Nostr Web Client

Let me say this, I wouldnt never even remotely consider someone willing to fight back as a pacifist. That changes the defintion. The same word cannot logically include someone who is opposed to violence no matter what and someone who would use it in defense only. That is two drastically different ideals that one word cannot describe both rationally.

m4dire0701 1y ago

Maybe because you're considering the absolute pacifism the only approach about the term, but there are more pacifist's variants.

Absolute vs. Contingent Pacifism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/#AbsoVsContPaci

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Joel Walbert 1y ago

Yea I absolutely do not consider other flavors as I dont consider them pacifism. I know these terms exist. I just dont agree they are pacifism though. They water down the meaning of the word

Joel Walbert 1y ago

Let me rephrase what I am trying to say. When the word pacifist is used alone, that has imo a very specific meaning. If used with a clarifying adjective, then that's whatever that one means. Get what Im saying? Its a personal thing with me, I find all the subsets of subsets of larger ideals irritating. I rarely will even talk about the specific flavors of anarchy much anymore. They all have their merits, but to me, so long as its grounded in natural law, its all anarchy to me.

m4dire0701 1y ago

A word can have a lot of different meanings, depending on the contex

Joel Walbert 1y ago

All Im saying is the word pacifist, by itself, has a commonly understood meaning. If its something else that involves a qualifier, then that should be used for clarity.