Originally posted by Gauss
I'm sure this post will ruffle a few feathers. That's what it's intended for...
Thanks for the heads up. You want
to piss people off. You are a pugilist. Got it.
Pacifism is opposition to war and fighting, but in recent days, it is more of an opposition to any and all forms of violence.
That's a pretty shallow reading of what pacifism is, but I don't blame you since you made it clear from the beginning that you are not a pacifist.
Here is my definition for pacifism: the belief that conflict is best
resolved by non-violent means.
Pacifists are cowards who renounce any and all responsibility to protect the people they love. Pacifism is an excuse not to take
For me pacifism also involves the concept that "loved ones" is an inclusive category, not exclusive. Everyone counts as a loved one, so pacifism is
about taking on additional responsibility in the approach to conflict-resolution.
Those people were hypocrites, as it turns out. It's easy to renounce violence until the day comes when your family is threatened.
Is it actually
easy to renounce violence? Are the times when one's family is in mortal danger the only times one resorts to violence? I
think no and no. Practicing pacifism requires discipline and sustained effort just like any other practice, so it is certain that pacifists will
occasionally fail; failure is part of practice. You call this hypocrisy; I call it learning.
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.
If that's what we all wish for, then why do you have a problem with those who strive to create that world? If no one calls for non-violent
resolutions to conflict, then what chances do we have of seeing it happen?
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.
Are you really trying to demonize the people who stick to their morals...? If you honestly feel that the ends justify the means, then why does it
bother you what people think or say about your decisions? If you feel righteous in your utilitarianism, shouldn't you be immune to the opinions of
To me, as a former soldier, pacifism is the unwillingness to risk your own life to protect those you love. In other words -
Well to me, as a former Marine, pacifism is the practice of preventive medicine, wherein conflicts are addressed before they ever get to the point of
Yes I imagine it would be difficult to maintain pacifism in the particular context you referred to in this post. However I have never in my life been
in a situation that forced me to resort to violence to protect my "loved ones." I have never been in a fight, and I have never killed anyone.
Maybe I am just lucky, or maybe I just know how to sow the seeds that I want to reap.
I am left wondering about a few things at the end of your thread. Are you suggesting that everyone should abandon pacifism in favor of a mindset in
which violence is justified and honorable under the premise that it defends "loved ones?" Do you recognize that this is the same rhetoric used by
the war-mongering Neo-Conservative propaganda? Do you understand that this is a slam dunk way of ensuring that the world stays in a state of
perpetual violence and war?
If you are a soldier, perhaps you have actually been to the Middle East and seen first hand what this paradigm leads to, as I have. That is not the
kind of world I want to work toward, and if that makes me a coward then so be it.
We all wish there could be a world where we didn't have to use violence.
It's easy to wish. Pacifists walk your talk, and you bash them for it. That, friend, is hypocrisy.