More Jimmy Carter Antics

[K-Mac]

Aww, what's the matter? Having trouble negotiating with terrorists again? What an idiot! Too bad they didn't shoot him, then maybe some of the idiots who think we can actually negotiate with terrorists might shut up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_af/darfur_9

Edited October 3, 2007 by K-Mac

[DarkWaters]

Too bad they didn't shoot him

As evil as I think Jimmy Carter is, I would not wish for this. There are plenty of other ways to expose the errors of the pacifist lobby than to hope that potentially lethal violence falls upon them.

Edited October 3, 2007 by DarkWaters

[K-Mac]

There are plenty of other ways to expose the errors of the pacifist lobby than to hope that potentially lethal violence falls upon them.

I certainly wish no death upon them. My comments were directed towards one idiotic man that, in my opinion, was asking for it. What kind of jackass must one be to walk the streets of Sudan and say things like, "You don't have the power to stop me." Uh, yeah they do...they'll just shoot you, hang your burned and limbless body in the town square and have a celebration around it. I am not sure how much Secret Service and/or other security forces he had with him, but I would imagine they could have been easily outnumbered in the situation they were in. (And shame on Carter for putting his own security detail in such a volatile and futile situation.)

No effective way seems to have been discovered thus far "to expose the errors of the pacifist lobby." (9/11 wasn't even enough for them!) Many in this country and the majority of the rest of the world still seem to think you can negotiate with dictators, terrorists, military regimes, etc. (As evidenced by the useless UN envoy that is in Burma as we speak.)

To summarize, I think that the violence and death of terrorism and tyranny should be directed at those who are unwilling to do anything about it. Not the rest of us innocents.

[D'kian]

No effective way seems to have been discovered thus far "to expose the errors of the pacifist lobby." (9/11 wasn't even enough for them!)

I'm not sure these are really errors. I hope they are, because the alternative is much worse.

[intellectualammo]

To summarize, I think that the violence and death of terrorism and tyranny should be directed at those who are unwilling to do anything about it. Not the rest of us innocents.

My emotions may say the same to me, up until I check them. So, I disagree. They should be comdemned and denounced for not willing to do anything about it, or any other form of sanctioning terrorism, tyranny, evil in any form, degree, variety...and get out of the way for those that can and are doing something about it. Not sanctioning those sanctioners is the best way, while doing something about those that they are sanctioning. In the mean time, people like President Carter are putting themselves personally at risk...and not me directly.

No effective way seems to have been discovered thus far "to expose the errors of the pacifist lobby." (9/11 wasn't even enough for them!) Many in this country and the majority of the rest of the world still seem to think you can negotiate with dictators, terrorists, military regimes, etc. (As evidenced by the useless UN envoy that is in Burma as we speak.)

It's deeper philosophically than pacifism as such, I think. It has everything to do with the code of ethics they are acting on, guiding those actions with... Certainly not Objectivist ethics...closer to the ethics of toleration, failing to pronounce proper moral judgments upon evil as such, failure to recognize it for what it is, failure to take the necessary and proper actions against that which is evil. As you said, too bad us innocents (and those that don't sanction it) can feel the consequences of their actions, in some ways/situations. That is why it is of utmost importance to practice Objectivist ethics...where evil is given absolutely no toleration in this context...no platform in which to speak negotiations from...no compromise on principles...to those sanctioners, or those that they sanction by doing so.

[K-Mac]

In the mean time, people like President Carter are putting themselves personally at risk...and not me directly.

I disagree. I think people like Carter have and continue to put us all at risk.

And the quote about pacifism came from DarkWaters, just to clarify. Others may call himself a pacifist, but I think he's an instigator and a huge part of the problem.

[intellectualammo]

I disagree. I think people like Carter have and continue to put us all at risk.

I agree, and should have not made that statement so generally, if at all. I take it back, but the rest still stands.

...and to further clarify you said:

No effective way seems to have been discovered thus far "to expose the errors of the pacifist lobby."

I was responding to the "no effective way" part in you addressing what DW had said, and to the rest of what you had said...by showing that in the sentences of mine...there IS an effective way...the ONLY effective way...as I understand it to be...the application of Objectivist ethics, particularly the pronouncing of moral judgments, and the respective actions to take thereafter the pronouncement(s).

Edited October 3, 2007 by intellectualammo

[K-Mac]

...there IS an effective way...the ONLY effective way...as I understand it to be...the application of Objectivist ethics, particularly the pronouncing of moral judgments, and the respective actions to take thereafter the pronouncement(s).

Okay, well you get Carter to convert to the rational side then we'll talk.

[IdeaSave]

Okay, well you get Carter to convert to the rational side then we'll talk.

In my judgment, it shouldn't take an educated adult more than about five minutes to figure out that pacifism is false. Consequently, anybody over about 25 with a decent education who accepts pacifism is simply not somebody who thinks. For that reason, it is essentially impossible to change their minds - they didn't accept pacifism through thinking to begin with.

For that reason, I think pacifism is one of those ideas that requires some degree of evasion to accept. At the very least, evasion of the need to think. With somebody like Jimmy Carter, evasion is an all-pervasive method of "functioning", i.e., such people are intellectually dishonest through and through.

Mark Peters

[K-Mac]

In my judgment, it shouldn't take an educated adult more than about five minutes to figure out that pacifism is false. Consequently, anybody over about 25 with a decent education who accepts pacifism is simply not somebody who thinks. For that reason, it is essentially impossible to change their minds - they didn't accept pacifism through thinking to begin with.

For that reason, I think pacifism is one of those ideas that requires some degree of evasion to accept. At the very least, evasion of the need to think. With somebody like Jimmy Carter, evasion is an all-pervasive method of "functioning", i.e., such people are intellectually dishonest through and through.

Mark Peters

Thanks for elaborating my point.

And in all honesty, I shouldn't have hoped someone shot him. I was in a foul mood yesterday...they type of mood where you really don't feel like putting up with stupid people = Jimmy Carter. (What can I say? I am woman!) In addition, even if he was shot, it wouldn't be enough to sway the pacifist opinion (see Mark's comments above.) Like I said yesterday, if 9/11 wasn't enough for them, nothing probably will be.

[DarkWaters]

I certainly wish no death upon them. My comments were directed towards one idiotic man that, in my opinion, was asking for it. What kind of jackass must one be to walk the streets of Sudan and say things like, "You don't have the power to stop me." Uh, yeah they do...they'll just shoot you, hang your burned and limbless body in the town square and have a celebration around it. I am not sure how much Secret Service and/or other security forces he had with him, but I would imagine they could have been easily outnumbered in the situation they were in. (And shame on Carter for putting his own security detail in such a volatile and futile situation.)

I personally still do not wish death upon him, but I acknowledge that you can make a great case against how deadly his ideas are. Anyway, for all of the causes I can spend my time fighting for, I do not care enough to extensively defend the author of Peace not Apartheid.

No effective way seems to have been discovered thus far "to expose the errors of the pacifist lobby." (9/11 wasn't even enough for them!) Many in this country and the majority of the rest of the world still seem to think you can negotiate with dictators, terrorists, military regimes, etc. (As evidenced by the useless UN envoy that is in Burma as we speak.)

This is where Objectivism should come in. We most likely will not be able to convince the leaders of the pacifist movement to amend their ways. However, many of the general public who is partially influenced by their ideas might be persuaded in the presence of a rational alternative.

I think that the violence and death of terrorism and tyranny should be directed at those who are unwilling to do anything about it. Not the rest of us innocents.

I think that terrorism and tyranny should be extinguished. The ones who endanger lives ex ante through inaction can be punished if appropriate.

And in all honesty, I shouldn't have hoped someone shot him.

That is fine!

In addition, even if he was shot, it wouldn't be enough to sway the pacifist opinion (see Mark's comments above.) Like I said yesterday, if 9/11 wasn't enough for them, nothing probably will be.

I agree. The staunchest peace advocates probably will not be persuaded unless their home was in flames. It is best to focus on the population who is still open to reason.

Edited October 4, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I agree. The staunchest peace advocates probably will not be persuaded unless their home was in flames. It is best to focus on the population who is still open to reason.

Actually, not even then, as near as I can tell.

My grandfather was a pacifist and was unwilling to fight the Nazis, in spite of being Jewish himself. He knew full well the Nazis were gunning for him and everyone he was related to, specifically, yet did not care.

Of course he later on condemned them--after they were safely gone.

(I do not and did not (while he was alive) have a lot of respect for him, as you can tell.)

[musenji]

Correct, Steve, not even then. Some pacifists are intrinsicists; more specifically, they base their pacifism in religious faith. I come from such a background--I grew up Mennonite, which is a pacifist denomination of Anabaptism. You can't argue with a belief based on faith.

Another problem stems from the apparent fact that there are different levels of pacifism:

"Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others." (wiki)

I have a friend who claims to be pacifist, and says that that simply means he does not think violence is always the best means of solving a conflict. Upon writing this, I think it's got to be a straw man, cause that wouldn't make him any different from a normal person with common sense--of course violence is not always the best means...

Edited October 4, 2007 by musenji

[Inspector]

And in all honesty, I shouldn't have hoped someone shot him.

It's good you've come to your senses: beheadings are the method of choice down there.

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with hoping that peoples' fundamental ideas play out and the consequences are confined to them only. Carter remains alive only at the expense of others - if his ideas were allowed to act on him purely, he would be dead in one way or another. It would be like that train that got stuck in the tunnel in Atlas - not only just but poetically just.

[fletch]

Pacifists are also incapable of making the moral distinction between wars of conquest and wars of liberation. War is evil no matter what the cause, no matter who is the aggressor, no matter who is good or who is evil. To the pacifist, anyone who engages in battle is evil because war is evil. You can push them all the way back to a belief in non-violent resistance to an attacker in a dark alley. Self-defence should also take on a non-violent form regardless of the viciousness of the attacker. Violent self-defence, to the pacifist, is just as immoral as the initial act of aggression.

There is often a religious component to this irrational position. Christ, they will often argue, offered no resistance to those who would destroy Him, therefore we should follow His example and offer no resistance when evil confronts us. What they forget is that Christ came here to die. Resistance would have spoiled the plot. We are here to live. Evil must be confronted and defeated.

As for Jimmy Carter. He is one of the most vile men of the last 50 years(perhaps longer). It is an embarrassment that he was actually president of this great nation.

[K-Mac]

It's good you've come to your senses: beheadings are the method of choice down there.

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with hoping that peoples' fundamental ideas play out and the consequences are confined to them only. Carter remains alive only at the expense of others - if his ideas were allowed to act on him purely, he would be dead in one way or another. It would be like that train that got stuck in the tunnel in Atlas - not only just but poetically just.

Ha ha! In all seriousness though, nice post!

[Mammon]

Pacifists are also incapable of making the moral distinction between wars of conquest and wars of liberation. War is evil no matter what the cause, no matter who is the aggressor, no matter who is good or who is evil. To the pacifist, anyone who engages in battle is evil because war is evil. You can push them all the way back to a belief in non-violent resistance to an attacker in a dark alley. Self-defence should also take on a non-violent form regardless of the viciousness of the attacker. Violent self-defence, to the pacifist, is just as immoral as the initial act of aggression.

There is often a religious component to this irrational position. Christ, they will often argue, offered no resistance to those who would destroy Him, therefore we should follow His example and offer no resistance when evil confronts us. What they forget is that Christ came here to die. Resistance would have spoiled the plot. We are here to live. Evil must be confronted and defeated.

As for Jimmy Carter. He is one of the most vile men of the last 50 years(perhaps longer). It is an embarrassment that he was actually president of this great nation.

I have similiar sentiments. I think people who go on a rant against pacifism come dangerously close to forgeting that wars, and violence are only means to achieve an end. If the end is peace, stability and justice then the actions are moral and justified. If it's for anything else, it's immoral.

Pacifism is logical in the sense that if you have two people shooting each other then you have to make them stop shoting each other. Peace is achieved this way is it not? No more shooting has a occured. But, this is the peace of cowards and the weak. It neglects the fact that someone started the shooting and that person or group of people has gone unpunished, they might even be rewarded.

So pacifism in that context essentially does more damage then war would do. It just prolongs the envitable instead of dealing with it.

I think Carter only got to the first step in the process. Get people to stop shooting each other, and God will sort the bodies.

[D'kian]

I think the essence of pacifism is best captured in a line uttered in the TV series Babylon 5:

"Sometimes peace is just another word for surrender."

Peaceful means work only within civilized societies, and only among civilized people. You know, nations and people that do not initiate force in order to get what they want.