
The logic I fault is that logic which states that not fighting hard even killing to preserve those whose lives are your responsibility seems to me illogical. I do not accept the premise that there is nothing worth killing for while both I and combat medics/corpsmen who are conscientious objectors share agreement with the premise that there are some things and people worth risking death for.
The above said they do have my utmost respect.
Stay well - stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
80
posted on
03/10/2002 8:51:21 AM PST
by
harpseal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson