Is Pacifism completely dead?

It seems extraordinarily uncommon for people to express Pacifist beliefs these days. I think it's because of modern cynicism ie, "some people just need killin'" "the world is an evil place" etc. i think just BELIEVING that makes it real.

Yes, self defense is necessary, but does it have to include killing people? I would say 99.9% of the time, no. None of the wars America has been involved in have truly been necessary. There are ways to defend your body and home that do not require packing lead.

Whatever happened to 'two wrong don't make a right' and 'give peace a chance?" If we want to stop hate, injustice and suffering, the best ways are via information and education. Not dropping bombs.

Even the most peace-loving people today say that sometimes, violence is the answer. Sure, maybe i'm starry-eyed, but don't you think we need more starry-eyed people?

reply to post by descartes90


Dear descartes90,

Pacifism is not dead, there are still some of us around. Pacifism is an outgrowth of controlling ones urges and wants, that is what is dead. People are constantly thinking about what they want and not what is right. We are told that "we deserve" this and that, we are told to "look out for number one" and to "follow our hearts". It all sounds great; but, it is self centered and that does not lead people to being pacifists.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by descartes90

 

Dear descartes90,

Pacifism is not dead, there are still some of us around. Pacifism is an outgrowth of controlling ones urges and wants, that is what is dead. People are constantly thinking about what they want and not what is right. We are told that "we deserve" this and that, we are told to "look out for number one" and to "follow our hearts". It all sounds great; but, it is self centered and that does not lead people to being pacifists.

yes!!! people praise MLK and Ghandi still, why not try to emulate them?

i feel you guys. people want to praise people like MLK and Ghandi but not take to heart the lessons they teach. i've never really taken part in violent behavior and don't condone it, but i also feel that in some situations it might be useful, if not necessary. take for example a certain kind of bully, oftentimes no number of words can sway a bully's mind. the only thing that gets through to him is a good hard ass kicking.

Pacifism is boring

I have the greatest respect for true pacifists. The people that disguise cowardice with pacifism need to be slapped. Repeatedly.
But true pacifism takes real courage to stand for your convictions. I don't think it is dead, you just don't hear about real, honest, brave people taking a stand that is "media acceptable" anymore.

Originally posted by beezzer
I have the greatest respect for true pacifists. The people that disguise cowardice with pacifism need to be slapped.

What exactly does this mean? ....what is cowardly? If someone doesnt want to hurt someone else, that is cowardly? Was Jesus a coward?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by beezzer
I have the greatest respect for true pacifists. The people that disguise cowardice with pacifism need to be slapped.

What exactly does this mean? ....what is cowardly? If someone doesnt want to hurt someone else, that is cowardly? Was Jesus a coward?

Cowards fear confrontation. Pacifists don't. Pacifists just use a different approach to dealing with it.
Cowards run from responsibility. Pacifists don't. Pacifists embrace responsibility in manner that is different from the way many of us deal with it.
Cowards blur, obfuscate their reasons for their actions. Pacifists don't. Pacifists are very clear in their objectives and goals.

Originally posted by eloquentmassacre
i feel you guys. people want to praise people like MLK and Ghandi but not take to heart the lessons they teach. i've never really taken part in violent behavior and don't condone it, but i also feel that in some situations it might be useful, if not necessary. take for example a certain kind of bully, oftentimes no number of words can sway a bully's mind. the only thing that gets through to him is a good hard ass kicking.

Maybe people aren't saying the right words? If you call a bully an as*hole or tell them "hey stop doing this", it's not gonna be nearly as effective as giving them a verbal ass kicking with something amazing.

But yeah ... it seems like most people really agree with Hammurabi more than they do with Ghandi doesn't it?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by beezzer
I have the greatest respect for true pacifists. The people that disguise cowardice with pacifism need to be slapped.

What exactly does this mean? ....what is cowardly? If someone doesnt want to hurt someone else, that is cowardly? Was Jesus a coward?

Cowards fear confrontation. Pacifists don't. Pacifists just use a different approach to dealing with it.
Cowards run from responsibility. Pacifists don't. Pacifists embrace responsibility in manner that is different from the way many of us deal with it.
Cowards blur, obfuscate their reasons for their actions. Pacifists don't. Pacifists are very clear in their objectives and goals.

Why is cowardice seen as wicked anyway? I would say it's weakness more than malice. But yeah, I know what you mean - an opportunist "pacifist" might preach pacifism towards them when they are the enemy, but use violence to defend themselves. That is not only a coward it is also a hypocrite.

reply to post by descartes90


I love the ideal, but that is only what it is. Sadly lacking in practicality, I would probably fall under the hypocrite and coward category as I abhor violence yet would use it to defend myself if absolutely needed. Unfortunately violence is the only language some people converse in and comprehend.

I have much respect for Pacifists (the true kind), ATS needs more of them. This is my first post in quite some time mainly due to the infiltration of the far right (I wouldn't even call myself a leftie), just look at the thread I was directed from to here - acid retribution - all those stars in support of barbarism. Depressingly yuck.

Originally posted by Goathief
reply to post by descartes90

 

I love the ideal, but that is only what it is. Sadly lacking in practicality, I would probably fall under the hypocrite and coward category as I abhor violence yet would use it to defend myself if absolutely needed. Unfortunately violence is the only language some people converse in and comprehend.

I have much respect for Pacifists (the true kind), ATS needs more of them. This is my first post in quite some time mainly due to the infiltration of the far right (I wouldn't even call myself a leftie), just look at the thread I was directed from to here - acid retribution - all those stars in support of barbarism. Depressingly yuck.

What do you think of non-lethal weapons? Perhaps violence isn't always unavoidable, but maybe murder is?

reply to post by descartes90


I can certainly agree with that, conditions permitting.

Remain starry-eyed, it's extremely important that some people do for we as a species are at risk of regressing.

Originally posted by Goathief
reply to post by descartes90

 

I can certainly agree with that, conditions permitting.

Remain starry-eyed, it's extremely important that some people do for we as a species are at risk of regressing.

In a way I am a warrior to, I believe I help others by refusing to believe in Evil. because i set an example.