Pacifism is cowardice!

I think your theory is severely flawed and your painting with a very,very broad brush.. I don't feel that cowardice is a constant idiom to pacifism. Many of times the bigger man is the one that turns the other cheek. Diffusing or resolving a situation peacefully takes a lot more courage than dropping the gloves and resorting to violence. I think you may realize this as you get older My dad always told me "choose my battles carefully", as cliché as that statement is, it's been pondered by me many of times in my life. I feel it's very possible to stand up for one's morals and do so without anger, violence and cowardice. Maybe there's some truth to "the meek shall inherit the earth"?
I also don't think pacifist alway look down on people as you seem to think. Just my two pieces of copper.

Violence is for those who do not accept what reality has given them. They brain refuses to accept something, so they resort to the only thing they feel they can do, destroy what reality has given them.

I feel sorry for those people who constitute violence, it's really quite a primitive function. That being said, i believe violence is only acceptable when it's to save a life, and then i wouldn't call it violence, but self defense. There is a thin line between the two.

Originally posted by revmoofoo
As I've grown older I've become a pacifist. Which isn't an easy task when you have anger issues and PTSD (to name but 2 of the many reasons why I became a pacifist) Sure, I was in the Army and sure I was a martial arts instructor. However, just because I still have all the skills (and still practice them 20 years on) that doesn't mean I have to use them.

That said, I will (and have done in the past) fight to defend my family...show me a loving soul who wouldn't.

I'm not a coward, but I am a pacifist who has seen far too much of life to be anything else.

Rev

edit on 28/5/2012 by revmoofoo because: ETA

I might call you rational.
Yes, a pacifist can and will fight to save their family and loved ones.
A pacifist puts a tangible value on peace - happy to be one myself.

reply to post by My_Reality


Please post some links or anything to prop up this RASH of yours..
YoU said
"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. "

Got something like from POL POT?? Duh just duh
ljb

Originally posted by Gauss
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.

Strange is totally correct.
Strange? Fn Bizarre with out a doubt I DARE you to Quantify you lingo above.
Pure nonsense. garbage.
bla muddle ljb

So this guy was a coward?



and these people?



Let me remind you that both sets of people were unarmed when shot dead. Unless you call throwing tear gas canisters back a form of armament. Just because your not fighting back doesn't mean that your a coward. It takes balls to stand up to someone with a gun when all you have is a flower in your hand. Personally I am not a pacifist but I do respect their ideals, and some HAVE died for their beliefs.

Originally posted by Germanicus
What pacifism really is,is us being told that we must live with dishonour.

I like that a samuria would remove your head for looking at him the wrong way.

I like that a samurai will commit seppuku before he would even consider living with the shame of being dishonoured.

Why cant we have duels? You should be able to work out your own problems.

Society is designed for the weak,cowardly merchant. They have crafted society in a way that prevents us from having justice.

Now all the pathetic,weak,rude jerks of the world have taken over. Everyone is a coward. Its sickening. People should be ashamed of themselves. Society should be ashamed.

There are so many societies in history that value being a warrior and value maintaining your honour.

Our Western Society is a pathetic,scared,dispicable,cowardly poor excuse of a society. Im not sure if it can be changed because most of you really are pathetic cowards.

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

Anybody can fight. Anybody.
We train dogs to do it.
We train people to do it.
It takes brains not to fight.
Conflict resolution is a talent. Fighting is an impulse.
We don't need any more warriors.
We need doctors and teachers.

Society should be ashamed it has not ended war already.

reply to post by asmall89


My faviorite

Anwar al-Sadat
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/sadat.html - Similarto Anwar al-Sadat

Biography of the Egyptian president, with links to key events and full-text documents. From the Jewish Virtual Library.
A real mans man. Please read this magnificent mans bio.

ljb

Lennon not so much

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Ah Anwar Sadatt, I've heard lots about him from my Mom she always admired him for the way he dealt with the Israeli's. Again this guy became a martyr. If anybody wants to find the pacifists in the world just look at a list of martyrs. He was a good guy although I didn't like the outlawing of protest and shari'a law thing towards the end. But hey it's not my country.

reply to post by asmall89


No it doesn't take balls to stand up to someone with a gun with a flower and just let them shoot you down, it takes a fool.

What takes balls is standing up and being willing to kill those who would strip you and others around you of inalienable rights at the peril of your own life. That takes balls. It also takes discipline and dedication.

It simply takes stupidity to waste your life for nothing and accomplish nothing but giving other fools fodder to feed their cowardice.

That is exactly what pacifism does is waste the life of someone who could've stood up and helped to protect against those who would take away your liberty.

Flowers are nice to smell, and pretty to look at and some are soft to the touch, they do nothing to stop those with the desire to use you for their own selfish ends.

When there is no one who wishes to dominate others, then we can have true peace...

As long as there are those who wish to dominate others, the best we can do is instill the will to overcome those who would steal our liberty for their own ends in our society and fight for a society that holds individual liberty and personal responsibility above ALL else.

Jaden

I'm a proud lover of peace and I can say that it is.harder to walk away from a confrontation then it is to fight.
I believe in preserving peace by all means but there is a time to fight.
A wise man is the one.that knows when it's appropriate to do ether.
I believe selfdefence is .every humans God given right.
I will defend myself, loved ones, strangers or anyone unable to defend themselves.
I have defended myself in the past and will do so until I leave this level of egxistance.
I have gotten very good at avoiding fights by just not arguing or not dealing with certain kinds of people.
But I will fu$& your world up if I have to.
I believe the concept of pacifism is promoted by the people that benifit from docile populations.
MLK is someone I respect but the reason he was promoted as the head of the civil rights movement Is because his pacifistic message posed no real threat to the system.
If you call me names ill walk away, but if you pose a threat to my health and well being then i'm gonna try my best to stomp you until you are mush.
Regardless of what some might think it does take courage to stand up.
If more people stood up the world wouldn't be in the shape it's in.
I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

reply to post by Masterjaden


Who ever said these people weren't fighting for something?

Just because they don't use a gun doesn't mean they are not fighting for something.
Joan of Arc could be considered a pacifist, was she a coward?
Most of the martyr's in history were pacifists in some manner. Martin Luther King Jr. is another.

Sticking to your beliefs no matter what the penalty is bravery.
Killing isn't bravery, it is killing.

It takes a brave man, armed to the teeth, to face an unarmed one!

Haha! Yeah right!

The way I look at it: I train my mind and body as a weapon, and hope no one forces me to use it. I am against war, unless you are fighting off some invaders. Some might say that is pacifism. I train in hand to hand, knife fighitng, knife throwing, tomohawk throwing, and marksmanship. Mostly because it is fun, but it might also be useful. Marksmanship is useful now, puts game on the table.

Just because I am capable of dealing damage, does not mean I wish to use that against my brothers. If myself, my family, and or my neighbors were being threatened, I can and will use my useful tools to put down the threat. Or die trying.

That's the ancient way of the warrior for my kind. Too bad most of my kind have lost that part of their spirit.

I think a person has to have the capacity to take life and make a conscious decision not to in order to be labeled a pacifist. I have skillsets that have served me well in life, these skillsets and tools simply give me more options in how I choose to deal with situations. Having control over a situation will reduce the chances of me having to resort to violence in order to resolve it.

If I've exhausted all other options and run out of tools will I resort to violence to end a dangerous situation? Certainly and without hesitation.

Is it something I look forward to doing? No. And I think this is the biggest misunderstanding when It comes to how sheep interpret people like me. Being competent and prepared to handle violent encounters if they occur does not make me want violent encounters to occur anymore than having fire extinguishers and smoke alarms in my home make me want someone to set my home on fire.




"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

-Jeff Cooper

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. The man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by better men than himself."

It is a bit much to call it cowardice. I'm not a pacifist as such, but I wouldn't want to fight in a war since I am against killing other human beings. In a war, soldiers are only tools under the control of the people in charge. Those fighting on the other side are only following orders like our side.

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


There are times when choices have to be made, the bigger picture to be looked at, but a lot of the time it is done on a spur with less than a moments notice.
The OP is a bit generalistic and a bit degrading IMHO especially coming from a 'former soldier', pacifists make a choice and when confronted by danger to themselves and their loved ones then you cannot judge them for a decision, and seeing as the OP wants to cast a generalist view on things and call pacifists 'cowards' then I call all soldiers cowards then, for not standing up to their commanders and questioning their orders with 'Do we have to go to a foreign land for 'our defence'? Why do we have to fight? Is this legal and moral? who profits from this war?'.
Soldiers follow orders sure but if they were truly a defensive against evil then why are they in other countries ATTACKING? Defending the homeland should be just that? at home defending it? how is being in another country defending your home?

So pacifists are called cowards by the OP then I say former soldiers are the same for not questioning why they were there seeing as they have a bit of spare time to deride online those that choose not to fight for war profiteers.

|too much devision between the citizenry rather than go after the ones that really caused all this death and destruction but Im sure the soldiers who hate those that dont fight wont pick up the flag for those they claim to be fighting for.
And I bet that this OP , this 'former soldier' will be one of those called up to fight the pacifists at home when the government tells them to, cause they are simply pacifists in his opinion and wouldn't put up much of a fight.

I think that it is important to understand the key difference between outright pacifism, and the understandable unwillingness to be a part of the military, or support its aims.

My nations military forces were deployed by Tony Blair, on a false premise years ago, and legions of regular folks came out in protest. They were not all pacifists, many of them were ex services themselves. They did not protest because they were mewling weaklings with no backbone. They protested because they believed the choice to make war was a bad one, one that would bring nothing but dishonour and hatred to our shores, and they were right, every last one of them.

Personally speaking, I am more than happy to take up hammers, axes, knives, staves, and anything else I have to hand, to defend my nation, and to defend my family and friends. But I am not happy to wear a uniform that marks me as one who has given up responsibility for his actions, handed his fate to the lesser animals that politicians and military leaders represent. I would bathe in the blood of thousands before allowing an attacker at our gates to stand un harried, but I will not hand over my right to self determination to some political establishment, the motives of which are not pure, just, or even lawful in some cases.

It is important to defend ones home and land. However, the security of my nation is not worth sacrificing the ethics by which we ought to live. There is not, and never will be any possible justification for invading a nation which happens to contain terrorists. There is not and never will be any justification for causing more civillian non combatant deaths, than genuine military target kills. These things however, are not important enough to the politicians, and the top military brass, whose honourless behavior and attitude to them are an insult to the people they command and the people they protect, as well as to those the government deems its enemies.

It is a matter of intent. I refuse point blank, to join an organisation which has impure intent, and is lead by people who are so morally retarded, as those who currently hold the reigns. That does not mean I have no fire in my belly, or protective instinct toward my fellow countrymen. It merely means that the way we survive ought to be more important than the fact of our survival.

In a choice between surviving as a horrid, ill mannered, ill spirited bunch of genocidal savages, or dying having never killed an innocent person by accident, never abused an enemies corpse for ammusement, and having retained dignity and a measure of respect for ones self and his fellow man, I will take option two any day.

reply to post by DataWraith


I am a pacifist. I am secondary Teacher and will explain to Students that I am a pacifist and teach them about the meaning of the word and relate it to the word Peace.

One day a few weeks ago a Student turned to me and said - Miss would you take a bullet for me?
I replied - In a heartbeat - of course I would.
He continued - So Miss if a crazed person came into the classroom...
I did not let him finish - I responded - While you are in my care I am responsible for you and I would do anything to protect you. I don't know what I would do - but I would do my absolute best to protect you - all of you. Yes I would take a bullet for you.

I am a Pacifist and will always be a Pacifist - so do not ever suggest I am a coward. To me a coward is someone who needs a weapon. The only reason they need a weapon is because they never had a Teacher to guide them and show them the power and the might of well crafted words.

Much Peace... to everyone for all time and beyond...