Pacifism is cowardice!

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by DataWraith

 

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.

I respect your view, but the cold reality of life is this. You can't reason with people that are unreasonable. If everyone was you, this would be a great place. But unfortunately the world isn't like that. There are evil people in this world that are full of malice, that spread misery, hate and malcontent, there are people that don't value life and have no qualms with taking it and all of the words in the world won't stop them from doing so. "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it"

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)

Or maybe you take life way to seriously.

reply to post by CallYourBluff


While I consider OP's comments to be flawed and blinkered in the extreme, and almost certainly designed to get people angry, I cannot agree with your statement either. Life can be beautiful, hilarious, epic, and wonderful. But sometimes, some scenarios demand solemnity and focus.

It cannot be carnival day every day!

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by DataWraith

 

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.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it"

an unarmed man can do a whole lot more than flee from evil!



story of the above video

a lot of people seem to be stuck on the idea that if you don't use violence you are a coward which is a false dichotomy.

I agree that here in america we've lost that warrior spirit. Lack of honor is also pretty commonplace too. I'm not a violent man, but when threatened, do what you have to do. If someone clearly means to harm you and yours, do not hesitate to eliminate the threat. You can argue the philosophy of it afterwards

Originally posted by buster2010

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.

Right. You're a real hero, and a tough guy, aren't you? Actually, you sound like a bully to me. And since you know nothing of me, I'll just mark you off as an insecure idiot.

Originally posted by emptyOmind
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!!

Actually the Tank Man from Tianaman Square is one of my idols. He had lots of testicular fortitude.

reply to post by Gauss


that's right and he didn't use violence

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

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

I'm sorry. I have no idea what you're talking about. Try English, then we can actually have a productive conversation. Pleeeeease and thank ya.

surely it is a rather sweeping statetement- it is only cowardice if you do it out of fear?

What about those pacifists who would rather face the firing squad than lift a weapon in anger- they are not cowards?

You're probably one of those people that think we're in Afghanistan and Iraq to ''protect our freedom'', am I right?

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
"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."

Great quote, dude. Still rings true to this day, as proven by some of the posts in this thread.

America is not in any current justifiable war - her actions have resulted in the deaths and mutilations of men, women and kids, this is not the actions of "better men"

Originally posted by DataWraith
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.

You assume I consider everybody who does not want to fight in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pacifists, which is quite wrong and quite stupid. Nobody can be asked to participate in a wrongful war. Besides, my country does not engage in war. It participates in peacekeeping operations. You sould learn the difference one of these days.

And the OP, this "former soldier", as you put it, whom you know nothing of, would never raise his weapon against innocent civilians. Yet I would gladly put my life on the line to protect the same, even if it meant using violence against someone else to do so.

reply to post by TrueBrit


I'm not blaming anyone for not wanting to go to war - although sometimes it is necessary. Especially not today when we're fighting a war that partly is for profits. But if there's nothing you're prepared to fight for, then you're lacking something fundamental in your brain, in my opinion. That's what I'm saying with my OP. Of course, people who are too lazy to read through the entire thread and who are offended by my statement likes to make me out to be some kind of war mongerer.

Originally posted by CallYourBluff

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)

Or maybe you take life way to seriously.

If you knew me you would never have said that. But this place is a place for serious discussions. If you don't like that, then there's always the off-topic sections.

Originally posted by emptyOmind
reply to post by Gauss

 

that's right and he didn't use violence

Well, one might say that would be because an unarmed man can't do much against a tank, but I'll give you that point.

Originally posted by ssupp
You're probably one of those people that think we're in Afghanistan and Iraq to ''protect our freedom'', am I right?

Errr, no? I don't know about the US and UK, because those are not my countries. My country is there to help the population rebuild their lives and society without the oppression of religious nutcases. They're also helping in ending the opium trade by destroying opium crops and handing out crops that are actually edible as replacement. So, no, we did not send our soldiers to Afghanistan to protect my or your freedom.

reply to post by Gauss


Pacifism can be cowardice if it's motivated by self interest. Pacifism can also be a form of bravery, especially when it requires taking the stand against those who condemn all forms of pacifism as cowardice. Going to war and/or engaging in violence can also be forms of cowardice just as they can also require bravery. It depends on motivation and intent, and how the act benefits or hurts others. I've been in the military myself and my experience tells me your point of view toes the line with military protocol.

Personally, I would prefer to live in a world of pacifists if it meant living in a world without violence.

Matthew 5:9 - “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

Originally posted by MuonSpin
reply to post by Gauss

 

Pacifism can be cowardice if it's motivated by self interest. Pacifism can also be a form of bravery, especially when it requires taking the stand against those who condemn all forms of pacifism as cowardice. Going to war and/or engaging in violence can also be forms of cowardice just as they can also require bravery. It depends on motivation and intent, and how the act benefits or hurts others. I've been in the military myself and my experience tells me your point of view toes the line with military protocol.

Personally, I would prefer to live in a world of pacifists if it meant living in a world without violence.

Matthew 5:9 - “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

I'd rather live in a world of pacifists too if there was no violence. But as long as there is violence, pacifism is dangerous. I'm not a warmongerer, I'm just a person who despises those that are unwilling to protect others.