Pacifism is cowardice!

My apologies to everyone for my earlier ill-mannered post .

reply to post by Gauss


Faked out - as in you're being played by hypocrites who pretend to be something they are not. That would piss me off too, lol. Talking down to someone from an ivory tower is the same thing as bullying - a form of violence.

And I don't think fear itself makes cowards, but rather the need for self-preservation (just you - no one else) above all else. "At least it wasn't me..."

Anyway - I think you're just being faked out by a fake if anyone acts like that. :p

Kick em' in the nuts - or go have a beer with em.

reply to post by Gauss
If I was part of a political movement that would usher in a dictator or supreme ruler, I would first encourage and start a "Pacifist Movement".

Imagine, as part of "The Evil Bunny Take-Over" all I'd need is for people to denounce violence.

reply to post by Gauss


I was editing my post for clarity as you were responding to it.

I was asking if you didn't like them looking down on you because it makes you feel ashamed. As to say that you judged your own ideology (your stance) and coupled with their moral stance, that is what makes you mad because you know your ideology is questionable but you feel it is a necessary evil.

Also, I and probably most other pacifists would consider you a pacifist. There is no better word to describe pacifism until there is no other choice, so we must say pacifist.

Originally posted by Floydshayvious
reply to post by Gauss

 

Faked out - as in you're being played by hypocrites who pretend to be something they are not. That would piss me off too, lol. Talking down to someone from an ivory tower is the same thing as bullying - a form of violence.

And I don't think fear itself makes cowards, but rather the need for self-preservation (just you - no one else) above all else. "At least it wasn't me..."

Anyway - I think you're just being faked out by a fake if anyone acts like that. :p

Kick em' in the nuts - or go have a beer with em.

Aah, now I understand what you mean. You might be right, haha. I think I'll just kick 'em in the nuts, and then go have a beer with someone else instead.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Gauss

 

If I was part of a political movement that would usher in a dictator or supreme ruler, I would first encourage and start a "Pacifist Movement".

Imagine, as part of "The Evil Bunny Take-Over" all I'd need is for people to denounce violence.

I agree with you there. It's pretty ingenius, really.

Though I can't say I would mind having a bunny for dictator. They make awfully good rulers.

reply to post by Gauss


Good to connect like that. +1

You could always do both. Less sore nuts and more good laughs over beer with people just trying to live.

All the best Gauss! (S+F!)

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Gauss

 

I was editing my post for clarity as you were responding to it.

I was asking if you didn't like them looking down on you because it makes you feel ashamed. As to say that you judged your own ideology (your stance) and coupled with their moral stance, that is what makes you mad because you know your ideology is questionable but you feel it is a necessary evil.

Also, I and probably most other pacifists would consider you a pacifist. There is no better word to describe pacifism until there is no other choice, so we must say pacifist.

Ah, now I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification. To answer your question, no, I'm not really ashamed of it, because, as I said, it's my absolute last resort, as it should be with anyone. I think it's more their arrogance that annoys me.

And I would dread being called a pacifist. Thanks for the offer, though.

Originally posted by Gauss


Though I can't say I would mind having a bunny for dictator. They make awfully good rulers.

Normal bunnies maybe. I'd be evil.

I don't think that armies should grow too much in size. In America there are people working to start wars with Russia, Iran and China. The aftermath of WW3 is not something you would want to see. Starve the military. Let them focus on defending. Bombing remote countries is only done to increase profits of corporations. It has nothing to do with human rights. In Libya the west have let militant Islamists take over the country. In Syria we are about to do the same. Whose bright idea was that? Corporations wants to start wars to increase profits. Not supporting the military when it's too large is something any sane person should realize is the right thing to do. Either you are for or against the genocide that is planned for Iran. Support the war and you risk having 1 million people on your consciousness. You have a choice. Choose wisely. Choose pacifism. Starve your military. It's big enough all ready.

I disagree, but I don't want to argue with you.

Can't we just get along?

Originally posted by Gauss

I'm just saying there are times when violence, even war, is justified and even necessary. For example when your country is being invaded - or when there's a genocide in the progress in some random third world country.

Here's where our opinions diverge.
Genocide in some third world country? Like Syria perhaps?

Take a look at this -www.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree genocide should be stopped, the question is how do we know when it's real or being staged for propaganda and provocation purposes? Our mass media has proven itself complicit in selling us lies to goad the public in to supporting military interventions.

For example:
Libya - Gaddafi was not slaughtering his own civilians.
Iraq - Yellowcake? - not true, WMD's - not true, Incubator babies thrown in the streets? - not true
Afghanistan - Taliban "refuse" to hand over OBL? Not without evidence of his involvement which the US could not provide.
Vietnam - Gulf of Tonkin? USS Maddox never fired on.

It's been over 50 years since the US fought a war predicated upon true premises and the public has been consistently lied to by the media to sell these acts of aggression. Why do we fall for it time and time again?

We had UN peacekeepers in Rwanda when the genocide began yet we refused to intervene since we saw no strategic value in the region.

Originally posted by Gauss

Also, any soldier who doesn't question his orders at least once in a while, is a dangerous tool, in my opinion. Sooner or later he's going to get an unjust order, and if he doesn't question it... On the other hand, a soldier is also required to do the dirtiest of deeds to protect the innocent. It's a difficult path to tread to be sure.

I agree, soldiers who do not question are tools yet they are hamstrung by their imperative to follow orders. Even those who refuse to obey unconstitutional orders are court martialled anyway or simply thrown in a brig without trial. It's not a difficult path to follow, it's impossible to follow without being forced to commit the "dirtiest" of deeds as you say, possibly including the killing of civilians if given the order to do so. This has happened multiple times in Iraq and Afghanistan according to the testimonies of returning soldiers.

This really leaves one no other choice but to simply not join and by doing so force the government to institute the massively unpopular draft to fill the boots on ground necessary to sustain a military occupation. Most enlistees are not aware of the governments lies or the media's complicity in selling conflict to the public and join with the highest sense of duty, honor and sacrifice.

I do not mean to criticize them at all. They place their lives in jeopardy to serve and protect their country and are deserving of all honor and respect due them. There's not enough room at Arlington for all who would deserve it.

Here's some advice from GOV, D.O.J. and TPTB :

"Follow me I am right behind you.. and remember I am watching you watching them watching me.... got it!"

Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.

Originally posted by marvinthemartian
reply to post by Gauss

 

As a pacafist i have to dissagree.
In my opinion when threatend with violence with no means to avoid it,
A coward says please dont hurt me.
A pacafist says please dont make me hurt you.
There is a big differance.

Wisest words in the whole thread ... OP you seem to have a very narrow perception of your own words maybe that was part of your military training I don't know ... but you cannot call all pacafists 'cowards' because it simply isn't true ... kind of makes you look a little two dimensional but if I were to state that as a fact it would make me look close-minded ... because I'm sure you will tell me that you are not a two dimensional person and there is so much more to you in character and as a person.

Likewise being a pacafist does not mean you simply role over or run for the hills in the face of adversity and/or aggresion leaving your loved ones to fend for themselves.

Maybe you should think before you type and insult a whole section of the global community because you clearly don't understand your own thread topic thoroughly enough

A brave man would apologise to the people he has offended ... how brave are you really ?

Woody

reply to post by Gauss


Hello Gauss, I,m fifty six, have,nt been in a bout of fisticuffs since I was ten, at primary school.
Always. ( So far...) managed to talk my way out of " Difficult " situations...

However, I dare say that if my back were against the wall, with no alternative, or defending family, then I know that I have the ability to explode in to a fury if necessary, much like most quiet people, who,s capacity for violence is often underestimated, and usually comes as a surprise.

I had it drilled in to me as a kid that fighting is not the answer, and so far, it has worked, but who knows ? Given the right circumstances...

reply to post by Gauss


Pacifism = Peace
vs
Cowardice = Dropping atomic bombs on two civilian cities

Pacifism = Not feeding war profiteers
vs
Cowardice = Killing innocent people with drones behind a computer screen

Pacifism = Eliminating one of the biggest forms of welfare: The MIC
vs
Cowardice = Foreign occupations that result in the deaths of innocents and good soldiers

Pacifism = True homeland security protecting our borders
vs
Cowardice = Fighting proxy wars against communism by both sides arming and supporting innocent go-between nations

There is a time and place for picking up arms and defending our nation. Don't you dare say that we get to eat freedom fries just because we are killing people in 3rd-world nations.

We are at a stage in our conflicts where not one damned soldier went into it not knowing what was going on. My time of sympathy is over.

Former vets of past wars who were drafted, coerced, lied to, and are bitterly pissed about it: I SALUTE YOU.

The rest of you guys? I hope for your safety and for the safety of your "enemies" and hope you get home soon and stay there.

I think its very unfair what your saying because it is fundamentally, a generalization

You can't just label everyone who follows a particular trait as a coward

I am a pacifist and I've never been in a fight before because I think almost all conflicts CAN and SHOULD be settled verbally. If you seek to attain something through violence, even with good intent (such as a revolution), you are advocating VIOLENCE.
It's just unnecessary from my point of view

But I do understand there are SOME circumstances where you would have to resort to physical aggression...
ex. you are in a position where you could neutralize a rampant gunman in a public area.

I don't know what kind of pacifists you've met, but I'm pretty sure anyone would agree the appropiate decision would be to neutralize the gunman

Originally posted by Xaphan
I disagree, but I don't want to argue with you.

Can't we just get along?

Of course we can, my friend. Don't worry, I'm not as angry and hostile as I seem.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I hear ya on the issues you mentioned, dude. For one, it's really difficult to see through the veil of propaganda wen it comes to military interventions in areas where genocides or "genocides" take place. That's why I personally feel it's important that we revert back to old-school UN peacekeeping operations, such as those that were carried out in Sinai, Congo, Cyprus, Israel, Kosovo/Bosnia, and Mozambique. It's different from NATO operations. UN operations are purely peacekeeping, even if it means "forcing peace", as they call it.

NATO operations may come under a variety of descriptions - and may very well be justified ultimately - but in the end they are nothing short of combat operations - acts of war, in other words.

And when it comes to the soldier following order or not, it's a difficult one. There's not really a lot of room in the military for disobeying orders. But the only thing he or she can do is read up on human rights, the Geneve Convention, and the Rules of War. There's not a court in the world, or so I hope, who would convict a soldier for disobeying orders if said orders violated one of these three. And in worst case scenario, yeah, he might end up going to jail, but at least he's going to jail a hero, then.

Originally posted by woodwytch

Originally posted by marvinthemartian
reply to post by Gauss

 

As a pacafist i have to dissagree.
In my opinion when threatend with violence with no means to avoid it,
A coward says please dont hurt me.
A pacafist says please dont make me hurt you.
There is a big differance.

Wisest words in the whole thread ... OP you seem to have a very narrow perception of your own words maybe that was part of your military training I don't know ... but you cannot call all pacafists 'cowards' because it simply isn't true ... kind of makes you look a little two dimensional but if I were to state that as a fact it would make me look close-minded ... because I'm sure you will tell me that you are not a two dimensional person and there is so much more to you in character and as a person.

Likewise being a pacafist does not mean you simply role over or run for the hills in the face of adversity and/or aggresion leaving your loved ones to fend for themselves.

Maybe you should think before you type and insult a whole section of the global community because you clearly don't understand your own thread topic thoroughly enough

A brave man would apologise to the people he has offended ... how brave are you really ?

Woody

I....am not a two-dimensional person?

Maybe you should read the whole thread before you post? I have continually expanded on my beliefs and feelings around pacifism, and made it clear my distaste is for a particular breed of pacifists. Now, unless you're the kind of pacifist who won't even raise his fist to protect his loved ones, you have no reason to be offended. From where I'm from, most pacifists are of that breed, unfortunately.

Oh, and I'm not that brave, really. Spiders scare the living # out of me. Throw a grenade at me and I'll throw it back, but throw a spider at me, and I'll run away screaming like a sissy girl. But seriously, not really.