DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**bWn4h8QD** · 04-20-2010, 12:09 AM

I do not believe that anyone, a Buddhist practitioner or otherwise can answer my questions until the time comes.

...until the time comes? What a strange way to avoid answering those questions yourself.

Is war and killing in war justified?

No.

Would you defend your family from an external aggressive army?

Yes; the response would hardly be considered 'war' as in this instance it is one family against an army. Even in cases of nation v. nation, however, creative responses infuse the idea of 'defend' with a slew of nonviolent possibilities.

Would you let them kill you parents, wife, children and you community without fighting back?

No; 'fighting back' is the same as 'defense' in that it can have many meanings, and the one that defines fighting back as 'war' or 'killing' is wholly unnecessary.

What if another country and its people requested support against an aggressor who wanted to take their land, enslave their people and possibly eliminate them completely as has happened in mine and all our lifetimes.

'Support' is yet another example of a word that has so many applications that lending itself to the sole denotation "war" or "killing" is disingenuous.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

A Buddhist would probably interject that the evil done was temporary as well, but this doesn't change the brute fact that alternatives to war and killing abound, and are furthermore proven effective. Have a look at the timeline you can find here for examples of this.

One last thing: when trying to accomplish a task, there are three variables of note, from which you can always choose two. The three variables are Speed, Quality, and Cost. For example, if you want something quickly and cheaply, be prepared for shoddy quality. If you want something valuable and cheaply, however, be prepared to spend a lot of time.

So it is: war and killing is at great cost, I think we can agree, but so too are instances of non-violence in the face of the same circumstances. Cost is a common variable here.

The difference, then, between violent resolution and peaceful resolution is the difference between accomplishing something quickly, or with quality. Peace is the clear choice of long-term value here.

War is not justified.

04-20-2010, 12:09 AM	#22
bWn4h8QD Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 436 Senior Member	I do not believe that anyone, a Buddhist practitioner or otherwise can answer my questions until the time comes. ...until the time comes? What a strange way to avoid answering those questions yourself. Is war and killing in war justified? No. Would you defend your family from an external aggressive army? Yes; the response would hardly be considered 'war' as in this instance it is one family against an army. Even in cases of nation v. nation, however, creative responses infuse the idea of 'defend' with a slew of nonviolent possibilities. Would you let them kill you parents, wife, children and you community without fighting back? No; 'fighting back' is the same as 'defense' in that it can have many meanings, and the one that defines fighting back as 'war' or 'killing' is wholly unnecessary. What if another country and its people requested support against an aggressor who wanted to take their land, enslave their people and possibly eliminate them completely as has happened in mine and all our lifetimes. 'Support' is yet another example of a word that has so many applications that lending itself to the sole denotation "war" or "killing" is disingenuous. I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. A Buddhist would probably interject that the evil done was temporary as well, but this doesn't change the brute fact that alternatives to war and killing abound, and are furthermore proven effective. Have a look at the timeline you can find here for examples of this. One last thing: when trying to accomplish a task, there are three variables of note, from which you can always choose two. The three variables are Speed, Quality, and Cost. For example, if you want something quickly and cheaply, be prepared for shoddy quality. If you want something valuable and cheaply, however, be prepared to spend a lot of time. So it is: war and killing is at great cost, I think we can agree, but so too are instances of non-violence in the face of the same circumstances. Cost is a common variable here. The difference, then, between violent resolution and peaceful resolution is the difference between accomplishing something quickly, or with quality. Peace is the clear choice of long-term value here. War is not justified.
	Quote