<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ozarque:
For the record: I appreciate the attempts at providing me with wiggle room, but can't accept them. I really do believe, with all my heart, that violence is never -- never -- justified or acceptable for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must say that standing by your belief and conviction so staunchly has my complete admiration.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
The modification you suggest, with violence acceptable as a last resort, is the classical "just war" doctrine; I don't accept it, not for myself.
The obvious next step from your non-violence belief is obviously a non-war belief... I can completely understand this extention and your dedication to it. The logical extension of this, however, would be that the U.S. entering WWII, sending my uncles and Daddy to fight the Nazis and the Japanese Imperial Army in an effort to stop things like Dachau and Nanking... would be morally wrong. So, I admire you for sticking to your beliefs, but really find the whole "concientious objector" disbelief in any war (even a defensive or "just" one) disheartening. Many people who claim the same views have had no qualms about spitting-on and calling my friends (who were permanently disabled to protect their precious rights to live in freedom) "baby-killers"... That's more than disheartening.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I can admire Panther for being able to say unequivocally that if his (her?) belief were that something is morally wrong, he would never do it. Period.
I'm too old, seen to many wiggles and been through too much to sacrifice my very own spirit/soul by being unfaithful to my own standards and beliefs. That wasn't always so. In fact, I guess you could claim
that as the reason why I'm so picky about whether something is "just" or not... I could understand someone's view that my interpretation and wording are merely convenient "wiggles". But I sleep soundly with my convictions as I'm sure others do with theirs.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I cannot meet that standard.
I certainly couldn't meet the standard set out by your original statement(s)... and from your own admission, neither can you (or my friend).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But there is no hypocrisy in saying that I believe violence is never justified but that I cannot give my word that I would never violate my belief. Every time I lose my temper, I have violated my belief, you perceive, in spite of my sincere intention not to do so.
That is honesty, not hypocrisy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I admire you for your honesty.
On the other hand, Since you have basically said that my assertions that the word "never" is being either misused, misunderstood, or misplaced aren't correct, then let's refer to Merriam-Webster as I did with the word "never", which means "
not under
any condition".
Merriam-Webster says:
hy·poc·ri·sy: hi-'pä-kr&-sE:
nouna feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
I guess it's open to interpretation, but that seems to say the definition is asserting a belief and then not following that belief.
Then again, I'm sure I could change it to provide enough wiggle room, depending on what your definition of the word "is" is...
