4 ms·

As a french, being enslaved by a german kaiser is not what I call a "petty dispute"

by lugus35 10y ago

unchocked 10y ago
Yeah, it's pretty asinine to imagine that "war is bad" will mean that disputes which lead men to die for the purpose of killing other men will just go away. Doubly asinine to link that old utopian thought to mystical singularity nanobot swarms etc... PS: nanobot swarms would make a terrifyingly effective military weapon.
random_upvoter 10y ago
Responding to violence with violence may have been the right response in 1914 or in 1939. It may no longer be the right response in 2016. I find it disheartening that in the current time the idea of pacifism seems to be dead and buried and replaced by this moral defeatism that man is doomed to behave like an animal for the remainder of history. Even from supposedly liberal politicians like Obama or Hollande we hear nothing but that same old primitive macho-ape language in response to terrorism "we will hunt down... we will destroy... we will eradicate". I look forward to the day that a powerful nation decides that it will no longer kill for any reason whatsoever.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  "Those who have no swords can still die on them" - Tolkein Responding to violence aimed at destroying or enslaving your society with enough violence to prevent it is kind of required by any society that does not have a death wish. I can choose to respond with pacifism to violence directed at me. I do not have the right to choose that for anyone else, nor for my nation.
  - avar 10y ago
    None of the actors in WWI were set on destroying or enslaving entire societies within Europe. The losers would have been forced to live under a different political system, not been subjected to genocide. Would it really have mattered to the common man? Maybe not. did it matter to the common man that he or his sons got sent away to war to die? Definitely. Pacifism can be a sensible policy sometimes. Some wars aren't worth fighting, even if you "win" or force a stalemate.
    - bashinator 10y ago
      > None of the actors in WWI were set on destroying or enslaving entire societies within Europe. This is not entirely true. The term "war of attrition" came from WWI, and it was specifically referring to depopulating the opponent's country by killing all the males.
      - avar 10y ago
        The context to my comment is AnimalMuppet's hyperbolic reply that pacifism in the face of the enemy would somehow result in the destruction or enslavement of your whole society. I'm pointing out that if say the French had surrendered to the Germans early in WWI there's no historical evidence that that would have been the case, and likely countless lives would have been saved. The destruction of the state is not synonymous with the destruction of the people in it. Most wars only seek to abolish state power, not the people that make up those states.
        legulere 10y ago
        > I'm pointing out that if say the French had surrendered to the Germans early in WWI Or even earlier, France could have declared neutrality in regard to Serbia like Germany asked them to
        avar 10y ago
        So many things would have changed for the better in that war if the various actors had drawn clear lines in the sand in advance. E.g. the Germans believed the British wouldn't go to war with them over Belgium, the British knew Belgium was under threat in advance, but wouldn't draw a clear line in the sand telling the Germans that violating Belgium was an act of war. Likely doing that would have kept Britain out of the war entirely since Germany would have attacked France directly.
      - vkou 10y ago
        The term "War of attrition" came from WWI because after the first three months of hostilities, everyone realized that the only way one side would win, is for all the people on the other side to be dead. Or for the United States to join the conflict. The Kaiser wasn't a bloodthristy genocidal maniac, and an unconditional surrender from the Entente would not have been the only outcome of an early peace. War reparations, and, as per most European wars, small territorial/colonial concessions would have been the far more likely outcome. What really was at stake was national pride. For the ruling class, that was one thing that they would not surrender. The common man should not have given a rat's ass about.
- legulere 10y ago
  > Responding to violence with violence may have been the right response in 1914 Responding with violence actually is the only reason why there was WWI. Also every party that took part in the war saw it as an opportunity to further their own interests.

As a french, being enslaved by a german kaiser is not what I call a "petty dispute"

by lugus35 10y ago

As a french, being enslaved by a german kaiser is not what I call a "petty dispute"

Yeah, it's pretty asinine to imagine that "war is bad" will mean that disputes which lead men to die for the purpose of killing other men will just go away. Doubly asinine to link that old utopian thought to mystical singularity nanobot swarms etc... PS: nanobot swarms would make a terrifyingly effective military weapon.

random_upvoter 10y ago

Responding to violence with violence may have been the right response in 1914 or in 1939. It may no longer be the right response in 2016. I find it disheartening that in the current time the idea of pacifism seems to be dead and buried and replaced by this moral defeatism that man is doomed to behave like an animal for the remainder of history. Even from supposedly liberal politicians like Obama or Hollande we hear nothing but that same old primitive macho-ape language in response to terrorism "we will hunt down... we will destroy... we will eradicate". I look forward to the day that a powerful nation decides that it will no longer kill for any reason whatsoever.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
"Those who have no swords can still die on them" - Tolkein Responding to violence aimed at destroying or enslaving your society with enough violence to prevent it is kind of required by any society that does not have a death wish. I can choose to respond with pacifism to violence directed at me. I do not have the right to choose that for anyone else, nor for my nation.
- avar 10y ago
  None of the actors in WWI were set on destroying or enslaving entire societies within Europe. The losers would have been forced to live under a different political system, not been subjected to genocide. Would it really have mattered to the common man? Maybe not. did it matter to the common man that he or his sons got sent away to war to die? Definitely. Pacifism can be a sensible policy sometimes. Some wars aren't worth fighting, even if you "win" or force a stalemate.
  - bashinator 10y ago
    > None of the actors in WWI were set on destroying or enslaving entire societies within Europe. This is not entirely true. The term "war of attrition" came from WWI, and it was specifically referring to depopulating the opponent's country by killing all the males.
    - avar 10y ago
      The context to my comment is AnimalMuppet's hyperbolic reply that pacifism in the face of the enemy would somehow result in the destruction or enslavement of your whole society. I'm pointing out that if say the French had surrendered to the Germans early in WWI there's no historical evidence that that would have been the case, and likely countless lives would have been saved. The destruction of the state is not synonymous with the destruction of the people in it. Most wars only seek to abolish state power, not the people that make up those states.
      - legulere 10y ago
        > I'm pointing out that if say the French had surrendered to the Germans early in WWI Or even earlier, France could have declared neutrality in regard to Serbia like Germany asked them to
        avar 10y ago
        So many things would have changed for the better in that war if the various actors had drawn clear lines in the sand in advance. E.g. the Germans believed the British wouldn't go to war with them over Belgium, the British knew Belgium was under threat in advance, but wouldn't draw a clear line in the sand telling the Germans that violating Belgium was an act of war. Likely doing that would have kept Britain out of the war entirely since Germany would have attacked France directly.
    - vkou 10y ago
      The term "War of attrition" came from WWI because after the first three months of hostilities, everyone realized that the only way one side would win, is for all the people on the other side to be dead. Or for the United States to join the conflict. The Kaiser wasn't a bloodthristy genocidal maniac, and an unconditional surrender from the Entente would not have been the only outcome of an early peace. War reparations, and, as per most European wars, small territorial/colonial concessions would have been the far more likely outcome. What really was at stake was national pride. For the ruling class, that was one thing that they would not surrender. The common man should not have given a rat's ass about.
legulere 10y ago
> Responding to violence with violence may have been the right response in 1914 Responding with violence actually is the only reason why there was WWI. Also every party that took part in the war saw it as an opportunity to further their own interests.