>>10
What?
Semantics? You've got nerve. To bad you don't have the smarts to match. Logic is not semantics. You incorrectly stated that "Its not an *argument* that it permits evil, its an objective fact" I corrected your erroneous assertion by clearly stating the limited and specific circumstances under which it could be argued within an adversarial framework that pacifism "permits" evil. I then corrected your ridiculous assertion that "Pacifism says that there is no value or virtue that is worth defending" by stating its primary value, peace, and its means of defense. And all of this following my first response at
>>7 that completely invalidated your initial statement, that "Pacifism is the most evil of all philosophies"
You're a mean, ignorant, poorly educated little fucking joke.
>>11
Now that's some semantics. Malicious? Trivial? Let me tell you something about war. I've been in two, there's nothing but suffering, death and destruction, and in comparison, most things
are pretty fucking trivial.
God damned chicken hawks.
You wanna know about war? You wanna be a warrior? Here's the only rule, and the only reason to fight: Protect the weak.
And this includes the pacifists. Anything else, any other reasoning, rationalizations, ideas or ideals, and you're just another murderer. Another adherent to one of the many truly evil philosophies.
Now on the off, off, way off chance that you actually served, unlike Bush and his handlers, then you have some shit that you need to come to terms with. Pacifism is the antithesis of war. They are the two extremes on the same line, and any sensible person knows which end is more desirable.