WhatTrees

your version of “pacifism” is completely meaningless, and that by your standards, you could still call yourself a pacifist while taking any side in any conflict.

Hey buddy, I’m not a pacifist. Never claimed to be one. I also never provided a personal definition of pacifism. You are the one who said that the encyclopedia of philosophy must be wrong in their definition because you don’t like it. You are the one trying to condense a topic of much discussion for thousands of years into a black and white “for or against violence in all forms” kind of pacifism. If you don’t like the definition, take it up with the people who wrote them and the people who have argued over the specifics for thousands of years. Once again, someone is not not a pacifist simply because you don’t agree with their definition. Your definition of pacifism is identical to appeasement.

Your definition of pacifism is indeed meaningless, manipulative, and self-aggrandizing, intending to steal valor from the association with people who actually stand by their strongly held moral convictions against violence.

Lol. Yes, listening to the people who believe a thing and explaining how it’s complicated to an outsider intent on painting it in black and white terms is totally stolen valor. Jesus Christ dude, get over yourself. You’re not a vanguard. Just because you want appeasement in this conflict doesn’t mean anyone else should give a shit about your opinions, especially considering that you didn’t even know there was debate about this among pacifists until today. You don’t get to define that term for them.

yOu KnOw YoUr PrEvIoUs CoMmEnTs ArE sTiLl ViSiBlE, rIgHt?" God you people can be insufferable. I stand by everything I said in my previous comments, none of which in any way contracts what I’m saying.

Ya, it’s totally me that’s been an insufferable cunt this whole conversation. Definitely. And you totally didn’t say “I’m a communist” or “I look to Lenin” in your previous comments. Got it.

How on earth does being a communist and referencing Lenin have anything to do with the positions you invented for me?

Oh ya, it’s totally a coincidence that you have been shilling for Russia this whole conversation, identified as a communist, referenced Lenin as an authority, and said Ukraine should “seek peace.” Totally unrelated things that definitely have no connection whatsoever. You think I was born yesterday? You think this is the first time I’ve interacted with a tankie too chicken-shit to say their true opinions?

Look I’ll show you what it looks like to have conviction in your opinions:

People like you are a plague on the movement to make a better world. Your insistence on providing support and cover for totalitarian ass-holes with red paint makes it impossible for anyone to take actual socialists and communists seriously. Your defense of genocide and war crimes shows the rest of the world that people like you don’t actually want a better world, you want one where American doesn’t exist, even if every civilian on earth had a worse quality of life. You make actual change impossible by pretending that you will one day have enough influence for “the revolution” while doing shit-all to actually make things better in the mean time. You reject democracy and anything that would help people now and are somehow delusional enough to think that if we let people get fucked over enough we will have our “revolution” in a way that totally wouldn’t result in far worse outcomes for everyone. You are larping and it hurts the people who actually give a shit about making things better now on the road to making them even better later. You are the reason that our movement is forever chained around the neck to the failures of the past. Men who claimed to want to support the workers of the world while killing and disappearing anyone who got in the way of their personal pursuit of power.

Again, putting words in my mouth, inventing positions whole cloth based on nothing and assigning them to me. You sure like assigning things to people just so long as they don’t happen to be phrased as labels, huh?

What the fuck did you mean by “Russia should seek peace” then? If they want peace they can fuck off! They don’t need to seek anything, they need to get fucked. By painting both sides of this as equally needing to “seek peace” you are creating the image that they are morally equal. Combine that with your weak-ass attempt at what-abouting the Donbas shows me all I need to know.

Obviously not. I’ve stated my positions numerous times. I even offered to explain the theoretical influences behind my positions. This time, you’re taking words out of my mouth lmao. I guess that’s a nice change of pace.

No one cares about the “theoretical influences” of your opinions. You’ve been “just asking questions” while defending Russia and claiming Ukraine should stop defending itself. Constantly trying to act like both parties are equally wrong and both should just stop fighting the other. One party started this war by invading the other. One party has been documented kidnapping, raping, and killing civilians. One party has had to make mass graves. One party has been condemned by practically every other country for their abhorrent actions in this war, the other hasn’t.

You seem to think that I don’t understand that language is mutable and collectively defined.

You literally still don’t get it. It’s not that it can change and is collectively defined, it’s that language is entirely defined by the meanings used by the specific members of the conversation. General uses and society at large have nothing to do with it.

What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation.

Ahhh ok. So you think it’s manipulative to use a word like pacifism if they don’t use it the way you, a person who isn’t a pacifist and has apparently never looked up the definition or works discussing it before, define it. Got it. Good to know your intuition about what a word means is the gold standard of what other people can do without being manipulative.

You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.

Oh, so you didn’t say any of those things? You didn’t say you were a communist? You didn’t reference Lenin? Are you trying to say that you haven’t been excusing Russia’s actions (like talking about “Ukraine bombing civilians in the Donbas” ) and trying to argue against Ukraine’s? You know your previous comments are still visible, right?

Are you saying you don’t support Russia?

No, they should seek peace.

That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders?

No, they should seek peace.

Of course not!

Incorrect.

I love that you think that using the same words would imply that you think they are on equal footing. They aren’t. If Ukraine wants peace, they will continue to fight for peace. What you really mean is that they should capitulate so that Russia gets to keep the land they stole and rule over the citizens they haven’t raped, kidnapped or killed yet. If Russia wants peace they can fuck off back to their own country. I love that you somehow think that both are equally wrong in a situation where one autocratic government invaded a democratic neighbor and continues to attempt to steal land and rape and murder civilians.

Just man-up and state your positions with gusto.

I have. The “secret positions” that I’m supposedly hiding are entirely your invention

Cool. So we’re just going back to pretending that you’ve been commenting on this thread for hours because you really have no opinions whatsoever. You were just asking questions! Good to see you upholding the long-standing tradition of Nazi apologists and MLs alike of hiding your true positions because you’re incapable of defending them!

As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are “wrong”. That’s not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesn’t know your definition. Your argument isn’t a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.

I haven’t said anything about my positions on any topic. I’m not sure how you gathered what I support. I have called out your ridiculous attempt to define pacifism in a way that most self-identitfied pacifists don’t, claim that others are using it wrong, claim that the definition from an authoritative source is wrong because you don’t like it, and now collapsed into “I guess all words are meaningless then”. It’s not my problem that you don’t understand how words work.

You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I don’t have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things. If you think I’m wrong, you can correct me. I didn’t assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use. I extrapolated from what you have given so far, which is a defense of everything Russia has done and a sideways condemnation of everything Ukraine has done. Add a splash of references to Lenin and complaints about America bad, what else do you think someone reading this thread is going to see?

Are you saying you don’t support Russia? That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders? Of course not!

Just man-up and state your positions with gusto. Why do people in your camp always play the same “I’m just asking questions, I have no opinions” bullshit the right always plays? Just say it. Just say “America bad, Ukraine bad because America supports them, Russia good because America doesn’t like them.”

Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don’t understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don’t get to tell them it’s wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.

I don’t give a shit at all about your understanding of Communism other than as an example about how rude and condescending it is to tell other people that they are using words wrong. While I don’t think you are an actual communist by my definition, you are free to use the word to describe yourself based on your definition.

How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can’t see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can’t help you. Maybe get your eyes checked. If you can’t tell the difference between troops crossing into another country in order to bomb civilians and take control of land and troops fighting them back to regain land and save the civilians from the invaders I can’t help you. It’s not my fault that you are incapable of seeing the very obvious harm caused by Russia’s invasions.

As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren’t one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. “Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves.” That’s all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say “Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad”?

If a person uses a term you don’t think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It’s not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word “correctly” even though that’s not how words work.

For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you’re not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?

Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other? How one of them could be violence in the hope of future peace for others vs violence in hope of gaining more land and more bodies for the meat-grinder?

If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I’m just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?

Here’s a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn’t always mean a lack of self defense.

As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.

The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.

If you’re not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.

Since you’re not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.

Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have “do no harm” as a tenant) into a single “pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others”. Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.

Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?

Roe, Chevron, brides, immunity, there are just too many to pick from!

You’re not dog whistling, you’re just certain that something fishy is going on when one athlete is bigger and stronger than another. You clearly are trying to imply something, why not just woman-up and say it?

The people whose job it is to decide already did and she qualified. What more is there to do, unless you think they need to look at it again because they got it wrong?

Yes, you totally have no opinion on it whatsoever which is why you vague-posted a “just asking questions” type comment on here.

Your edits do add additional context and information, but they miss the broader point

Forced marriages (sometimes called arranged marriages) are a breach of consent regardless of abuse or trafficking being involved. Having your parents set you up with a date you are free to ignore or choose to engage with is one thing, having them pick who you will marry and when without your consent is another. Regardless of culture, you don’t get to violate others consent.

Ohh of course. You only wanted a civil discussion. That’s why you immediately compared trans health care to pedophilia and called your own statement an insane position. That’s also why you have continuously failed to provide evidence for a single claim you’ve made. Ya, you totally just wanted a calm discussion of intellectuals.

I am proud that you think so little of me. It warms my heart. The hate of bigots is the coal my generators need. You keep saying you’re going to stop responding but you don’t. You know you like it, come on…Keep it going…Fuel my generators baby.

What’s embarrassing is your absolute failure to provide even a shred of evidence for your fear mongering. What’s even more embarrassing is your weak ass attempt at civility politics. You can’t start out with a post conflating trans youth with pedophilia, acknowledging that it’s an insane position, and then act shocked when people aren’t nice to you.

Once again, fuck you, fuck your feelings, fuck your civility politics. Craw back into the cesspool you spawned from. You don’t deserve to be treated kindly. You deserve to suffer as much as the people your insane opinion would suffer if you got your way. Luckily, as this article shows, your opinions are not shared by most of the public. Have fun wallowing in obscurity you pathetic sack of shit.

Ahhhhh did someone get their fee fees hurt? Do you have a boo boo? Show me on the doll where the mean commenter hurt you. I can send you a bandaid if you need.

You could have just provided any evidence at all but I know that must have been hard for you. Your bald-ass assertion of bigotry deserves no respect and neither do you. But I guess you can’t handle the same vitriol you spew when it’s turned back on you, huh?

Fuck you and your faux civility.

Ahhh shucks, I love when bigots think I’m not being civil enough 😊.

Did I come here and post obvious bait to try and convince people? Does my opinion go against the people who study this for a living? Does my position have a complete lack of evidence to support it? It’s like you walked in here and posted some bait about the earth being flat, refused to provide a shred of evidence, and are now complaining about our positions not being on equal footing. They aren’t. If you want to convince people, and you want to contravene scientific evidence you are the one who has to prove it.

My position bears more weight because there is actual evidence and experts on my side.

Again, your bigotry deserves no respect and your “how very uncouth of you” does nothing. Save the whinging for the safe space you crawled out from. I’m sure all the other bigots will be there to hold your hand and congratulate you.

Don’t pull this shit again. You are against the use of puberty blockers because there would be no use for them after the person is done with puberty. You want them to wait until they are 18, when they are done with the vast majority of physical effects to start treatment. And the only reason you’ve given is “I just don’t think they need it yet, they need love not drugs.” Present evidence of harm or shut the fuck up. You’re fear-mongering over something you don’t understand and it has actual harm to other people.

If you think the use is so different that the dangers outweigh the risks then prove it. The institutions that study this don’t. The organizations that make policy based on those studies don’t. You don’t get to just “but it feels different” you have to provide evidence that it is different and harmful in a way the other studies wouldn’t have caught.

It’s “not at all” for puberty blockers because, again, you want kids to go through puberty before undergoing any gender therapy. If you had studied this at all you’d know why the medical organizations recommend starting before puberty. Puberty is the harm they are looking to alleviate and you can’t do that by waiting until after puberty to start treatment.

I’ll read your intentions as much as I want because you’re a fucking book. It’s easy to see exactly why you are here and making the arguments you are. Do you really think this is the first time most of us have seen a “just asking questions” and “this is pedophilia” argument? You don’t have to tell me you’re a duck, you already walked and talked like one.

I don’t give a fuck about your family or friends. Do you have a medical degree? Did you do any studies on this matter? Do you have any relevant training or expertise?

They are changing, but not in the way you think. I’ve read this book before, I know how it ends. That said, I’m enjoying wasting your time and calling you the bigot you are. I have a feeling you don’t hear that enough in your life so I’m happy to provide that for you.

You are advocating for your own feels. If you actually gave a flying fuck about the kids this affects you’d follow the recommendations of the people who actually studied this shit. Or at least present even one piece of evidence.

I could manage it, but bigotry doesn’t deserve respect or civility.

Do they have to be independent to be different things?

Why should your dumbass opinion backed by literally nothing but “my experiences” deserve to be discussed or considered at all? Do you have any skin in this game at all or is being a bigot just a fun pastime for you? Do you have any training in these fields? Any new data to discuss? You’ve got an uneducated opinion backed by nothing and discounted by the people who actually study this that you think is hot shit because you like the smell of your own farts.

I didn’t ask you for anything and you didn’t explain anything to me. This was my first comment in this thread. Maybe take some time and see who you are responding to first?

You can shove your civility politics up your ass. Being civil doesn’t make it not bigoted and doesn’t make you right.

Since you are too lazy to look them up yourself and do the legwork, I’ll do it for you:

Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society.

Sexuality is a person’s identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

If your definition is as broad as you imply, everything is your sexuality and therefore kids doing anything and having any options at all are sexual in nature. Your definition is useless.

How about you use a fucking dictionary or the google button on your phone and look it up yourself.

Gender == sex == sexuality

Gender isn’t about who you sleep with, or what’s in your genes/jeans.

If you want to come here to convince people then do the leg-work yourself.

On your first point, does the evidence show that taking puberty blockers makes you more socially isolated? I have seen no evidence of that at all, and instead there’s a mountain of evidence that social transition and puberty blockers lower suicidality in trans kids and increase mental health outcomes.

We’ve been using puberty blockers, not just for trans kids but for precocious puberty for decades and have more than enough long term evidence of their effectiveness and safety. No drug or procedure is without risk, but why is that only a problem for this issue? Are you also against kids getting chemo? I mean, they certainly don’t fully understand the risks of chemo do they?

The question of consent and knowledge of risk is a red herring. Kids can’t consent to any medical procedures or sex because we’ve defined consent that way. But consent from the patient is not always needed for medical procedures, especially when the patient is unable to give consent. Should coma patients still get care that has risks? They can’t consent right?

Consent is given by the parents and the medical professionals who have the authority to make those decisions. You can ask the kid, and they usually do, but their consent does not matter. That’s how all medical procedures work with kids.

In reality, your statements lay bare a bias, which is why you’re getting downvoted. You only seem to care about risks and consent for this specific highly-politicized topic and not medical procedures broadly. Because this is not about a broad critique of consent, it’s about trying to excuse your uncomfortablity with this one subject and trying to justify it in any way you can.

You don’t have to understand it, and you don’t have to agree with it, but you should at least recognize why the majority of major medical institutions make the recommendations they do. And, shockingly, it’s not because they somehow forgot it was involving kids, it’s because they know a little more about the topic and nuances than you do.

Wait, so you admit that you, in your spare time for fun presumably, look for things the worst part of any groups do so that you can give other people excuses to hate them? Do you have any idea how retarded that is on every level? You just like to hate groups of people and go looking for excuses for it, it’s like someone made a recipe on how to trick yourself with confirmation bias into being an even bigger bigot.

Also, just for fun, have you ever done that same thing with groups you belong to? Like, say for example, men, white people, heterosexuals, cisgenerders, neo-nazis, zoophiles?