Not wanting to get religous, but just to fix a misconception:seamusTX wrote:Steve, every now and then we disagree.srothstein wrote:It seems to me that the person you were talking to is as close to a true pacifist as you are likely to find in the US.
A true pacifist will submit to abuse because he believes that all violence is wrong. Amish, Mennonites, Quaker, and Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists. There are millions of them.
This person is not a pacifist. If he is attacked, he wants armed police officers to come to his defense. Then, most likely, after he is safe, he will complain that the police used too much force.
I have seen this numerous times, where people called the police on an out-of-control family member (usually intoxicated), then complain because the police used a Taser.
What the person in question here is trying to do is build a value system on Sesame Street: If we all just understood each other and hugged a lot (in a good way), we would get along. This is insane, as everyone reading this message knows.
- Jim
Jehova's Witnesses do not participate in war, and can not be employed in a job that requires them to carry a sidearm. This causes many to believe that they are pure pacifists. However, they do not have to sit and allow someone to come into their home, rape and kill or whatever, without defending themselves or their loved ones. They are allowed to defend themselves with whatever means available, even with firearms, to the death. Generally frowned upon, but gun ownership is allowed, without negative consequence, as a personal decision.
Some might say something like "Oh no, we can't have guns in the house!", but they're merely spewing their personal opinion and making it seem like something official, like many antis do.
The other 3 I know nothing about.