Originally Posted by zen_tom

Why would you do that? Rational human beings simply don't behave like that. Believing that they do is a sign of ignorance. Tell me the last time this happened to you?

Originally Posted by zen_tom

This is your family that you are protecting here, not your beliefs. That's perfectly normal ape-like behaviour. It would of course be a lot easier if you had a chat with your percieved threat, you might discover that there was a misunderstanding and both go your own ways without any bloodshed.

Originally Posted by zen_tom

. Yes those boys are brave, but they are doing a job. A dangerous and underpaid job. They need to believe the patriotic bollocks or they wouldn't be out there dying so we can continue to safely eat hamburgers.

Originally Posted by zen_tom

. It's a lot harder to enslave a race of people than it is to operate a free-market economy. This is why capitalism works so well, it's a de-centralised, very efficient way to get people co-operating towards a common set of goals and values. Slavery requires a huge investment in housing, healthcare and security, it's simply not cost effective.

Originally Posted by zen_tom

. I'm sorry, but it just isn't the stone-age anymore. Pacifist ideals are the ONLY way to live in a world where machine guns, anthrax, nuclear and biological warfare exist. Why? Let me explain it in terms you can understand.

It is very easy to kill a lot of people these days, either conventially or unconventially. Adopting a non pacifist policy encourages your opponent to do the same. Conflict ensues. Many people die.

Alternately, adopting a pacifist policy on either side shows strength, as well as de-escalating the situation and stepping towards a mutually beneficial solution. Nobody dies.

We just managed to scrape through the cold war without destroying the world in the process. The USSR collapsed under its own millitary weight, and now America's world debt and failing economy means that it too is heading the same way. Might is not right, it's bloody expensive, and ultimately unsustainable. But this isn't the politics forum, so I'll leave it there, feel free to open a topic in Politics if you want to continue this line of thought.

Finally, I suppose the real difference is how you percieve 'other people' to be like. Are they agressive, war-like, immoral and ultimately unpleasant? Or do they behave with tolerance, love and mutual respect for one another?

If you believe people are essentially unpleasant and willing to cause harm to others for no apparent reason, then you must hold the aggressive point of view. If you believe however, that people have a shred of decency, while continuing to operate in their own best interests, then you must be a pacifist.