To my observation, you have good rational thinking and most of the time -- you do a good job of weighing the evidence. If I may -- I don't want to offend -- if I may, you don't know when to let go. You take good ideas too far.
I think the perfect example is Agnosticism. Considering the manner in which information gets to the brain -- nobody has absolute information about anything -- much less the existence of God. You seem to be afraid to form even tentative conclusions based on available data. It's not that your thinking is wrong. Your standards of proof are too high. You're not practical. We need tentative conclusions in order to get anything done. That is Science -- tentative conclusions and all. Always adjustable when new and more accurate data comes in. You are an absolutist. You insist on all data -- including things that have not yet been discovered, much less proved. This is where we differ. I am Agnostic based on what I think I know -- now. I could be mistaken. Pending better information, this is my position -- now. Likewise, my Atheism. If new proof comes my way, I might have to rethink my position. If I am confronted with solid proof that I am mistaken in these matters; I might have to let my Atheism go. It has not happened yet. Until it does, my Atheism will remain.
I think it's the same deal with your pacifism. Pacifism is a wonderful ideal. You take it too far. Sometimes, dangerous people have to be stopped. Sometimes, it takes deadly force to do so. If the pacifist can't or won't take action -- the onus falls on people who are less idealistic and more practical. Despite all the mishaps and tragedies, we do need armed police.