Pacifism is cowardice!

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

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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,


yes, when it is YOU who are the one suffering, when it is your fellow man, it is your responsibility to stand up for them.

Jaden

How, often do we hear WWJD... He would attack the #ers defiling his Father's temple.

THAT'S what he'd do.




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


I somewhat agree. You need to stand up for yourself as and resolve your own conflicts.

But again I think we've gone off topic a bit.

The question is Pacifism Cowardice?

I think not.
edit on 29-5-2012 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Gauss
 


Sir you really dont understand what pacifism is about in the least bit. Pacifists dont sit up on a high horse and look down on others in violence. Pacifists believe in not having to use violence to solve a problem. For them it's a last resort and they only use violence in self defense or to protect there family. Besides for that they try and keep things civil and talk things out and solve problems through diplomacy.

Thats my argumentive statement and now for my troll one....GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT MORON!!!



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Gauss
 


Truely you assume to much.
Like MSM the use of (Adjectives)) is used to guide understanding and promote a way of thinking.




operations where we go in with lots of boots to pacify a region - are uncommon.


Really ? Then why are we even there ?




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.


Peacekeepers ? Another adjective used to justify and defend killing.
Who is the invader and who are the defenders ? And who is forcing who to conform ?
I'm sure Americans would welcome any foriegn invader with open arms who claims to be a peacekeeper.
NOT !
I am as much a pacifist as Teddy Roosevelt when he said "Walk softly but carry a big stick ."



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by irontalon
reply to post by Gauss
 


Sir you really dont understand what pacifism is about in the least bit. Pacifists dont sit up on a high horse and look down on others in violence. Pacifists believe in not having to use violence to solve a problem. For them it's a last resort and they only use violence in self defense or to protect there family. Besides for that they try and keep things civil and talk things out and solve problems through diplomacy.

Thats my argumentive statement and now for my troll one....GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT MORON!!!


I'm not even going to dignify this with a formulated reply.
edit on 29-5-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Gauss
 


Truely you assume to much.
Like MSM the use of (Adjectives)) is used to guide understanding and promote a way of thinking.




operations where we go in with lots of boots to pacify a region - are uncommon.


Really ? Then why are we even there ?




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.


Peacekeepers ? Another adjective used to justify and defend killing.
Who is the invader and who are the defenders ? And who is forcing who to conform ?
I'm sure Americans would welcome any foriegn invader with open arms who claims to be a peacekeeper.
NOT !
I am as much a pacifist as Teddy Roosevelt when he said "Walk softly but carry a big stick ."


If you want a good discussion you might want to stop cutting out parts of my posts. I clearly said, with the exception of the US and UK, who spearheaded the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have stated it before and I will state it again;

My country operates in Afghanistan not as soldiers fighting a war, but as peacekeepers helping the civilians in the region rebuild and increase the standard of their lives, let them live it without the religious oppression of the talibans, and lastly, while destroying opium crops, giving out other, edible crops to replace them, thereby removing the dependency of the poor on opium crops. That's why my country's soldiers operate in Afghanistan, and that's why the civilian population in Afghanistan welcomes their presence.
edit on 29-5-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gauss
 





My country operates in Afghanistan not as soldiers fighting a war, but as peacekeepers helping the civilians in the region rebuild and increase the standard of their lives, let them live it without the religious oppression of the talibans, and lastly, while destroying opium crops, giving out other, edible crops to replace them, thereby removing the dependency of the poor on opium crops. That's why my country's soldiers operate in Afghanistan, and that's why the civilian population in Afghanistan welcomes their presence.



The ATS T and C prevent me from responding to that statement, other than to say B.S. !
I guess all the civilian deaths were suicide !
The sad truth is you believe your own B.S.
edit on 29-5-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Gauss
 





My country operates in Afghanistan not as soldiers fighting a war, but as peacekeepers helping the civilians in the region rebuild and increase the standard of their lives, let them live it without the religious oppression of the talibans, and lastly, while destroying opium crops, giving out other, edible crops to replace them, thereby removing the dependency of the poor on opium crops. That's why my country's soldiers operate in Afghanistan, and that's why the civilian population in Afghanistan welcomes their presence.



The ATS T and C prevent me from responding to that statement, other than to say B.S. !
I guess all the civilian deaths were suicide !
The sad truth is you believe your own B.S.
edit on 29-5-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)


If you'd bothered doing any research you'd know that most civilian deaths where my country operates comes from Taliban IED's and bullets. The sad truth is you're too brainwashed by your own tinfoil theories to either get a balanced view of what is going on, or even listen to anything that doesn't fit your narrow worldview. I think we're done here.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Nothing wrong with being a coward once in awhile.

Pacifism, I think that is a matter of choice.

I think the word you want is fright, most people lack courage in the moments of violence.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gauss
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Agreed, dude. I'm not preaching excessive use of war and violence. That's the complete opposite of pacifism - fanaticism and/or extremism. Unfortunately, there's many times in history when a lack of action have won the day, and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost in the process.

Starred for the spiritual education you gave me.
edit on 28-5-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)


You see, at the end of the day, lives are going to be lost in war. So, pick your poison. Either the US does not step in and people die, or the US steps in and people die - only know it's people from the US who had nothing to do with the issue in the first place.

The thing about war is that they are all lousy, not because of the old "cliche'" idea that "war is hell" or whathaveyou. Rather, war is lousy because there's always a catch. There's always a subversive intent - the soldier is DEFINITELY not party to that intent.

So, again, in my mind, the Buddhist version is right...balanced. You are going to be violent at times in your life...you, the human being. But your violence is balanced, it is used when it is necessary, and not haphazardly for the benefit of others.

The problem with you folks that generalize the anti-war movement (especially soldiers and veterans) is that you can never grasp that just because "Freedom isn't free" doesn't mean that bombing some village in Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, or Bosnia is somehow going to prevent an "untoward" ideology from making its way into my sensory perception.

Vague? In other words, bombing Vietnam did not somehow magically make the ghost of Marx disappear from my closet; Likewise, bombing Kandahar did not somehow prevent Mohammad from infiltrating my dreams and secretly converting me to Islam.

Contrarily, BY GOING TO WAR (whether you really have absorbed the whole "protect our freedoms" mantra) has actually had the reverse affect on my freedoms.

NOW, my freedom of speech is actually curtailed. I mean, yes, I can go on here and say what I want with the comfort and anonymity of my home computer and the guarantee that - Habeas Corpus be damned - every single thing I type can be bottom-trolled into some super mainframe for later perusal. However, actually want to go on the airwaves, newsprint, middle of the street, high position at a school or university? Well, then you better toe the imperial line...

So, in short, while I agree that wholehearted pacifism is not reasonable or sustainable, I fail to see how war's of enterprise and wealth are reasonable. And you cannot tell me that any war waged since VJ Day (I'll leave WWII as a cutting off point),and every democratically elected leader ousted or offed, and every popular or indigenous movement snuffed out, had any virtuous aspect to it whatsoever.

You cannot parrot your line and ignore the other side of the matter. You cannot tout "Freedom isn't free" style thinking about our wars and agression and ignore issues/people like Papa Doc, Trujillo, Saddam, Pinochet, Mosaddegh, Turkey in NATO, Turkmenistan as ally in the war on Terror, and so on and so forth. You're not allowed to choose your own narrative.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


I somewhat agree. You need to stand up for yourself as and resolve your own conflicts.

But again I think we've gone off topic a bit.

The question is Pacifism Cowardice?

I think not.
edit on 29-5-2012 by grey580 because: (no reason given)


The answer to that question would have to be in terms of logic.

Then the question becomes phrase-able in a couple of ways.

The first way, which is what you are likely to be interpreting the question to be is

1) Are all pacifists cowards? The answer to that is no. In fact, I would say a couple of pacifists (although a waste of potential IMO) are as brave as anyone alive.

2) Are all cowards pacifists? Absolutely NOT. Many cowards are the most violent on the planet. Gang members are cowards, most police are cowards and they are as violent as they come.

3) Do MANY cowards hide behind the positive societal outlook towards the pacifist ideology? ABSOLUTELY, and this is what sickens me and likely the op.

The other thing that upsets me is people who believe that there is a place for violence but thinks that it is ALWAYS a last resort. That is foolish. There are many times when violence MUST be a first resort.

When corruption runs rampant it is foolish to attempt peaceful means as a first resort because you label yourself as a threat to those who are corrupt.

If someone is a direct threat to you or someone else immediately, it is foolish to attempt passive means as a first resort.

Jaden



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


I'll tell you what, I would welcome foreigners to America with open arms if they were here to aid in restoring the constitution and I would invite them to become citizens freely once the entitlement programs are gotten rid of and liberty and personal responsibility once again rule the day.

I have no problem accepting the other country's tired, poor and hungry so long as they aren't supported on my back.

People have to stop being cowards and stand up to those who would oppress us. You want to hide behind a naive ideology to make yourself feel better, then don't come crying to me to protect you when you realize that they're taking more of your rights than you thought you'd have to give up...

Jaden



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by emptyOmind
 


Wow - thank you for posting the video of the beautiful man who stood in front of the tank. The world held their breath I know I did.

What some people do not realise is this - the powers that be - evil people - psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists are all in positions of power because we put them in those positions and we support them as they maintain that status. The moment we all realise we do not need psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists to govern our lives is the moment they lose their power.

It is all about illusion - mind control and power - we gave them their power and status and we can take it away. It will happen but for a profound effect - it needs to be in unison. People all over the planet are waking up and realising that war and anger and violence do not work and have no place in our humanity.

Much Peace...



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


I have nothing against you, but I get the feeling there's a misunderstanding going on here. You seem to be under the impression I'm for the wars in Iraq and Afhanistan, which is what we in my country call a truth with some modification. I'm not an advocate of the Afghanistan war to bring freedom to Americans. I'm an advocate of it to make life better for the Afghani people. While American soldiers may or may not help that cause depending on who you ask, I know for certain that Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan do. So, it would be more accurate to say I'm an advocate of the Swedish operation in Afghanistan rather than the "War in Afghanistan".

I'm not choosing my own narrative. I know all the bad stuff that has been done in the name of freedom during the 20th and 21st Century. And I'm not defending that. If you plan to accuse me of doing that, then please tell me where exactly in this thread that I have. If not, be more careful with your accusations in the future. Thanks.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gauss
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.

[...]

No. Pacifists are cowards who renounce any and all responsibility to protect the people they love.


You'll have to forgive me, but in our context - right now at this moment in time - I see only the wars that can be apologized for by your statements. I realize you also are referring to crime and urban violence and I'll get back to my point about that in a moment.

But, regarding the most recent wars (and recent can be really dragged out here in this case), I see "pacifism" as standing up and saying "NO" we will not bomb those people for no goddamned reason other than shadowy profit motives by really irresponsible and mentally ill sociopaths. I mean, I apologize if there was a misunderstanding, but the most palpable context to pacifism in my lifetime are the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the previous NATO bombardments as well as the Persian Gulf war). So, you have to see where I'm coming from here on this. "Protect the people they love" and "cowardice" and "not get there hands dirty" seem like trite and manipulative statements within the context of the post-9/11 wars.

Regarding violence on the street, agression towards loved ones or your own person, etc....well, the statements covered early on by balance and Right Path, Right Thought, Right Action, etc....those cover that. Of course you would react to threats.

I guess I don't get exactly where this is coming from and I apologize that I did not get through all 19 pages. But personally I never felt pacifism directly covered one-on-one violence/assault. Then again, "give him your other cheek" and what not. There's something to be said for the whole "Hatfield and McCoy" outcomes in such retaliation - eye for an eye and the whole world ends up blind.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
It takes more courage to turn the other cheek then let the provoker get the best of you. Obviously if a deranged manic was trying to kill someone I love then you have no choice, but chances of that happening in a lifetime are not very high. I suppose you are calling Gandhi and Martin Luther King cowards? Their philosophy's only changed entire cultures (for the better) without shedding blood. Look at our non pacifist actions in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. I see a lot of positive change coming from that violence. Change the hearts and minds through peace not violence. Its much more effective since most people enjoy living and not being dead.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by irontalon
reply to post by Gauss
 

Thats my argumentive statement and now for my troll one....GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT MORON!!!


Just 10 posts and already posting drivel like this? Enjoy your stay, it's most likely going to be very short.


Sure, nobody needs to go around creating violence, but pretending that your high and mighty attitude is some how gonna protect you from the brutal realities of this World is nothing short of fantasy. Pacifism is a disease. Weakness is suicidal. Only the strong survive in this world, and that is why it's called Natural Law. ~$heopleNation



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

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)


I see, some people use the word "pacifism" as their point of view but they are really cowards, lol

ha like who is hypocrite ? Obama, Democrats, war peace protesters, hippies, and especially person that are pacifist like your friends who say "war is wrong ..... and peace is the right thing to do......"

So if I say F******* I am a fighter but I didn't prove my non-violence point.
If I say non-violence I'm a coward that I'm not but I still didn't prove my point
so this is a trick question???????????



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota

Originally posted by Gauss
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.

[...]

No. Pacifists are cowards who renounce any and all responsibility to protect the people they love.


You'll have to forgive me, but in our context - right now at this moment in time - I see only the wars that can be apologized for by your statements. I realize you also are referring to crime and urban violence and I'll get back to my point about that in a moment.

But, regarding the most recent wars (and recent can be really dragged out here in this case), I see "pacifism" as standing up and saying "NO" we will not bomb those people for no goddamned reason other than shadowy profit motives by really irresponsible and mentally ill sociopaths. I mean, I apologize if there was a misunderstanding, but the most palpable context to pacifism in my lifetime are the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the previous NATO bombardments as well as the Persian Gulf war). So, you have to see where I'm coming from here on this. "Protect the people they love" and "cowardice" and "not get there hands dirty" seem like trite and manipulative statements within the context of the post-9/11 wars.

Regarding violence on the street, agression towards loved ones or your own person, etc....well, the statements covered early on by balance and Right Path, Right Thought, Right Action, etc....those cover that. Of course you would react to threats.

I guess I don't get exactly where this is coming from and I apologize that I did not get through all 19 pages. But personally I never felt pacifism directly covered one-on-one violence/assault. Then again, "give him your other cheek" and what not. There's something to be said for the whole "Hatfield and McCoy" outcomes in such retaliation - eye for an eye and the whole world ends up blind.


Yeah, I guess I couldn't ask you to go through 19 pages of posts. Sorry about that. I'm somewhat known to be sloppy with my language, which often results in people making assumptions such as me being a war mongerer and various other things. The pacifism that I've come into contact with has always been the kind that always rejects violence for any and all reasons. Hence my somewhat feather-ruffling original post.

Being against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, other wars, and seeing violence as an absolutely last resort, would more accurately be described as "Non-violence", which I'm not really against.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I had a friend way back in high school that exemplified the best of both worlds. (pacifism and violence)
He was at heart a pacifist, but if he had to defend himself, a fury unlike anything I'd ever seen
was unleashed. A freak of nature in strength and fighting ability. He was like a wolverine.
It was like a switch was flipped! Even the badasses feared him.

Given a choice, he would absolutely walk away from a fight. He abhorred violence. He protected the weaker kids who got bullied. He was in the chess club. He had a big garden. The sweetest, kindest, gentlest soul you could ever meet. He volunteered on weekends helping elderly and severely disabled people at a local care center.

When he was 27, he developed some type of heart ailment and passed away in his sleep.





 
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join