Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pacifism is cowardice!

page: 20
28
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColeYounger
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.



I'm sorry to hear that he passed away so young, dude. He sounds like an awesome (and badass!) guy.




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by emptyOmind

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.
edit on 29/5/12 by emptyOmind because: added video & history


You are right, he can stand in front of tanks and hope that they don't run him over....I forgot about that one!



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by emptyOmind
reply to post by Gauss
 


that's right and he didn't use violence


Because he couldn't, If someone has you at gunpoint...you have no choice but to comply. You don't have control over the situation, so you have to put your fate in his hands and hope he's not having a bad day. He has to play from a position of weakness (Not of character, of tactics) I'm not discounting the fact that he's brave, but he wasn't in the position to negotiate anything.... And China still pretty much does what it wants.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by Masterjaden
No it makes you a naive idealist with no understanding of reality.

Jaden


So let's look at the greatest man who ever lived.
Jesus.
He was a pacifist.
The son of god with the power to walk on water.
Yet he died for his beliefs.

Was he a naive idealist with no understanding of reality?

And inversely what about people who would kill for their beliefs? Killing is ok.
But letting yourself be killed is bad?


“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by Serenity777

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)


There's a ton of tough talk here...but, where's all your action?

All I hear is how its super duper tough to use violence when necessary, but um, your call to all of that is LONG OVERDUE.

If you weren't the very coward you were claiming others to be, you would have already had this whole FASCISM thing that the worlds' governments are doing locked-up...wouldn't ya? Guys like you and the so-called "militias" are practically impotent.

So, its best you just stay a pacifist...otherwise, someone might expect you to follow through with those WORDS of yours.



So, you expect me to save the world all by myself? You should try taking responsibility for your own life instead of hoping someone else will save you.


I don't know anything about the military services in other countries, whether there is a conscription or not, but you do sound like a conscript, who would rather be somewhere else than in the middle of a war, being expected to risk your life for others. The main problem is that soldiers do not risk their lives for the general public, but for heartless governmants who declare wars to financially gain from them, it is a case of killing for others agendas, rather than killing for a just cause. In these cases, it is understandable that some soldiers will feel bitter that they are the ones being killed and injured, whilst others sit at home safe and sound.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Violence is the last refuge of a weak mind.
as modern humans we should be above violence, we are no longer ignorant cavemen and we should stop acting like them. with all our modern technology and education we like to think that we are more advanced than our ancestors but as long as we continue to accept and practice violence we as a species are no more advanced than our cave dwelling ancestors,we just have less hair and better clothes than they did.
If we as a species want to evolve to become more enlightened and drag ourselves out of the caves we need to free ourselves of our basic primitive instinct for violence.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qwenn

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by Serenity777

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)


There's a ton of tough talk here...but, where's all your action?

All I hear is how its super duper tough to use violence when necessary, but um, your call to all of that is LONG OVERDUE.

If you weren't the very coward you were claiming others to be, you would have already had this whole FASCISM thing that the worlds' governments are doing locked-up...wouldn't ya? Guys like you and the so-called "militias" are practically impotent.

So, its best you just stay a pacifist...otherwise, someone might expect you to follow through with those WORDS of yours.



So, you expect me to save the world all by myself? You should try taking responsibility for your own life instead of hoping someone else will save you.


I don't know anything about the military services in other countries, whether there is a conscription or not, but you do sound like a conscript, who would rather be somewhere else than in the middle of a war, being expected to risk your life for others. The main problem is that soldiers do not risk their lives for the general public, but for heartless governmants who declare wars to financially gain from them, it is a case of killing for others agendas, rather than killing for a just cause. In these cases, it is understandable that some soldiers will feel bitter that they are the ones being killed and injured, whilst others sit at home safe and sound.


Exactly. You don't know anything about the military service in other countries. First of all, I served my country both as a conscript and as a contracted professional soldier. Secondly, my country hasn't fought in a war since 1800-something. Thirdly, our soldiers in Afghanistan are all volunteers - and no, they don't risk their lives for "the general public", because that implies they risk their lives for their own citizens, i.e. the Swedish people. They risk their lives for the Afgani citizens, not the illusion of protecting the freedoms of Swedish or American citizens.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Gauss
 


Well in that case they should be applauded for helping, presumably without pay, also I assume they don't use firearms on the people in order to help them, as if they are on the Afgani side, they must be enemies of the American soldiers, so the bullets must presumably be aimed at the Americans. Personally I think that America is relentless in starting wars, where none were before, then stealing anything they can, undercover. Hitler did the same thing, to liberate the Jews from their money, for his piggy bank, steal as many paintings and art treasures as he could, not to mention the Spear of Destiny and any other religeous artifact he wanted. He is acknowledged as a demon for it, but the Americans do the same thing and get away with clean hands and big bank accounts. If you want something for your help, then you are a mercenary not a hero, if you want peoples appreciation and respect for risking your life for them, then you are no hero. A real hero acts without an audience, he does not publicise his actions, nor ask for praise or respect. I may not be an expert on war, but I know an egotist when I smell one !



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Gauss
 


The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Sun Tzu

I agree with you OP but i thought i would toss this int he mix

edit on 30-5-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


Yeah, Sun Tzu was a great man. Good addition!



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qwenn
reply to post by Gauss
 


Well in that case they should be applauded for helping, presumably without pay, also I assume they don't use firearms on the people in order to help them, as if they are on the Afgani side, they must be enemies of the American soldiers, so the bullets must presumably be aimed at the Americans. Personally I think that America is relentless in starting wars, where none were before, then stealing anything they can, undercover. Hitler did the same thing, to liberate the Jews from their money, for his piggy bank, steal as many paintings and art treasures as he could, not to mention the Spear of Destiny and any other religeous artifact he wanted. He is acknowledged as a demon for it, but the Americans do the same thing and get away with clean hands and big bank accounts. If you want something for your help, then you are a mercenary not a hero, if you want peoples appreciation and respect for risking your life for them, then you are no hero. A real hero acts without an audience, he does not publicise his actions, nor ask for praise or respect. I may not be an expert on war, but I know an egotist when I smell one !


...riiiiight. I think I'm just going to ignore you from now on. No offense. But I see no point in continuing a discussion with you along a path I've tread far too many times before.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 





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.


I agree with you for the most part.
However I disagree with you that sometimes violence must be used as a first resort.
You always have to think your way through things.
Or use conflict resolution in order to defuse a situation.

You don't want to use violence as a first resort in a biker bar against some hells angels.
You won't win that fight.

I always like to think that the greatest weapon a person has isn't their body but their mind.
When I use my brain to solve an issue I always win. Even if I let the other guy think he's won.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Gauss
 


I was just pointing out that a real heroic act comes from altruism and selflesness, any act that requests an accolade, is not selfless, so therefore, not Heroic. Heroes don't shout their acts from the rooftops, they are too busy moving on to the next one, therefore a self declared hero, is really a ZERO !

Please ignore me if you can't understand what I say, I may however, have to keep posting, just the same.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Qwenn
 


By all means, keep posting. I would not want to stop you from doing that.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gauss
I'm not advocating fighting and/or killing for neo-conservative interests.


No you just advocate their worldview...


...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.


You completely failed to comprehend my post, and that is because you reduce my ideas and create straw man arguments.


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.


Yeah it's better to just stop thinking or trying to understand other points of view. You lack the capacity for discussion, and this is why you do not understand pacifism. Carry on soldier
hopefully one day you will figure out why pacifists irritate you so much.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


First off, that one section of text that you quoted me on means very little without the context of my entire post.

I am not going to do your research for you or post any links. This attitude may not make me popular on this site but I truly don't care about such things.

There are people out there who play a facade of pacifism as a means to an end. These types of people will make others suffer for their own advancement. I suppose all of us should suffer through such treatment eh? What other option does a person have to use when the oppressor has all the connections, has all the legal protections, even has most other people believe that the oppressor is in the right? What do you do when all of the peaceful options available fail to protect you when you need them most?

Cute reference to Pol Pot, by the way. Why am I not surprised that you mention one of the most well known of the tyrannical dictators. You obviously missed my reference to the phrase "honorable". Do you find it strange that you are taught about the tyrannical dictators while the benevolent dictators are not even mentioned? Can you name one historical "benevolent despot"? Do you even know what the term means? If your answer is no, it is disingenuous of you to make references to Pol Pot.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gauss
 
So me not wanting to participate in the slaughter of my fellow man makes me a coward? I can make a different equally flawed conclusion by saying because you are not a pacifist that you are a murderer. I consider myself a pacifist but would not stand by and do nothing while my family,friends or even a stranger was being brutalized or being harmed.That being said you sound like the establishment fascist who use us lower classes like pawns and disposable fools to fight their endless wars for THEIR monetary,power and political gain.My grandfather was in ww2,my father in Vietnam,3 Uncles Vietnam. For what exactly?????Oh to fight those nasty commies. You mean those commies like the ones in China who are now our biggest trading partner?So all those men died in Nam for what reason may I ask?The Iraq war another complete sham and human tragedy. The loss of a million Iraqi civilians,devastated economy,their society in shambles. And for what??To remove another petty thug dictator that we helped install?So you keep on spewing your propaganda garbage just like Goebbels did for the nazi party. Maybe some of us are tired of the lies,death,destruction and ruined lives that wars bring.So from another veteran, SPEW YOUR PROPAGANDA SOMEWHERE ELSE, MANY OF US HAVE HAD ENOUGH.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cecilmeyer
reply to post by Gauss
 
So me not wanting to participate in the slaughter of my fellow man makes me a coward? I can make a different equally flawed conclusion by saying because you are not a pacifist that you are a murderer. I consider myself a pacifist but would not stand by and do nothing while my family,friends or even a stranger was being brutalized or being harmed.That being said you sound like the establishment fascist who use us lower classes like pawns and disposable fools to fight their endless wars for THEIR monetary,power and political gain.My grandfather was in ww2,my father in Vietnam,3 Uncles Vietnam. For what exactly?????Oh to fight those nasty commies. You mean those commies like the ones in China who are now our biggest trading partner?So all those men died in Nam for what reason may I ask?The Iraq war another complete sham and human tragedy. The loss of a million Iraqi civilians,devastated economy,their society in shambles. And for what??To remove another petty thug dictator that we helped install?So you keep on spewing your propaganda garbage just like Goebbels did for the nazi party. Maybe some of us are tired of the lies,death,destruction and ruined lives that wars bring.So from another veteran, SPEW YOUR PROPAGANDA SOMEWHERE ELSE, MANY OF US HAVE HAD ENOUGH.



I'm sorry, are you comparing me to Goebbels? Because if you are, I'm not even going to dignify your post with a real reply.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I can understand your chain of reasoning, but you're failing to see a few really important things. Physical force and violence are not necessarily the same thing. If someone near me (whom I care about) is intoxicated/delirious/etc., and tries to do something harmful to themselves or others, I will use physical force to restrain them to the best of my abilities and try to maintain a peaceful environment. That is not violence. If someone's behavior is a direct threat to me or someone I care about, I will use whatever physical means necessary to prevent any harm from occurring, or to minimize harm as much as I can. That is not violence. What constitutes the difference between violence and mere physical force is one's intentions (what's going on in your head). Violence is the desire to do harm and to destroy, usually through physical means (I'm picturing a soldier emptying machine gun clips shouting "WOOOOOO!!! GET SOME!!!!"). Violence is the desire to inflict harm. It's about mentality, not behavior. All human beings receive general impulses of violence and destruction from the lower parts of their brain, but acting on those impulses is only going to bring harm to the world. The aim of the pacifist is not to put on soft gloves and never lay a hand anywhere, it's to not have violent intentions. I do not live in a make-believe world of rainbows and denial (I don't remember your exact wording after reading through much of this thread), I live in the real world. It is precisely my acute awareness of how lacking our world is in peace and rainbows that drives me to live as a pacifist. Seeing a world ridden with violence and harm, I have no desire to add a single shred of additional violence; doing so could only make things worse. And as far as me taking the moral high ground, I avoid as much as possible telling anyone that I'm a pacifist, because frankly, no one gives a # and I respect their sensibilities.

BTW I joined ATS (been reading for a while) to comment on this post, but now I'm inspired to comment more lol



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sarek
I can understand your chain of reasoning, but you're failing to see a few really important things. Physical force and violence are not necessarily the same thing. If someone near me (whom I care about) is intoxicated/delirious/etc., and tries to do something harmful to themselves or others, I will use physical force to restrain them to the best of my abilities and try to maintain a peaceful environment. That is not violence. If someone's behavior is a direct threat to me or someone I care about, I will use whatever physical means necessary to prevent any harm from occurring, or to minimize harm as much as I can. That is not violence. What constitutes the difference between violence and mere physical force is one's intentions (what's going on in your head). Violence is the desire to do harm and to destroy, usually through physical means (I'm picturing a soldier emptying machine gun clips shouting "WOOOOOO!!! GET SOME!!!!"). Violence is the desire to inflict harm. It's about mentality, not behavior. All human beings receive general impulses of violence and destruction from the lower parts of their brain, but acting on those impulses is only going to bring harm to the world. The aim of the pacifist is not to put on soft gloves and never lay a hand anywhere, it's to not have violent intentions. I do not live in a make-believe world of rainbows and denial (I don't remember your exact wording after reading through much of this thread), I live in the real world. It is precisely my acute awareness of how lacking our world is in peace and rainbows that drives me to live as a pacifist. Seeing a world ridden with violence and harm, I have no desire to add a single shred of additional violence; doing so could only make things worse. And as far as me taking the moral high ground, I avoid as much as possible telling anyone that I'm a pacifist, because frankly, no one gives a # and I respect their sensibilities.

BTW I joined ATS (been reading for a while) to comment on this post, but now I'm inspired to comment more lol


I use different terms than you to describe what is basically the same thing you're advocating, so while my initial post may have been a bit harsh, I wholeheartedly agree with your post. Thanks for posting, and welcome to ATS.


By the way, have you ever been to Sarek? Beautiful place. One of the most beautiful places in the world, actually.





new topics




 
28
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join