Era Might Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1856585' date='May 3 2009, 02:55 PM']yes, but when that something is something completely ineffectual, it amounts to the "doing nothing" spoken about in that quote. And that something will, in many scenarios, be an ineffectual something.[/quote] We have a disagreement about whether it is "ineffectual." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) Does anyone else see the irony of a thread promoting pacifism by someone who has the title "The Boston Brawler"? Edited May 3, 2009 by Norseman82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1856592' date='May 3 2009, 03:04 PM']Does anyone else see the irony of a thread promoting pacifism by someone who has the title "The Boston Brawler"? [/quote] This thread isn't "promoting" pacifism, but rather discussing pacifism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='Era Might' post='1856587' date='May 3 2009, 03:58 PM']We have a disagreement about whether it is "ineffectual."[/quote] Non-violent resistance, such as a hunger strike is ineffectual if the goal is the death of the non-violent resistors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1856599' date='May 3 2009, 03:14 PM']Non-violent resistance, such as a hunger strike is ineffectual if the goal is the death of the non-violent resistors.[/quote] The goal of my non-violent resistance would not be the death of the resistors. If self-inflicted death is the end of a particular method of resistance, then I would not support that method. I doubt that hunger strikes that lead to self-inflicted death are justifiable from a Catholic perspective, though non-deadly fasting can be a powerful form of resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='Era Might' post='1856601' date='May 3 2009, 03:19 PM']The goal of my non-violent resistance would not be the death of the resistors. If death is the goal of a particular method of resistance, then I would not support that method. I doubt hunger strikes that lead to death are justifiable from a Catholic perspective, though non-deadly fasting can be a powerful form of resistance.[/quote] No, I am sorry that I was not clear. Ok, say there are two kingdoms, a and b. The king of kingdom a declares the annexation and settlement of kingdom b. King of kingdom b in response orders his people to use non-violent resistance, such as a hunger strike. Unless the people of kingdom a actually care about the plight of the people of kingdom b, there non-violent resistance is indeed ineffectual. So what that kingdom b is having a hunger strike, that makes it all the more easy to defeat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1856605' date='May 3 2009, 03:27 PM']No, I am sorry that I was not clear. Ok, say there are two kingdoms, a and b. The king of kingdom a declares the annexation and settlement of kingdom b. King of kingdom b in response orders his people to use non-violent resistance, such as a hunger strike. Unless the people of kingdom a actually care about the plight of the people of kingdom b, there non-violent resistance is indeed ineffectual. So what that kingdom b is having a hunger strike, that makes it all the more easy to defeat them.[/quote] Fasting would be more of a spiritual resistance. I think non-violent resistance also has to extend to resistance in society (for example, economic resistance). But I think spiritual and moral resistance are just as important as social resistance. Indeed, I think spiritual and moral strength must be the foundation of any other kind of non-violent resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Era Might' post='1856608' date='May 3 2009, 03:31 PM']Fasting would be more of a spiritual resistance. I think non-violent resistance also has to extend to resistance in society (for example, economic resistance). But I think spiritual and moral resistance are just as important as social resistance. Indeed, I think spiritual and moral power must be the foundation of any other kind of non-violent resistance.[/quote] Yes, but still non-violent resistance means little to nothing at all if the ones they are resisting against want their full absolute defeat. It's like bringing a empty lunch box to a gun fight. Edited May 3, 2009 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1856610' date='May 3 2009, 03:38 PM']Yes, but still non-violent resistance means little to nothing at all if the ones they are resisting against want their full absolute defeat. It's like bringing a empty lunch box to a gun fight.[/quote] I prefer to see it as bringing a crucifix to a gun fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Era Might' post='1856612' date='May 3 2009, 04:40 PM']I prefer to see it as bringing a crucifix to a gun fight.[/quote] Ok, but it seems to me your avoiding the reality of the point. Pacifism and on-violent resistance would not save but help destroy the people of kingdom b. Edited May 3, 2009 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='Era Might' post='1856612' date='May 3 2009, 04:40 PM']I prefer to see it as bringing a crucifix to a gun fight.[/quote] And what would that do? Act as a "Wonder Woman" bracelet to deflect the bullets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1856614' date='May 3 2009, 04:43 PM']Ok, but it seems to me your avoiding the reality of point. Pacifism and on-violent resistance would not save but help destroy the people of kingdom b.[/quote] There is no guarantee that war will save the people of the kingdom either. I think non-violent resistance can save the people of the kingdom, if they come together as a kingdom and commit to non-violent resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Era Might' post='1856617' date='May 3 2009, 04:46 PM']There is no guarantee that war will save the people of the kingdom either. I think non-violent resistance can save the people of the kingdom, if they come together as a kingdom and commit to non-violent resistance.[/quote] Perhaps in the kingdom of make believe. Again kingdom a would want the full and absolute defeat of the people of kingdom b. Meaning kingdom a does not care at all for the health, wealth or any factor that kingdom b would use in its non-violent resistance. There not going to eat? So what. There not going to buy or trade? So what good that will make them poor, and we will steal whatever is left over. There going to gather together and protest in the streets. All the easier to take them out all at once. If kingdom b with all of it's people answered with non-violent resistance that would be soundly defeated, by the warfare of kingdom a. Either the people of kingdom b stand up and fight against the aggressors of kingdom a or they will be defeated. Edited May 3, 2009 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) I should say however the day will come when war will no longer exist. It will only happen after the return of Christ. Sure man may for a short time, appear to be so peaceful, but it will not be a true peace, and it will not be lasting. Edited May 3, 2009 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 History shows wars have been effective. History shows non-violent efforts have been effective only because they were backed by threats of larger violence. There is no example in history of a pacifist movement succeeding on pure non-violence. The people in power will only capitulate because there exists some threat of violence, some threat of them actually losing their power; some threat that if they were to deal harshly with the non-violent protesters, the rest of society would violently revolt against them and they would lose their power. I think this needs to be a practical discussion: you need to provide an example where non-violent resistance has actually succeeded without being backed up by the threat of violence. Because you're saying that we need to take the threat of violence off the table to have more power, except as soon as the threat of violence is off the table then all non-violent resistance becomes ineffectual... if history is any example. The threat of violence is the only thing that gives power to non-violent resistances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now