Militantism vs Pacifism

Bi0Hazard: So, are you saying that there is no difference between social democracy and trotskyism?

Yes. I have said it before in the past.

or are you saying that admin really wants stalinism/trotskyism and just uses social democracy to cover it up?

Social democracy is a cover up for fourth international communism, IE, Trotskyism.

Those are both unfounded.

No. The factions in the 4th internal believed in a blend between the liberalized western democratic governments and socialist/communist principals.

You said that admin wants a communist utopia and you said there is no state in the communist utopia and then you said admin doesn't want the state abolished.

Quasi-communist persay.

He speaks of the state and socialism moving society closer to total equality and the rendering of money obsolete. His end vision very closely resembles the end vision of philosophical communists.

In that utopia, the state is not needed. Admin still speaks of wanting it. I would summate that up to stubborness.

Bi0Hazard: I don't really accept the premise.

Crow: Now you only believe physical harm is wrong?
No

Do you deny that liberty and happiness are needed for a happy life?
Sure. Lack of liberty to murder is going to make some people unhappy, and others much happier. Ultimately these things are balanced between people. A prison's goal is to get prisoners back into society to contribute in a positive way, which is good for the prisoner's liberty and happiness in the long term too.

Do you view humans as just shells and husks for bodily organs, with no compassion for the state of being inside them?
Not sure what you mean by a state of being

What is that definition based on, and what is the historical origin of that definition?
My understanding

admin: Lack of liberty to murder is going to make some people unhappy, and others much happier.

So do you acknowledge that controlling liberty is harming people's happiness at least temporarily? Do you want to change your standards for which harm is justified?

A prison's goal is to get prisoners back into society to contribute in a positive way, which is good for the prisoner's liberty and happiness in the long term too.


Sounds like reeducating and indoctrination. Fitting for an authoritarian pig.

What of people serving life sentences? They are permanently restricted from basic human rights, liberty, and the same general happiness as their peers.

Not sure what you mean by a state of being

It sounds like you do not give the slightest shit about the emotional wellbeing of your fellow man. Just the protection of their physical exterior.

Is that not true?

My understanding

In other words, you just made up that definition now, without the slightest bit of support?

It has no historical origin or relevance? You just invented it to fit your narrative?

If that is not the case, then please share the basis for your definition, and the origin in which that definition originates.

Crow: So do you acknowledge that controlling liberty is harming people's happiness at least temporarily?
It can do. People have subjective standards for happiness. Likewise not controlling happiness harms people's happiness.

What of people serving life sentences?
That's what the parole systems is for.

Is that not true?
It's not true.

you just made up that definition now, without the slightest bit of support?
No, it means I'm currently preoccupied with something and don't have time to look for support off the top of my head. That is not to say that there isn't support behind it, only that I don't immediately remember the full sum of contexts from which I derived it.

admin: It can do. People have subjective standards for happiness. Likewise not controlling happiness harms people's happiness.

So.... discrimination?

That's what the parole systems is for.

Serious cases often take away the option for parole, in every country with a parole system.

Do you support that? For domestic terrorists for example?

It's not true.

I don't believe you.

The position you are advocating is heavily implying that you hate your fellow man.

No, it means I'm currently preoccupied with something and don't have time to look for support off the top of my head. That is not to say that there isn't support behind it, only that I don't immediately remember the full sum of contexts from which I derived it.

So you just said something without even being aware of where you got the information from?

Don't be a weasel. Provide the basis and the historical origin next time you reply.

Crow: Provide the basis and the historical origin next time you reply.
You might have to wait until tomorrow.

admin: Okay, but reply to the whole post if you will.

Crow: So.... discrimination?
Not sure why this should be bad as a moral principle. In fact it's self refuting since you're discriminating against discrimination.

Do you support that?
No, I think life in prison with no parole defeats the point.

Provide the basis and the historical origin next time you reply.
Sure, here's 3:

1. Merriam Webster:
the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

2. WHO:
the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.
http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/

3. Oxford Dictionary:
Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/violence

These are just 3 reputable sources showing that violence, historically and in the present, usually involves some element of harm - you have to intend to hurt somebody for it to count as violence.

I shouldn't need to do this for every interpretation of a word I hold, nor do I demand the same standard of you. I think it's a stupid and unfair question, unless you have an actual argument to doubt it.

admin: Not sure why this should be bad as a moral principle.

Your goal is total equality.

You stated that you disbelieve in positive discrimination (affirmative action) as a means.

Right now, the hypocrisies in your position are exposed.

No, I think life in prison with no parole defeats the point.

What about someone like Ted Kaczynski, that had committed many violent terrorist attacks in his day? He already expressed atonement for how he committed his actions, and has done charitable acts.

Should someone like Ted Kaczynski be released from your Stalinist prison system?

These are just 3 reputable sources showing that violence, historically and in the present, usually involves some element of harm - you have to intend to hurt somebody for it to count as violence.

You are backpedalling, Remember when you said this?

To me, violence means that you are trying to hurt somebody, even if not physically

Only the Oxford dictionary supports your original definition.

And the origin of the word is more important than the dictionary definition, since you are trying to connect it with the pacifist movement. Please provide the origin of the word.

I shouldn't need to do this for every interpretation of a word I hold, nor do I demand the same standard of you.

You brought up a definition, and it is only right that you defend it (which you didn't even do)

Stop acting like a whiny little baby about it.

Crow: But I'm not positively discriminating. I hold one moral position to the exclusion of others. ANY belief a person holds is a form of discrimination, including the disbelief in positive discrimination. Nothing about that is hypocritical.

Should someone like Ted Kaczynski be released from your Stalinist prison system?
He should have the opportunity for parole.

Only the Oxford dictionary supports your original definition.
My definition has always been that violence requires harm. You tried to make it sound like I meant bodily harm only - this was never the case.

You brought up a definition
Actually no, I explained that my views on pacifism are informed by a different understanding of violence.

My opinion on this is that neither of them is a good way of life to stand on. Somewhere in the middle is the best Idea to me.