Pacifism is cowardice!

reply to post by Gauss


lol your disgusted by people who wish no harm on others... hmmm great philosophy I hope your not religious or have any denomination for that matter. So just a question, your a human, you've clearly taken pain before we all have and there is nothing worse for a human then pain. Knowing that and being a pacifist and taking an ass whooping to stand up for what you believe in takes more courage then anyone who has tried to physically out do someone. Pulling a trigger takes no courage, and your post is a clear reason to why this world is full up irrelevant morons. Take care.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I absolutely agree as well flyersfan, he painted a BROAD brush stroke and for that reason probably made my original post a little meaner. But I absolutely agree, there is a time to fight but I am in no way shape or form thinking humans, with as intelligent as we are, can't find a substitute for war... that's pathetic.

There would be a lot more pacifists and far fewer wars if those calling for bloodshed the loudest and orchestrating the conflicts were expected to pick up a rifle and lead from the front!

It always amazes me that people will still go fight and die in wars created by nasty little bankers and politicians, and think they are somehow serving their country and doing something honourable. We see it all the time these days where praise for the uniformed guys must be shown at all times, as it's simply unpatriotic to do otherwise. After all, they are abroad killing goat herders to protect our freedoms.... right?

Sorry, I refuse to fall into line with all the macho BS, which is how it is designed to be used to spoon feed the population on course to war. Pacifism is indeed not cowardice. Cowardice is creating the conflicts in the first place for simple financial and political gain, then sending off the troops to kill or be killed invading another country while you sit at home checking the daily stock prices of your investments in the military industrial complex!

Over the years I have become vehemently anti-war and a pacifist. I see no reason to go fight others to profit someone else, which is blatantly behind nearly all the worlds conflicts right now, if you take the time to look. Defending my loved ones and family from harm is another matter though, and I will fight to the death anyone foreign or domestic that intends to do them harm.

Think about this for a moment: we are told all the time that we must fight the brown hut dwellers and occupy their lands, as they want to deny us our freedoms. However, it is only our government that can give or take freedoms from us, not someone huddled in a cave thousands of miles away, and it is indeed our own government that keeps pushing ever harsher authoritarianism on us, in the name of protecting our freedoms!

I mean, seriously, how the hell do people still allow them to get away with it?

Off my soapbox now... rant over!

I personally think the TRUE pacifist is very brave.. Someone who has the conviction to turn the other cheek is harder than the one resorting to violence which is easier to do than just stand there and keep check of yourself..

I do not have time for the sniffling cowards who parade themselves as pacifist to hide their cowardice.. Wimpy cowards who would runaway rather than stand up for loved ones...

But war is hell.. Believe me I know... But I thank God that there are anti-war people out there, people who bring tptb to account for their bloodthirsty actions and keep peoples eyes opened and informed... And the TRUE pacifist?? Is a braver man than me..

reply to post by Germanicus


What's that? Big tough man you are? Kill someone because they ( might have) looked at you in a wrong way?
You're right violence is awesome and honourable. I hope you beat your kids, I hope you beat up the homeless for asking a quarter, I hope you carry your gun around you know, in case you meet several armed men ready to take your wallet or your life, I hope that if we meet, you stab me in the throat for saying "hello"

I am a coward who thinks that all must be lost for violence to be of use.
Have you ever had an argument with a friend? How did it get taken care of by discussion or a good right hook to the face?
Big man?

reply to post by AboveBoard


This scene from Babylon 5 fairly illustrates your point:



OP: You come from a soldier's point of view. You've been trained to attack and defend an aggressor. There's nothing wrong with that...the world needs muscle from time to time. Pacifists, however, choose to use their words to fight with. It only works, however, with someone who has intelligence enough to understand their message.

Unfortunately, and more often than not, the muscle doesn't get it, and calls them cowards.

/TOA

reply to post by Gauss


Then I apologize for misjudging you.

reply to post by Gauss


I am all for peace, but sometimes people don't understand anything else but a beating...but I mostly leave that for my training/fighting sessions in the gym these days.

reply to post by Gauss


I think its fair to say that everyone ought to be prepared to fight for thier rights, and for the rights of thier fellow man. However, I think it is important to make the distinction between political pacifism, like that demonstrated by the anti-war movement, and the kind of handwringing patheticism that sees people refuse to give a mugger or gangbanger a good hard kicking.

Again, it is not violence and defensive behaviour that is wrong, but the motivations of those who most frequently excersize thier violence which are wrong.

reply to post by Gauss


I'm not a pacifist. Don't get me wrong, I love peace. peace is where advancements are made. Peace is where children should be raised. Peace is where Old folks (and young ones too, for that matter) ought to live. Peace is where people get to do their own thing unmolested, and in that doing, create.

I love peace.

Fighting and killing is messy, crazy-making, and it stinks. Literally stinks. it smells bad. There's mud, blood, cordite, and the smells of raw meat and eviscerated guts to have to deal with. I don't fight any more unless a fight is forced on me. When it is, I do my damnedest to annihilate my enemy, and make that annihilation as complete as humanly possible. I try to erase not only them, but everything associated with them. I would erase even their memory amongst man if that were possible.

Because I love peace, and want it back as soon as I can get it. The quickest way to do that is erasure of your adversaries, who won't let it happen.

I love peace, but no one should ever mistake me for a pacifist.

reply to post by Gauss


I consider myself a pacifist, but that doesn't mean I won't protect the people I love if need be. It's funny, you say you dislike pacifists for "being on their high horses" and trying to instill their beliefs on others, yet that is exactly what you are doing in this thread. To me being a pacifist means I won't instigate. But to say it means I won't protect the people I love is down right ignorant.

Originally posted by The X
It is a part of evolution as a species, we either continue to be emotionally, spiritually bereft, incapable of solving anything other than by violence, or, we all eventually progress.
In time we will all progress.

You go ahead and "progress" to your hearts content. While you're doing that, there are those of us around who will try to provide the peaceful environment you need to make that happen. We do that by employing violence against those who just won't leave you alone in peace.

To say it is ok to use violence for one reason or another, implies that it is ok to use violence.

Of course it's OK to use violence. If you refuse to use it for any reason, you are then at the complete mercy of those who will use it for any reason. They don't care what you believe - they'll just beat you down and move on to your mother or your sister.

It is not for you to label "Pacifists" as weak, My understanding of Life is obviously much different to yours, if you come to kill me, then you kill me, simple, i do not *Die*, i undergo a transition.
I do not feel the need to defend myself against your idiocy using more idiocy, i do not feel the need to engage violence against you.

Which is the reason for the existence of us violent types - so you don't have to be. We'd like to see you live long enough to find out whether an individual organism can "evolve" or not. We are fairly certain that dead ones don't do much of anything at all other than rot. The "evolution" of the dead ones is certainly at an end.

Consider us as not a part of the problem, it will likely be people like me who would walk on to a battlefield and recover the wounded, i am not afraid of violence or pain, i have experienced much of both in my life, this is why i choose, based on experience, to neither inflict or encourage violence against others.

Walking on to a battlefield, whatever your reason, is not a hard thing. The hard part comes in walking OFF of that battlefield, under your own power. You can't do much to help the wounded if you get killed yourself.

As for defending others, i would with my life, if that means putting myself between you and an attacker, so be it, in fact, i believe the best death you could have is in the defence of someone else either from accident or violence.
Doesn't mean i have to fight back.

A noble sentiment, but in practice completely useless. The attacker's bullets will just kill you AND THEN whomever it is you thought you were protecting by taking that bullet. A much more viable option is to drop the attacker in his own tracks. If you can do that, THEN you have protected something or someone.

And i don't look down on you for thinking as you do, I don't look down on anything for thinking as it does, there is plenty of time for all of us to evolve.

Not me. My evolution is done. I've never, ever, seen a single organism, or even an entire single generation of organisms "evolve". I do, however, hold out high hopes for you to do so, and to that end intend to ensure that you have a life with which to "evolve", and the peace to attempt it in.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Gauss

 

I'm not a pacifist. Don't get me wrong, I love peace. peace is where advancements are made. Peace is where children should be raised. Peace is where Old folks (and young ones too, for that matter) ought to live. Peace is where people get to do their own thing unmolested, and in that doing, create.

I love peace.

Fighting and killing is messy, crazy-making, and it stinks. Literally stinks. it smells bad. There's mud, blood, cordite, and the smells of raw meat and eviscerated guts to have to deal with. I don't fight any more unless a fight is forced on me. When it is, I do my damnedest to annihilate my enemy, and make that annihilation as complete as humanly possible. I try to erase not only them, but everything associated with them. I would erase even their memory amongst man if that were possible.

Because I love peace, and want it back as soon as I can get it. The quickest way to do that is erasure of your adversaries, who won't let it happen.

I love peace, but no one should ever mistake me for a pacifist.

Well said, dude. I agree wholeheartedly. I take Krav Maga classes on my spare time. It's different from when I did it in the military, but the basics are still the same; Use raw force and brutality to take down your opponent as quickly as possible, and make sure he doesn't get up again - for everybody's safety.

Originally posted by Britguy

Think about this for a moment: we are told all the time that we must fight the brown hut dwellers and occupy their lands, as they want to deny us our freedoms. However, it is only our government that can give or take freedoms from us, not someone huddled in a cave thousands of miles away, and it is indeed our own government that keeps pushing ever harsher authoritarianism on us, in the name of protecting our freedoms!

I mean, seriously, how the hell do people still allow them to get away with it?

Off my soapbox now... rant over!

Sorry for only quoting and replying to a short part of your post, dude, but I wanted to focus on this specifically, because there's a misconception in this world that every military out there operates for the same reasons that the US does in the eyes of many.

That's simply not true.

My country (Sweden) have been sending soldiers to Africa, Bosnia/Kosovo and Afghanistan for over sixty years now. But we do not do it because they threaten our freedom - how could they, as you pointed out, when they are pretty much on the other side of the planet? No, we send soldiers there under the flag of the United Nations (Or, unfortunately, in the case of A-Stan, NATO/ISAF) to help instill peace in their country, help the population improve their life standards, and just make it a better world, country and life for everybody.

Similarly, even if American soldiers travel to Iraq and Afghanistan to invade the country because of the oil or whatever other reasons the politicians can think up, that does not automatically make their fight pointless, as long as they too strive to act in their role as soldiers, with honor, dignity, and respect towards the local population - as long as they do their best to indeed improve the lives of the local population, from the religious dictatorship that was in place before they came there.

Not sure if I get my point across, but there you have it. Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by NoLoveInFear46and2
reply to post by Germanicus

 

What's that? Big tough man you are? Kill someone because they ( might have) looked at you in a wrong way?
You're right violence is awesome and honourable. I hope you beat your kids, I hope you beat up the homeless for asking a quarter, I hope you carry your gun around you know, in case you meet several armed men ready to take your wallet or your life, I hope that if we meet, you stab me in the throat for saying "hello"

I am a coward who thinks that all must be lost for violence to be of use.
Have you ever had an argument with a friend? How did it get taken care of by discussion or a good right hook to the face?
Big man?

You're not a coward, mate. You said the magic words; "All must be lost for violence to be of use". That's exactly what I'm preaching here, but at least then, violence is there as an acceptable last resort to save the day. That does not mean I'm advocating senseless violence. So do please stop with the sarcasm, accusations of wife beating, 'n #. Peace, bro.

Originally posted by ssupp
reply to post by Gauss

 

Then I apologize for misjudging you.

Not at all, bro. The good thing about words are that they don't cause permanent damage.

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by Gauss

 

I am all for peace, but sometimes people don't understand anything else but a beating...but I mostly leave that for my training/fighting sessions in the gym these days.

I'm the same way. I guess that means we're both lucky. But I've chosen the life of an adventurer, which means travelling to dangerous countries once in a while. And there does come a time when a person must put up or shut up. As long as his own life is the only one in danger, nobody can blame the pacifist for choosing what ultimately boils down to death. But if he chooses pacifism even in the face of innocent people being in danger...then that boils down to cowardice. As you say, "sometimes people don't understand anything else but a beating".

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Gauss

 

I think its fair to say that everyone ought to be prepared to fight for thier rights, and for the rights of thier fellow man. However, I think it is important to make the distinction between political pacifism, like that demonstrated by the anti-war movement, and the kind of handwringing patheticism that sees people refuse to give a mugger or gangbanger a good hard kicking.

Again, it is not violence and defensive behaviour that is wrong, but the motivations of those who most frequently excersize thier violence which are wrong.

You're absolutely right, dude. There's nothing wrong with, and everybody has the right to, protesting wars that they find unjust. Some, during the Cold War, would call this cowardice, even outright treason. I say they're brave who dares to do that. But the second kind of pacifism, the one you so perfectly described as handwringing patheticism, is something I can't stand, and see as pure, undilluted cowardice.

Indeed, it's all about the motives when it comes to justification of violence.

Originally posted by Britguy
There would be a lot more pacifists and far fewer wars if those calling for bloodshed the loudest and orchestrating the conflicts were expected to pick up a rifle and lead from the front!

This is absoloutely spot on- definitely in modern times, and whilst no Nazi I always thought Rudolph Hess' story was amazing, parachuting alone into foreign territory to sue for peace (only to be incarcerated for life and mysteriously die.........)- can we imagine the likes of Bush, Obama, Cameron etc doing hat..........

Originally posted by seberhar
reply to post by Gauss

 

I consider myself a pacifist, but that doesn't mean I won't protect the people I love if need be. It's funny, you say you dislike pacifists for "being on their high horses" and trying to instill their beliefs on others, yet that is exactly what you are doing in this thread. To me being a pacifist means I won't instigate. But to say it means I won't protect the people I love is down right ignorant.

I guess you're right. The difference is, my high horse of disdain is born from theirs. What angers me the most is that they seem to look down at anybody who doesn't share their beliefs that violence is wrong in every form, even when it is used to protect the innocent. You'd be surprised how many people like that there are in my home country. I cannot blame somebody for pacifism if they ultimately are prepared to abandon it to protect others, if necessary.