Pacifism is cowardice!

Some of the bravest people I have ever known are pacifist's. Sometime's not wanting to make war does a whole lot to foul your life up. It may be cowardice for some, or great bravery. Depends on the person and the situation. More on the person having the balls to say "no" Its usually easier to go along with the crowd and say yes.

Originally posted by Gauss
I'm sure this post will ruffle a few feathers. That's what it's intended for, so knock yourselves out.



If there's anything in this world that disgusts me, then it's pacifists. Pacifists put themselves on high horses, and look down on others who do not follow their beliefs - who are willing to get their hands dirty to protect others. Pacifism is opposition to war and fighting, but in recent days, it is more of an opposition to any and all forms of violence. I will say this; Pacifists aren't just dilusional fools who walk through life thinking it's some kind of happy rainbow lane in Candyland, all the while looking down at people from their high horses.

No. Pacifists are cowards who renounce any and all responsibility to protect the people they love. Pacifism is an excuse not to take responsibility, and easy to hold on to until you know how difficult it is to watch your loved ones suffer. I have yet to meet a pacifist who retained his belief in pacifism when his loved ones were threatened. Those people were hypocrites, as it turns out. It's easy to renounce violence until the day comes when your family is threatened.

We all wish there could be a world where we didn't have to use violence. But between serial killers, bank robbers, gangbangers, and terrorists, not everybody has the option of putting down their guns and preaching non-violence. Protecting people's lives is more important than some half-baked notion about non-violence, a half-baked notion that, if followed, will cost the lives of innocent people. And yet at the end of the day, the pacifists will still sit on their moral high horses, and look down at anyone who uses violence, no matter how many innocent lives were saved by its use.

To me, as a former soldier, pacifism is the unwillingness to risk your own life to protect those you love. In other words - cowardice.

edit on 28-5-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)

So this is your way of addressing all those that wily nily went to the chambers in WW11?? ARE YOU WELL?? Do you have any IDEA why they were so PASSIVE ??
Errr I think not.
bs arrre theeud ljb

reply to post by longjohnbritches


I'm sorry, what?

First of all, those who went to the chambers just proves my point - if they had fought, at least they had had a fighting chance to survive. Secondly, they didn't just go "wily nily" to the chambers. Read up on the war in the ghetto in Warszaw. Thirdly, if we've learnt anything from World War 2, it's that pacifism does - not - work. Or rather, there are always cases when pacifism will lead to genocide, and violence will lead to less death than pacifism, as strange as it may sound.

reply to post by Gauss


Beautifully put OP.......I completely agree. I'm not religous, but many devout Christians I know believe in not fighting the tyranny, because the world needs to be in shambles for the messiah to come.....I shake my head in disapointment.....because I know this is wrong, but I will dare say it....."that Shariah law must be stopped at all costs" (a former fb friend posted to my wall once) however NDAA, SOPA, CISPA, Angenda 21....not so much.

reply to post by dawnprince

Originally posted by dawnprince

Interesting how the " warrior " way of life is almost extinct.
Society has to have rules or there would be anarchy.

Nobody will ever praise a violent man .!!

True. The warrior way of life is virtually extinct. Interesting how decadent, how dishonorable, how twisted our world has become with the decline of warrior societies. What is truly odd is how the decline of the old, traditional warrior societies coincides with the rise of this decadent, dishonorable, twisted world.

A previous poster was correct...the cowards have taken control. The type of people that will rob people of their money, their property, their livelihood or even their very lives. And they will use the "law" to do it or hide behind the "law" like it was a shield. This is not the type of quality to emulate.

I can't make a generalizing remark regarding all pacifists because there are some out there that are just as honorable as the warriors of old. However, there are also people out there that claim to follow the values of pacifism for ignoble ends. The world of today is a good example. We have politicians, activist groups, and so on that preach to us the values of non-violence and the importance of following the law. Yet, at the same time, we have people out in the world that get away with all kinds of atrocities because the common people no longer have any recourse available to them.

I may seem like I am drifting off topic here but that is not my intent. I am trying to look at this pacifist ideology from a collective standpoint as opposed to an individualist one. In this collective standpoint I see only a population that can no longer prevent tyrants from having their way with the common people. Why? People have been conditioned to believe that they are in the wrong for using violence, even if it is justified. And there are certainly situations in which it is justified.

Oh, and I will praise what you call "a violent man" if that man is honorable. Honorable, violent men have done much throughout history to protect the masses from the greedy manipulations of the few.

reply to post by Gauss


A hand is valuable. So is a foot. If a hand is not able to support the weight of the body for miles on end, does that weakness reduce it's value? If a foot can't tie a shoelace, then should it be denigrated for its inability to do so? No, imposing these requirements would be ridiculous. Both are equally valuable to the body they serve, with some moments allowing one to shine above the other and some moments offering the opposite to occur.

Warriors are needed but those who are driven to pursue peaceful solutions are just as necessary to the survival of human societies. Neither is more necessary and a warrior calling a pacifist a coward is like a foot ridiculing a hand because it doesn't have the ability to carry the weight of body for miles like it can. Truth is that warriors wouldn't last very long if violence was the only means of protecting loved ones. Those loved ones wouldn't last very long either. It takes the capacity to settle issues by mutual agreement for large societies to survive.

Tough talk doesn't protect anyone. Shooting people doesn't stop violence. Winning the peace is what shuts the violence down, and nothing else does. The last 10 years taught us that if it taught us anything at all.

reply to post by My_Reality


Starred your post, dude. Very well written.

I miss the good ol' days.

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Gauss

 

So do soldiers with their high-horse syndrome.

"I'm so important, I wield a gun and shoot brown people to protect your safe...err...poppy fields"

Right. Because all soldiers shoot "brown people" and "protect poppy fields".

I don't know about American soldiers, but I know that my own country's soldiers are in Afghanistan not to protect Americans or Swedes, but to help the civilian population there make a better life for themselves without oppression. That includes destroying opium fields and providing farmers with other crops instead of it.

Looks like you have no problem swallowing the koolaide.

It takes more courage to lay down a weapon than to pick up one.

Weapons only give courage to the weak a truly courageous man needs no weapon.

I don't like kool-aid. I prefer PowerAde. Thanks anyway.

I'll tell you something else. It doesn't take courage to get yourself killed, which is what will often happen if you lay down your weapon, either sooner (if you're lucky), or later. And if you're really unlucky, others will die before you because you weren't there to protect them.

No unlike you I don't need a weapon to kill someone. I know what I am capable of doing and did it quite well in the military. But I already have watched too many friends die and too much blood on my hands to ever want to see it again. If you had ever been in that kind of situation you would know how useless violence can be.

But i know your kind you scream other people are cowards but when bullets start flying your one of the first ones to run and hide in the corner.

Ecclesiastes 3

A Time for Everything

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Which is made possible by those who stand up to the task at hand and a world where a pacifist can exist, but they can only exist by those who do what they do not want to.

I will typically warn someone with pacifism. If someone swings I will typically embarrass said person in front of their friends. I love people who start fights. They are insecure. They are easy to hurt. They show an emotional weakness.

Violence is primitive; how can you possibly claim that pacifism, or rather, preference to peaceful diplomacy over war, is against evolution?

Furthermore, pacifism is not cowardice, and fighting another man's war is not bravery. If you have a reason to fight, then fight, but if you don't know what you're fighting for, you're a tool.

I'm against aggressive violence; I don't support imperialism. If that makes me a coward, then so be it; I don't care much what people think of me, especially if they are that dumb.
Defense of one's homeland is a call to arms; if a person refuses to defend his or her territory, then he/she is a coward. Otherwise, the word "coward" has no bearing and is being used out of context.

A soldier who kills without just cause is no better than a mass murderer, only he gets praised for his atrocities because they are not against his own people.

I don't see why violence is necessary in modern society. It's used unchecked by us against all forms of life including other humans. Almost all violent tendencies can be avoided through proper mental development during childhood. Some people are legally insane and literally can't stop physically harming themselves and others. Other than that, what do we have to fear? What dangerous situation can't be solved peacefully through technology?

Originally posted by kenny71
I will typically warn someone with pacifism. If someone swings I will typically embarrass said person in front of their friends. I love people who start fights. They are insecure. They are easy to hurt. They show an emotional weakness.

I often think it's the angry, violent and those always willing to fight who are insecure and show emotional weakness.

I'm not religious, but Jesus got this right....

"There is no greater love than he who would lay down his life for another."

Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac
I don't see why violence is necessary in modern society. It's used unchecked by us against all forms of life including other humans. Almost all violent tendencies can be avoided through proper mental development during childhood. Some people are legally insane and literally can't stop physically harming themselves and others. Other than that, what do we have to fear? What dangerous situation can't be solved peacefully through technology?

What dangerous situation?.....A guy beating his helpless wife in the WalMart parking lot.

Unless knuckles, palm strikes, and kicks to the head can be considered technology that is

reply to post by Gauss


theres this really famous guy that really didnt like violence.

some would say he preached against it actually.

i think that guy was called jesus christ.

“Put up your sword. All who take the sword die by the sword." -jesus christ

i'd fight for my family or to defend someone else. but when it comes to me, i won't lift a finger to protect myself.

“Put up your sword. All who take the sword die by the sword."

Pick up a sword you will surely die from a bullet

Put up or hands in surrender you will surely die from a bullet

Sometimes you have to pick up that sword,and a gun to make the other one die by them.

Pacifism is a luxury most do not have.,

reply to post by Gauss


while i'm not afraid to stand up for what i believe in, i do disagree with you're warped idea of pacifism and the picture that you posted the link to. there are plenty of times when pacifists have lost their lives because they refused to fight, the Kent State massacre is just one example. Or the tank man at Chang'an Avenue in China.

upload.wikimedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

pacifists aren't cowards, they are pacifists! i could make a much better argument that everyone who uses the internet as a soapbox, to complain or w/e-- is a coward! i'm so sick of everyone talking about how tough they are on the internet!!

Originally posted by rival
I'm not religious, but Jesus got this right....

"There is no greater love than he who would lay down his life for another."

Since when has 'laying down your life' meant sanctioning violence or killing another?

What about " thou shall not kill, covet, steal, lie' et al...forms of violence or a cause of violence.

As far as I can tell, any person who chooses to put the principles of good and right above their ego and desire, lays down their life for another.

I don't believe in the effectiveness of violence...if violence and war and killing worked..we'd already have great world..social cohesion and promise for the future..but we don't...the experiment of two thousand plus years of unchecked mental and physical not to mention ideological and spiritual violence and bloodshed has already failed..and speaking presumptively and collectively, as I see the world, we are worse off for it inside and outside ourselves.

Barely has real diplomacy been given a fair chance as everyone who carried that message of reason or offered a different view of the potential of the human mind and spirit, or anyone who has led the world by example towards the use of reason over brawn, has been shot, otherwise killed or crucified by those who don't want to go that way - those who think we aren't capable of greatness except at the end of a fist or a gun.

People here seem to ignore that its not the bad guys that cop it when you use violence or sanction murder...its the people who suffer, the kids that get caught in the middle..the young and the infirm and elderly, the mothers, who end up paying the price of wars and violence, while the truly violent and diseased minds..get off scott free or worse, get socially promoted and supported so people can in 20 more years time, once again complain about ' all the violence" and so demand more violence to stop it. Its snake oil..a clam shell game...led by those who want people to be subservient cattle not human beings. (subservient to their base desires not just external powers.)

I am grateful I live in a society with laws I can trust reflect my values regarding non violence. I've been to countries where no such laws exist..I know the difference..and know too, the cost of loosing your conscience...as that is what violence eats..and when its gone..its gone and the not so pretty flip side of 'anythings possible' takes over..

The image of that one guy standing before the line of tanks in Tienanmen Square came to mind when i read this this morning.....as I still consider him one of the bravest men to have ever lived....and all he had his truth..his conviction..and his courage.


Ro