Thursday, April 26, 2018


It's strange how people misrepresent the meaning of words when it suits their purpose.

Such as "pacifism". It doesn't mean what some people wish it meant.

It isn't "pacifism" to oppose aggression. You can even oppose aggression violently. In fact, sometimes that's the only way you can oppose it effectively.

I oppose aggression in all its forms. I am not a pacifist. The very thought sickens me. I've known people who said they were pacifists, and if that's what they want I'm not going to insist they change. But pacifism seems like a rejection of responsibility. If you won't fight to protect yourself or others from archation, it seems like you are helping the bad guys.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium


  1. "You can even oppose aggression violently." clarify..

    Violence means to violate, to mistreat or abuse. If you are acting against some form of violence against you or those you are responsible for/to, it qualifies as defense, ...which could be anything from flight to fight on any level, whatever is necessary.

    Force is different. Force is actual physical force that is often confused with violence. You can use necessary force in defense and it is not violence. You are not violating but defending.

    Necessary force can be used against many forms of violence, such as theft that relies on stealth. If someone steals your lawnmower, go get it back. If they don't cooperate, take it anyway, and use up to and including deadly force if/when necessary.

    Other than that tiny 'discrepancy' I agree with your position. Pacifism is different than peaceful. Peaceful says I will always work towards peace. Pacifist says refuse to fight.

    But sometimes you have to fight back.

    The other day, I was not suggesting that you are a pacifist. I was more so taking note of how you work towards peace in your thinking where I do not, trying to learn from you I suppose.

    1. According to Merriam-Webster, violence is " the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy".
      And that's how I am using the word. It doesn't say anything about whether the use of the physical force is right or wrong in the particular case, just that it is what it is.

      And, I didn't think you suggested I was a pacifist. I actually was thinking about the word because of the Goring quote in my newspaper column from a week or so back.

    2. Webster is incorrect or at least lacking.

      Violence can include any act that violates your rights. It is synonymous with abuse, mistreatment. The word violate originates from words meaning to break a promise, or to treat with violence dishonor or outrage and is also in the same family of words as ravish or rape or infringe or exploit.

      The original definition is to break a promise, as in a breech of trust or an infraction or some kind. It's early use/development (500+years ago)was an adjective describing morality, a wrong done to someone.

      So it can include things like theft, fraud, neglect, spitting in someone's face or whatever is considered abusive. The use of force is not a necessary qualifier for it to be considered violence.

      Webster needs to do their homework?

    3. I often find dictionary definitions lacking.
      But that's why I try to make sure I let people know what I mean when I use a word- it reduces misunderstanding a little.

      When I say "violence" I just mean ethically neutral physical force.
      When you say "violence" you mean what I mean when I use the word "archation".
      We agree on the concepts, if not the words.

    4. Yes, you are good about definitions, which are important for clarity.

      It all comes down to right and wrong, good and evil. And the word violence basically describes doing someone wrong to the point of being abusive. So I tend to go with that.

      Archation? Sure. Why not?

      Of course, "archy" means to rule or lead. So I guess archation means to rule over, in enforce? What about other acts that may not include ruling over someone but is a violation of rights or that are abusive?

    5. I posted my definition of violence. Feel free to add yours as a comment.

    6. Archos means to rule, thus archation means to rule over.

      From your stated definition, archate means to initiate force and to violate property, which could include a lot of things, depending on how you define property.

      What about something malicious that was not about property or the use of force?; what if I were to accuse you of something, cause you a lot of problems and fuck your whole life up?

      No force was used. No property was violated. But your life is still completely fucked up because everyone thinks you are a thief or murderer or rapist or something.

    7. Perhaps that would be another category of "something you have no right to do".
      Or, maybe you do have the right to lie to hurt people.

      I don't believe so, because that would qualify as bullying, so it would still be included in archation. It is an attempt to violate your life.

    8. I suppose you have a right to lie, and responsibility of verification of information is on the recipient of that lie, as well as any action based on that lie.

      But that doesn't make it right.

      If that lie is being used maliciously, to defraud or ruin a person's standing, then it has the ability to cause harm as intended, and is what I would call abusive, violence. The lie is an instrument of abuse just as a gun is in a robbery.

      Even the truth can be used maliciously in the same manner, be it blackmail or something. "Obey or else we tell the whole congregation and your TV audience about your cocaine/prostitute/gambling endeavors, preacher"

      "An attempt to violate your life"

      I suppose it is about malice and damage/threat?

    9. I think so.

      I've been known to tell people that there are two main kinds of lies: lies told to harm the innocent, and lies told to protect the innocent. I oppose the first kind and embrace the second.

      I suppose there are also lies told to harm the guilty, but in that case truth probably works better, as in your example.