Pacifism is cowardice!

page: 18
28
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42,




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
As a Christian I do believe in being peaceful natured, but Pacifism sadly is not the way to go...

I think only a very small percentage of people a truly what you could call a "pacifist".

What happens when your family is being attacked, and your the only man of the household, but you hold a pacifist philosophy? Even the bible says that there is a time for everthing: Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: I believe this also includes violence.

Of course violence is not always just, but theirs a time when you must stand up for what you believe. But pacifists tend to sit down for what they believe...


Oh and a common misconception: JESUS WAS A PACIFIST.

Um no he wasn't folks, read book of revelations. Jesus of Nazareth is returning with a sword as a conquering Lord.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


You would be somewhat right, but the idea that non-intervention is a tenent of the whole spectrum of Buddha philosophy is wholely incorrect. The Buddha himself, meditating upon innumerable past lives, observed that he justifiably killed a man in a past life to protect others.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Pacifism and a warrior mentality are two forms of ideology both have a cause and effect.
Every person has to make their own personal choice for their own reasons.
Fighting, turning the other cheek or just walking away are all options that not only affect the individual but their family, friends and country. Every person has a point where they will fight, that point should be their own choice not the governments. Prisons are filled with people who believed they were justifyed in killing.
Soldiers are lead to believe their cause is right and just and because the government gives it's ok, killing is alright.
There are just causes to fight and kill, a governments decision is not always a good one.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

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 responsibility...


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 such "cowards"?


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


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 violence.

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.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I like the Kenny Rodgers take on it- I prefer pacifism however rape my girl or destroy my family and I will kill you



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Gauss
 


most of us are just waiting for the right sign to come.

All we need is good solid confirmation that there is a horrible problem and those of us who've resolved to ACT will ACT.

One can argue that alot of stuff is happening now to provoke us into it but frankly we need to be on the right side and will not engage in violence of any sort until that line is crossed. We know it's coming. One day the state will just make a break for the finish line in their agenda and the people will notice and the numbers of defenders will swell. Till then, we are not interested in encouraging the state into having justification for further violence.

It is they who are making the power grab. It is they who will make the move that turns people's minds off of them and pisses off the masses. They think they can PR manage such a move this time but I'm telling you it ain't gunna happen. Sometime soon there'll be a defining move our rotten leaders will make that will bring the wrath of god down upon them and we the people of this world will be the ones to see to it that their karma is sowed.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 



I assume you are talking about coward of the county eh?
Great old song



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by blueorder
 



I assume you are talking about coward of the county eh?
Great old song



yeah



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gauss

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.



I don't know what sort of martial art I use. I've never heard a name put to it. All I can say for sure is that it has come down through generations in my family. Some elements are similar to judo, but others are just brutal, painful, and fast.

Fast is the key. get in, get done, get it over with, get back to smoking a pipe and glaring at The folks who won't even tell you what time it is, but who won't have to worry about the guy you just convinced, either. I've had it drummed into me for years that if you've not won in the first 30 seconds, then you've lost.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I guess I am a passive/aggressive type of person. I try to avoid violence at all cost, but when it becomes necessary I tend to use the method of over kill.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wagnificent
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?


Are you saying then, that because the war mongering Neo-Conservatives use this in their propaganda, you will not defend your loved ones if threatened? That sounds like a convenient excuse not to get involved when someone innocent is in danger. I'm not advocating fighting and/or killing for neo-conservative interests. I'm advocating fighting to protect each other, and not use pacifism as an excuse not to.




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.


It would be, if not for the fact this world is not one where we don't have to use violence, as is proven every day by criminals, terrorists, zombies and various other life-taking organisms. When people refuse to fight, it doesn't always lead to peace. Sometimes it just leads to more loss of life, and suffering.

Now, excuse me if I don't quote and reply to the rest of your post. Chopped up million-quote posts give me a headache.
edit on 29-5-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gauss
 


Pacifism is simply the opposition to war and violence. It does not mean the person would not, or could not protect themselves or their family. Your confusing pacifism with cowardice.

You can be a Pacifist and be very formidable in protecting yourself, your family and country. For instance a Pacifist would not have opposed WW2, defending against a home intruder or defending against any attacker. Some are even martial arts experts.

More troubling are those who are the opposite and see violence as the answer to everything. Small minded folk who hit first and think later and try and bully their way through life.
edit on 5/29/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLastStand
reply to post by Gauss
 


most of us are just waiting for the right sign to come.

All we need is good solid confirmation that there is a horrible problem and those of us who've resolved to ACT will ACT.

One can argue that alot of stuff is happening now to provoke us into it but frankly we need to be on the right side and will not engage in violence of any sort until that line is crossed. We know it's coming. One day the state will just make a break for the finish line in their agenda and the people will notice and the numbers of defenders will swell. Till then, we are not interested in encouraging the state into having justification for further violence.

It is they who are making the power grab. It is they who will make the move that turns people's minds off of them and pisses off the masses. They think they can PR manage such a move this time but I'm telling you it ain't gunna happen. Sometime soon there'll be a defining move our rotten leaders will make that will bring the wrath of god down upon them and we the people of this world will be the ones to see to it that their karma is sowed.


I agree with your post, bro. An important thing for a person is to know when the line is crossed, when there is no turning back, when violence must be used, all out, with ruthless efficiency. If one takes to violence before that point, bad thins happen.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
im sure you understand the difference between a shotgun pointed at a robbers dome in the middle of the night and seeing no need to fight useless wars. im a pacifist to a point. im peaceful. if i can come up with a peaceful solution i will. but do not mistake that for weakness.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Pacifism and a warrior mentality are two forms of ideology both have a cause and effect.
Every person has to make their own personal choice for their own reasons.
Fighting, turning the other cheek or just walking away are all options that not only affect the individual but their family, friends and country. Every person has a point where they will fight, that point should be their own choice not the governments. Prisons are filled with people who believed they were justifyed in killing.
Soldiers are lead to believe their cause is right and just and because the government gives it's ok, killing is alright.
There are just causes to fight and kill, a governments decision is not always a good one.


You're forgetting, though, dude... These days, with the possible exception for the US and British military, all out "kinetic" operations - operations where we go in with lots of boots to pacify a region - are uncommon. Most of the time, soldiers act in self-defense when it comes to the killing, because most of the time, they're peacekeepers. And self-defense justifies killing to a certain extent.

But again, I'm not advocating violence as a first resort. Last resort, but still a resort.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
As a Christian I do believe in being peaceful natured, but Pacifism sadly is not the way to go...

I think only a very small percentage of people a truly what you could call a "pacifist".

What happens when your family is being attacked, and your the only man of the household, but you hold a pacifist philosophy? Even the bible says that there is a time for everthing: Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: I believe this also includes violence.

Of course violence is not always just, but theirs a time when you must stand up for what you believe. But pacifists tend to sit down for what they believe...


Oh and a common misconception: JESUS WAS A PACIFIST.

Um no he wasn't folks, read book of revelations. Jesus of Nazareth is returning with a sword as a conquering Lord.


Like your post, dude. Very informative and interesting, especially the part about Jesus. Even the Bible seems to understand that even killing is acceptable in extreme circumstances. Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Gauss
 


Pacifism is simply the opposition to war and violence. It does not mean the person would not, or could not protect themselves or their family. Your confusing pacifism with cowardice.

You can be a Pacifist and be very formidable in protecting yourself, your family and country. For instance a Pacifist would not have opposed WW2, defending against a home intruder or defending against any attacker. Some are even martial arts experts.

More troubling are those who are the opposite and see violence as the answer to everything. Small minded folk who hit first and think later and try and bully their way through life.
edit on 5/29/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)


I was in this thread informed that that which you are referring to is called non-violence, whilst pacifism is the absolute and unwavering refusal to ever, regardless of circumstances, use violence. In my home country, there are a lot of people who follow the latter doctrine. As I'm sure you have realized already, I do not agree with them.

I do however agree with you that people who see violence as the answer to everyting are way more dangerous than pacifists. If it weren't for people like them, I, too, would have been a pacifist, and the rest of the world could've been too without negative repercussions.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Socrates thought that cowardice is the brave route in battle--while bravery was foolish.

The Cowards Live on, while the Brave perish in war, and since ALL wars are based on Lies, die without glory.





 
28
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join