I don't want it to go unremarked or to risk being taken for granted.
I sympathise, but I honestly don't think there's much risk of that. Everyone's at it.
I'd rather compare it to (say) battlefield ambulance drivers than loony murder-suicide pacts. I also don't see any contradiction with pacifism; putting yourself at a considered risk, eg. by a hunger strike or a nonviolent protest against violent authorities, has nothing at all to do with harming other people.
Sure, but the fact that that was the case doesn't in any way make the cause more worthwhile, just as the fact that pacifists chose to drive battlefield ambulances doesn't mean the First World War was a good idea. My point is that the worthiness of any cause should be examined on its particular merits, not by the amount of kerfuffle it caused.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 12:33 pm (UTC)I sympathise, but I honestly don't think there's much risk of that. Everyone's at it.
I'd rather compare it to (say) battlefield ambulance drivers than loony murder-suicide pacts. I also don't see any contradiction with pacifism; putting yourself at a considered risk, eg. by a hunger strike or a nonviolent protest against violent authorities, has nothing at all to do with harming other people.
Sure, but the fact that that was the case doesn't in any way make the cause more worthwhile, just as the fact that pacifists chose to drive battlefield ambulances doesn't mean the First World War was a good idea. My point is that the worthiness of any cause should be examined on its particular merits, not by the amount of kerfuffle it caused.