I don't understand anti-war propaganda. I just finished "Guns of Navarone" and understand Peck and others believed it was a strong, anti-war movie. I don't understand their logic.
Do they think emphasizing that war is awful, that killing and losing those close to you takes a toll, and that it disrupts lives isn't obvious? What's their alternative? To just surrender to every aggressor?
I oppose stupid and unnecessary wars, but how, exactly, is one supposed to be anti-the whole concept of war?
@DaddyO I have always assumed that everyone should be against war, all the timeā¦ unless there is a compelling reason to be engaged in one.
Itās the worst the humans do to each other, nobody should think itās a good idea IMO.
But unfortunately itās sometimes the only solution, in which case you should be damn good at it and get it over with quickly.
Surrender is their proposal. Theyāve been sold on the asinine heresy that Jesus said turn the other cheek but never said to sell your cloak and buy a sword. All their interpretations are that the hippie Jesus is the real one
@DaddyO itās understandable I guess, but only from a psychological perspective.
āViolence is bad, nobody should do itā is the sort of tautology that can worm its way into someoneās mind if they are a victim of violence or are surprised or shocked by witnessing violence or human malevolenence.
The psychological short circuit leaves no room for āUnless you need to act violently.ā
I have helped a few people see this.
1/2
I agree that violence is terrible, and humans can behave in an evil manner. Anyone with eyeballs or the ability to read a history book can see this.
The question is what to do about it.
You can either acknowledge that humanity as a whole and you in particular are capable of this evil and that you need to learn to restrain yourself, or you can decide to be a victim of human nature, either your own or someone elseās.
What should someone do when attacked if not defend themselves?
2/2
I wrote a paper once for school outlining how, from the New Testament alone (disregarding the Old Testament and any teachings of the Magisterium or Church Fathers), it was abundantly clear that Christ did not teach, condone, encourage, or require pacifism. But one can't reason with cultists and ideologues. š¤·āāļø
The New Testament is crystal clear that the earthly Christian life is hardship and struggle. Pacifism is baseless moral grandstanding to hide cowardice. Even the constantly cited āturn the other cheekā thing appears to be more about having the courage to not take the bait to escalate. Not a demand for cowardice and unconditional surrender.
I also think thereās a fundamental misunderstanding of the crucifixion. He went as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Not to show us that we should let evil triumph over us. Which He also didnāt do, even when they thought they did.
2. Most of the time the people who choose to start a war are the ones who stand to gain the most in a war.
3. Most of the time wars are simply about power for those running the show, more than anything close to Justice.
The worst part about war isn't the violence and destruction. It is the legacy lost of men who were willing to fight and die.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
>We know that
Most people don't actually. Some think they do from time to time but they don't really.
Prior to every conflict we've entered in earnest since before we were alive there's some group of people insisting on 'the good war' myth: it'll be easy, short and cheap. They're wrong literally every time.
"Theirs is not to reason why, Theirs is but to do and die."
@sensei
I've come to really enjoy David Niven. He's great in "Dawn Patrol", too, opposite Errol Flynn.
War is where young men die for the grudges of old men.
Doesnāt mean you shouldnāt have people willing to fight, but you should ALWAYS be suspicious of ANYONE who is telling you war is a good idea.
Itās not.
At best it can be the least bad of a slew of bad alternatives.
When you have to fight you will know, if you arenāt sureā¦ there are probably still other options.
Ukraine could not have lasted this long if not for the Democrats who forgot being antiwar in 2008. The last 25 years of desert adventures couldn't have happened without the people who voted repeatedly for neocons, etc.
Every group will say that this one is different, but humans love war so the outgroup has to create antiwar media.
@DaddyO perhaps these were just performative statement made to support the marketing of the films to an audience of pE4ceNiKs