To anonymous and others who have enlightening things to tell me about,
I would love to IM or email with you about the things that you obviously think I am un-informed about. My understanding of war does not come from a philosphizing political point of view.
Most of my thoughts on issues like this come strictly from what I see Christ said. My hope is that others like yourself would come to see that maybe war isn’t such a hot idea and then YOU can be the genius who comes up with the pacifist foreign policy that would work.
I concur to the blog world that Anonymous will likely be able to rip to shreds any thoughts or arguments I give on any sort of political grounds. I concur that Anonymous is likely far smart then me when it comes to these things, and if you would like to know more of Anonymous’ thoughts please go to Anonymous’ blog.
Now, anonymous, out of curiousity…
Say you were crazy like me and for some reason thought killing people was just a straight up bad idea. Say your right about the Iraq Body Count thing, but you still think the numbers of dead people is too high. What if you were President (or whatever position you would want to choose, except God), would you do to try to carry out the ethics of not going to war? No round about answers or arguing how it just won’t work. Just pretend your crazy and you have these crazy ethics. What would you do?
I am not crazy.
I don’t have your crazy ethics.
How you implement your crazy ethics is not my problem.
Your first three paragraphs are ad hominems: that means an attack on the person rather than the argument. No one loves war. No one thinks it is a great idea. It is evil, of course. But States do it.
That’s the problem with you social justice pacifists: there is no distinction between the realm of the State and the responsibilities of the individual. I think that killing people is a straight up bad idea. That doesn’t mean I want a pacifist foreign policy. I might as well commit suicide.
Attack my argument or the article I linked. The rest is just sound and fury, my confused young politico.
By the way, you concede something to the blog world, not concur.
You are making this too easy…
I realize that this is really, really old stuff, but I still feel like responding.
“Anonymous” never has anything useful to say. People who want to engage in rational discourse use their names. They have nothing to be ashamed of, because they are being honest and rational, right?
There are only two legitimate uses of true anonymity that I’m aware of, after considering the topic for over a decade. First, it’s reasonable for victims of abuse to post anonymously in support forums. Second, it is completely understandable that “whistle-blowers” might need anonymity.
Neither of those situations applies to religious discussions or random blog comments, so I delete and ignore them, for the most part.
Namaste,
Cyn