www.takepride.com

[sst]

http://www.takepride.com

cool website with some real cool T-shirts

Check it out.

[Drew]

Looks cool.

[Stanley Burrell]

Capitalism personified.

And cool looking.

[Skirmisher]

I don't go for all of them but would totally wear the American Classic.

[TheEschaton]

Yes, let's glorify war. ;)

I especially am offended by the "One Land, Two Missions" t-shirt with Iraq placed within the Cross. Even if it is supposed to be a Red Cross logo as opposed to an evangelizing cross of some sort, isn't a Red Crescent logo much more appropriate.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

-TheE-

[Artha]

These are pretty nice looking shirts.

[Merzbow]

Yes, let's glorify war. ;)

I especially am offended by the "One Land, Two Missions" t-shirt with Iraq placed within the Cross. Even if it is supposed to be a Red Cross logo as opposed to an evangelizing cross of some sort, isn't a Red Crescent logo much more appropriate.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

-TheE-

So we should have tried loving Hitler, instead of taking him out? Umm, no. Violence is a tool just like anything else. When used judiciously and only when other avenues have failed, it is quite effective in removing threats to the well-being of one's country and one's family.

[Stanley Burrell]

So we should have tried loving Hitler, instead of taking him out? Umm, no. Violence is a tool just like anything else. When used judiciously and only when other avenues have failed, it is quite effective in removing threats to the well-being of one's country and one's family.

Wtf?

I do not think that is what TheE is trying to convey. At all?

I'd much rather spend my dollars on a Sept. 11th rebuilding fund than consumerism myself, but that's just me...

[Merzbow]

Wtf?

I do not think that is what TheE is trying to convey. At all?

I'd much rather spend my dollars on a Sept. 11th rebuilding fund than consumerism myself, but that's just me...

Well, I read his post as advocating a philosophy of 'militant' pacifism in which violence is never justified under any circumstances. I merely pointed out the suicidal nature of such an extremist philosophy. If he wants to correct my reading of his post, he's free to.

[Landrion]

Godwin's Law.

[Sean of the Thread]

Godwin's Law.

Stupid.

[Artha]

Godwin's Law.
Nobody has compared anyone to Hitler yet. It's ok to reference Hitler/Nazis.

[Sean of the Thread]

Especially in a thread about war.

[TheEschaton]

I do believe in militant pacifism, what can I say?

I'm of the school of thought that Dostoevsky endorsed, namely, that if my light shone a little brighter, perhaps the criminal, dwelling in the dark, would of been illuminated. I honestly believe it's people not believing that peace is possible which perpetuates war.

And yes, in the beginning, it involves a little turn-the-other-cheekness, where people take advantage of you. But as the movement grows and grow, as people continue to not resort to violence to solve violence against them, those who would act violent are ostracized, by everyone, as tyrants and fools, and then, one day....it's over.

A large sacrifice in the short term for large benefits in the long term. I think it's worth it.

And if someone wants to respond, "OMFG, you wouldn't say that if you were the one dying!!!!", I respond,

If my non-violent response to a person acting violently towards me had the possibility of making another stop and consider the foolishness of the violence against me, then that's enough for me.

As for the Hitler analogy, that's ludicrous. There were violent conditions which led to Hitler. Hitler was born of violence, namely the institutional violence placed on Germany by the Allied powers at the end of WWI. CF I think it's ES's sig about Truman's quote that war can never bring peace, it only brings about the conditions for more war.

-TheE-

And that quote is from Martin Luther King. He never got anything done with non-violence, now did he?

[Merzbow]

War will be over when we've crushed the last dictator and annihilated the last terrorist. Laying down your arms when those still exist who wish to do you harm is nothing but suicide. We live a better and more peaceful life than anyone in the history of the human race precisely because America has had the balls to go to war to establish the peace.

Non-violence only works when your opponent is civilized to begin with. Gandhi got lucky he was up against the Brits, who by the time of Indian independence were a democracy with actual moral qualms. Against the Germans or the Japanese he would have been crushed like a bug. MLK succeeded because he had the North's force of arms on his side to cow the South into burying the dead stinking corpse of Jim Crow (thankfully they remembered how we kicked their asses in the Civil War and backed down without starting another war this time).

[Artha]

Pax Americana ftw.


MLK succeeded because he had the North's force of arms on his side to cow the South into burying the dead stinking corpse of Jim Crow (thankfully they remembered how we kicked their asses in the Civil War and backed down without starting another war this time).
I don't think your grasp of history's very strong.

[Merzbow]

Pax Americana ftw.


I don't think your grasp of history's very strong.

Uhh...



Faubus's order set him on a collision course with President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was determined to enforce the orders of the Federal courts, even though he was lukewarm, at best, on the goal of desegregation of public schools. Eisenhower federalized the National Guard and ordered them to return to their barracks. Eisenhower then deployed elements of the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to protect the students.




On June 11, 1963, George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, attempted to block the integration of the University of Alabama. President John F. Kennedy sent enough force to make Governor Wallace step aside, allowing the enrollment of two black students. That evening, JFK addressed the nation on TV and radio with a historic civil rights speech.[2] The next day Medgar Evers was murdered in Mississippi.[3] The next week as promised, on June 19, 1963, JFK submitted his Civil Rights bill to Congress.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955-1968%29

And so on.

[sst]

...

[Alfster]

I especially am offended by the "One Land, Two Missions" t-shirt with Iraq placed within the Cross. Even if it is supposed to be a Red Cross logo as opposed to an evangelizing cross of some sort, isn't a Red Crescent logo much more appropriate.


http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=689

and my personal favorite

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=192

[Daniel]

I do believe in militant pacifism, what can I say?

I'm of the school of thought that Dostoevsky endorsed, namely, that if my light shone a little brighter, perhaps the criminal, dwelling in the dark, would of been illuminated. I honestly believe it's people not believing that peace is possible which perpetuates war.




I disagree. I think the unerring wish for peace is what perpetuates conflict just as much as the unerring wish for war.

You will *never* have peace as long as the conditions for conflict exist and those are unequality, poverty and suffering. Unless you can fix these problems then you *will* never have peace, and until you fix these any attempts at peace are wishful thinking and bound to fail.

[Daniel]

Pax Americana ftw.


I don't think your grasp of history's very strong.

Truthfully, I don't know about how willing the north would have been to having another war over the black issue. I will say that I whole heartedly believe that MLK was as successful as he was because people like Malcolm X and the Black panthers represented the alternative that white people did not want to see in America.

Given the choice they took the lesser of two perceived evils.

Furthermore, India was QUITE lucky that they had Britain as their colonizer. On the whole British colonies have done alot better than any other colonizing power, especially the Iberian countries, Dutch and French.

In short, they would have been fucked with anyone else in charge.

[TheEschaton]

You will *never* have peace as long as the conditions for conflict exist and those are unequality, poverty and suffering. Unless you can fix these problems then you *will* never have peace, and until you fix these any attempts at peace are wishful thinking and bound to fail.

Well, I (and most pacifists, I would say) believe inequality, poverty, and suffering, are forms of institutional violence, and therefore work against them.

We ain't a bunch of guitar playing hippies who just want to sit in a circle and sing Kum bye ya.

We are motivated, we are determined, and we're hella smart.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

and we're hella smart.

-TheE-

...








:love:

[Skeeter]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/Cypher19/902b.jpg


God Damn Hippies

[Daniel]

Well, I (and most pacifists, I would say) believe inequality, poverty, and suffering, are forms of institutional violence, and therefore work against them.

We ain't a bunch of guitar playing hippies who just want to sit in a circle and sing Kum bye ya.

We are motivated, we are determined, and we're hella smart.

-TheE-

Besides the retardedness of that assertation... It makes no sense to adhere to a "pacifist" mentality because alot of times inequality, poverty, and suffering are perpetuated by the application of physical force by certain people. These people hold no qualms about using said force and don't know anything besides it.

In these situations "turning the other cheek" is not only unbeneficial but basicly what they want you to do.

The reason why I said your above assertation is retarded is because it seems that you're including all forces of conflict into your definition of violence, which means that any means you have to challenge these people is in effect, off limits as it would violate the principal of "non violence".

[Merzbow]

There are always going to be people willing to do violence against those who just want to live peacefully. Therefore the peaceful will always require some among them willing to do violence in self-defense. To claim it can be otherwise is to misunderstand human nature. Some people are just going to be psycopaths even if raised in an optimal environment filled with fluffy bunnies and well-adjusted parents.