Pacifism is cowardice!

reply to post by MrJohnSmith


You're doing the right thing, dude. Some people here assume I'm advocating violence as the first and only solution to a problem. I'm advocating violence as a just course of action when there are no others to take, and only then to protect those who are innocent, or in self-defense. A person who uses violence all the time is nothing but a psychopath and a madman. He's even worse than a coward-variation pacifist.

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Gauss

 

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.

Where did I say that? If we go to war in the third world, then it has to be to help the people "over there", not to further our own interests. Doing anything else is wrong, and then the war becomes little more than an extension of politics. (That's not a good thing, by the way.)

Originally posted by seenavv
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

edit on 28-5-2012 by seenavv because: (no reason given)

You saying that using violence to overthrow a bad government is unnecessary is just you pushing your beliefs onto others. If a country's leaders are killing innocent people, then armed revolution isn't just someting that is acceptable, it's inevitable and necessary. The people can either fight, or they can continue to get slaughtered like cattle. You may choose not to raise your arms and get slaughtered, but you have no right whatsoever to look down on those who would rather fight than lay down and wait to die, for their choice.

Peace and violence can co-exist.

Violence is an unavoidable, irrevocable fact of nature. I am against intra-species violence, though, and think it is fueled by ignorance. The people we are at war with are our brothers and sisters. We need to learn how to not commit crimes against each other, but we're all fools. I fully believe in protecting your life, but I don't believe in looking for trouble.

Peace comes by acceptance of the way things are. Violence is the way things are, so peace will come by accepting violence.

Pacifism is a Western idea for new age hippies. Even the great eastern philosophies of buddhism don't advocate it

Ghandi, the great pacifist demigod, was only able to do as he did because he had thousands of soldiers leading the way for him and fighting the british.

I don't dislike pacifists, but i think it's a naive belief system and that the moral crusading advocates of it are childish, and perhaps mentally scarred from childhood.

I can't understand it myself. If someone is threatening you physically and you punch them in the face, in what way is that bad? How is allowing yourself to be beaten up better?

Pacifists I think must not have been in many fights or they must live a privilege life and not understand the dangers of allowing somebody to physically beat you up. I've been concussed four times in my life and I'm still young, you want me to let someone punch me in the head repeatedly and risk serious mental and physical injury? If someone tries to rob or attack me, especially with the weapons criminals carry these days, i'll get the first few punches in and try make sure they don't want any more.

I consider myself an ethical person, i'm anti-war, anti-imperialism, pro-freedom, pro-democracy, i don't eat meat, i don't do anybody any harm. But if you attack me or invade my personal space then I have no qualms using physical violence.

What is wrong with this?

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Gauss

 

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.

If we go to war in the third world, then it has to be to help the people "over there", not to further our own interests.

Since when has that ever been the case? If that were truly the case, how come we have not even glanced at the atrocities in Africa for the past few decades? Not one of our wars has been to help anybody, anywhere. If it's a side-effect, great, but it has never been a primary focus and we always find that out in hindsight. I normally don't like to speak in such absolutes but I seriously cannot find any exceptions to our prerequisites to war.

As far as accusing you of saying anything, I'm sorry; I was speaking to the notion, in general.

reply to post by cuervo


Well, you're in luck then, because it so happens I can mention quite a few. All of them UN ops, though it should be mentioned I'm not looking at this from an American military's perspective, but a Western military in general perspective, because I'm not American. Let's start with Sinai. Peacekeeping. Israel. Peacekeeping. Cyprus. Peacekeeping. Korea. Peacekeeping. Mozambique. Peacekeeping.

It's my personal belief that any intervention in another country needs to be executed by the UN rather than NATO. The governments of the world do not agree with me.

I'm a pacifist, my doctrine is much more complicated than just laying down arms. But simply put, violence stems from ignorance.

"..serial killers, bank robbers, gangbangers, and terrorists, not everybody has the option of putting down their guns and preaching non-violence."

Except for the very rare exception, most of these people behave in a violent ways because hate, lust or greed was instilled onto them by either the media, religion, learning institutions or some other part of society. We are born and bred to hate and to envy so it's no wonder that people are inclined to adopt violent behaviours. Kids are raised to into competition, not just in sports but in education and in their social class. We are fooled into believing that there is a hierarchy that exists when all that is truly nothing more than an antiquated system that should not have to apply to our species in our era.

If their violent behaviour isn't fuelled by hate, lust or envy then it is most certainly the result of fear. The fear of having to change or to adapt to new social conditions, new dogmas, new practices, new governments, etc.

So from my perspective it is the ignorant who are weak. Those people are victims to influence and fear. These people do not act but rather react because since they are incapable of using reason when under pressure. It takes a lot of strength to hold back one's tongue and to unclench one's fist.

Violence is weakness; self-restraint is strength.

I'm a coward. I believe violence is the silliest solution out of the full range of possibilities to deal with a situation. I believe violence is the "low-brow, knuckle-dragging" response that worked 10,000 years ago. Education and toleration removes violence from the picture in my book.

And I absolutely love hearing all the keyboard-commando's. Personal space violation=physical violence. Threatening attitude=physical violence. Terrorists, Gangbangers, serial-killers...maybe I'm a bit naive, but in my 30-some years on earth, I'm still walking upright with my shoulders back and head held high because of all of the terrorists, gangbangers, and serial-killers that are out to get me or that have affected me or anyone that I know.

I've been in multiple situations where violence could have been a response. Am I a pansy or coward because I actually flexed the strongest muscle in my body? Am I a coward because by using a few words to diffuse a situation and not using fists to solve the "problem"? I've stood up for others and family members without lifting a finger. I've protected others that are close to me, as well as complete strangers without resorting to violence.

Do I feel high and mighty for being a coward...err pacifist? Not at all. Anyways, thanks for an enlightening subject. Haven't really dwelled on being a non-violent person in some time.

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
I'm a pacifist, my doctrine is much more complicated than just laying down arms. But simply put, violence stems from ignorance.

"..serial killers, bank robbers, gangbangers, and terrorists, not everybody has the option of putting down their guns and preaching non-violence."

Except for the very rare exception, most of these people behave in a violent ways because hate, lust or greed was instilled onto them by either the media, religion, learning institutions or some other part of society. We are born and bred to hate and to envy so it's no wonder that people are inclined to adopt violent behaviours. Kids are raised to into competition, not just in sports but in education and in their social class. We are fooled into believing that there is a hierarchy that exists when all that is truly nothing more than an antiquated system that should not have to apply to our species in our era.

If their violent behaviour isn't fuelled by hate, lust or envy then it is most certainly the result of fear. The fear of having to change or to adapt to new social conditions, new dogmas, new practices, new governments, etc.

So from my perspective it is the ignorant who are weak. Those people are victims to influence and fear. These people do not act but rather react because since they are incapable of using reason when under pressure. It takes a lot of strength to hold back one's tongue and to unclench one's fist.

Violence is weakness; self-restraint is strength.

It doesn't matter what fuels their violent behavior. They're still acting violently against innocent people who needs to be protected. You can't always talk your way out of a fight with a stoned gangbanger or a fanatically bloodthirsty terrorist, regardless of what fuels their behavior.

Originally posted by saabster5
I'm a coward. I believe violence is the silliest solution out of the full range of possibilities to deal with a situation. I believe violence is the "low-brow, knuckle-dragging" response that worked 10,000 years ago. Education and toleration removes violence from the picture in my book.

And I absolutely love hearing all the keyboard-commando's. Personal space violation=physical violence. Threatening attitude=physical violence. Terrorists, Gangbangers, serial-killers...maybe I'm a bit naive, but in my 30-some years on earth, I'm still walking upright with my shoulders back and head held high because of all of the terrorists, gangbangers, and serial-killers that are out to get me or that have affected me or anyone that I know.

I've been in multiple situations where violence could have been a response. Am I a pansy or coward because I actually flexed the strongest muscle in my body? Am I a coward because by using a few words to diffuse a situation and not using fists to solve the "problem"? I've stood up for others and family members without lifting a finger. I've protected others that are close to me, as well as complete strangers without resorting to violence.

Do I feel high and mighty for being a coward...err pacifist? Not at all. Anyways, thanks for an enlightening subject. Haven't really dwelled on being a non-violent person in some time.

Are you calling me a keyboard commando? I assume that you have served in the military then, throwing around insults like that. And just because you've been lucky enough to avoid terrorists and gangbangers doesn't mean everybody else have.

reply to post by Gauss


First of all, welcome to ATS.

I read your first paragraph and immediately though -- former soldier. Then I got to the end and saw that you actually put that in there. I really don't wish to echo your bias and prejudice, but that truly sounds like something a soldier or a cop would say.

I consider myself a pacifist. That means that I would prefer most situations, be they political or personal, get resolved non violently. Violence perpetuates violence, and should never be welcomed or looked at as a positive action.

With that said, would I kill in self defense? Absolutely, if the lives of my family were threatened I would act without hesitation.

I also believe in euthanasia and would help a person die if that were their wish and the situation left little other option. But I don't view that as violence, it's a decision concerning your own life.

So anyways OP, you sound hateful and misinformed, hope you can channel that into something more positive during your time at ATS.

Cheers,


Khar

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
I'm a pacifist, my doctrine is much more complicated than just laying down arms. But simply put, violence stems from ignorance.

Violence is a fact of life. To deny this is ignorance. Violence doesn't stem from ignorance, violence stems from existence.

Now, there is a such thing as ignorant violence. Being violent because someone offended you with words would be ignorant violence. Being violent because you're being robbed is rational violence. Being violent, whether directly or indirectly, to eat meat 3 meals a day, is the kind of violence that is necessary to survive.

In other words, be violent or be a vegetarian. Personally, though, I think its just as destructive to eat a plant as it is an animal. But neither is really destructive, because although every species on the planet is consuming energy in some form to survive, and probably most of them consume other life forms for metabolic energy, the world somehow is able to keep going and keep growing. So if you weigh destruction against creation, creation is winning, despite the violence.

reply to post by Gauss


So do soldiers with their high-horse syndrome.

"I'm so important, I wield a gun and shoot brown people to protect your safe...err...poppy fields"

reply to post by Gauss


I could call myself a pacifist put the at the same time I guess I'd be a hypocrite

I remember reading a book when I was 15-16 by Mark Brandon Read (chopper) when he mentioned something about his good friend Dave the Jew, it went a little like this: Dave was the first to jump to negotiations but when they broke down cause of unwillingness he would be very dissapointed. Thats not word for word, BTW I can't find the book but what I think to this day he was saying is basically don't jump to your guns.

I personally will do all I can to keep things peaceful but if the ones causing the trouble are unwilling to find a middle ground then god help us both.

also your right about the way of the samurai or chivalry, noble ways that are all but forgotten these days.

Also I wonder how many Pacifists eat meat? how can they justify that killing is technically violence is it not?
or is it ok if someone else does it for you

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by Floydshayvious
Is someone a coward because they choose not to inflict pain on someone else because they know how that feels? Also, if someone is being condescending to you, that is not pacifism, but another form of violence. I think you're just being faked out. :p

edit on 28-5-2012 by Floydshayvious because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by Floydshayvious because: (no reason given)

I have no idea what you mean by "faked out", friend, but let me put it like this. If somebody refuses to inflict pain on someone else to protect *themselves* from pain, then that's not something I can or have a right to look down at. That's their decision. But when they refuse to inflict pain on someone else to protect a third party from the second party, that is pure and undilluted cowardice in my book.

What if they rather than inflict pain are happy to take the pain in the stead of the third party in the name of non violence and protection of innocence? There are many ways to be a warrior and some that completely excludes being violent.

reply to post by Gauss


Keyboard-commando...just a generality. Not insulting you or anyone else. Just that feeling that you get when you get on the internet, and everyone is a tough-guy/girl.

I was military. And quite naive when I joined. Thought I was saving the world. Turns out I was just launching tomahawk missiles at locations hundreds of miles away. Military really woke me up.

I guess I was being a bit facetious as well. I am lucky not to have encountered any of the dangers of today. Although, I don't think it's luck. Been in plenty of metropolitan areas where I, as a "white" boy, should not have been venturing. Serial-killers and terrorists tho is a stretch. The likelyhood of being impacted by one of those two is a very small percentage.

Like I said, interesting topic. Definitely has got my brain juices flowing on what-if's and different scenarios that could possibly play out. Thanks again. And thinking about it...definitely deserves a S&F for generating some discussion.

reply to post by RAY1990


Neville bloody bartoss.

Harden the [SNIP] up mate.

Just kidding. Chopper rules

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Kharron


Au contraire, my friend, I'm a very friendly kind of guy. Even to the degree that I would gladly risk my own life in a fight if it meant defending someone else's life.

And I've actually been registerred here on ATS on another account since 2004. I guess it hasn't done much to channel my anger. Oh well. I didn't have that much of it to begin with anyway.