#|> #|> 
#|> #|> #This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
#|> #|> #is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
#|> #|> #to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
#|> #|> #we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
#|> #|> 
#|> #|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively
#|> #|> the same thing, 
#|> #
#|> #Are you serious?  Two statements, one of which says that use of force
#|> #in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is
#|> #not moral "say effectively the same thing?"
#|> 
#|> Yes, when you tag on the "Unfortunately, ...", then to all intents and
#|> purposes you are saying the same thing.
#
#Then delete the "unfortunately".   Now tell me that the two statement
#say effectively the same thing.
#
#And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice
#that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self.   We can choose
#*not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism.

O.K., got you.  I concede your point, though the word "obliged" strongly
implies that one must sometimes use force.  A further rephrasing would
give you the distinction you mention, however.  If I have you right, a pacifist
would not even go on to say, "unfortunately,etc."

#|> #Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and
#|> #the other saying "X is immoral?"   How would you decided when two 
#|> #statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when
#|> #they "say effectively the same thing".
#|> 
#|> What they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator.
#
#And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so.....

Yes, fair enough, though why confuse things by saying that "one is 
somtimes obliged" if the real meaning is that "one is never obliged".

#|> #|>                  and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then 
#|> #|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none.
#|> #
#|> #They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what
#|> #motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the
#|> #same thing.
#|> 
#|> That's not true.  You could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum 
#|> force and still be a pacifist.  If the minimum is 0, great  - but one is
#|> always trying to get as close to 0 force as possible under that belief.
#|> Not the same as 'force is immoral, period', but still tending to pacifism.
#
#If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?

If you don't think that it is "immoral, period.".   