Pacifism is cowardice!

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by AboveBoard

 

This scene from Babylon 5 fairly illustrates your point:

OP: You come from a soldier's point of view. You've been trained to attack and defend an aggressor. There's nothing wrong with that...the world needs muscle from time to time. Pacifists, however, choose to use their words to fight with. It only works, however, with someone who has intelligence enough to understand their message.

Unfortunately, and more often than not, the muscle doesn't get it, and calls them cowards.

/TOA

So, you're saying I've got muscles for brains?

On the serious side, you're partially right. I have been trained to think that attack is the best defense - of others. But I have also been trained as a peacekeeper, which means taking a passive-protective stance, if necessary by being a human wall of soldiers between "the bad guys" and "the good guys". This wall is not without fangs, though. If they attack a peacekeeper, he will fight back - and well.

You must realize that a soldier and peacekeeper (my country is big on peacekeepers) is more than just muscle. He's a person trained to solve problems, and not always with violence. A surprisingly big part of his job is diplomacy towards the local population.

Edit to add: Badass video, btw. That guy is cool.

reply to post by Gauss


Actually that was for germanicus but, thanx for taking my point.
A lot of people talk big, but when it comes down to it, if violence CAN be avoided, most will go that path simply because it's wiser and the outcome is usually way better.

I'm not talking about an armed madman ready to gun down your family, that's just silly thinking words will save them.

Use your wits german dude, intelligence goes a long way, violence goes on way, down.

And peace bro thanx for the reply!

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)

There have also been times when passive resistance has

Set millions of people free. If the black people in the south

Resorted to violence, they would been met with a further escalation

Of violence, which might have jeopardized their struggle

By turning the public against them due to the violence they

In turn participated in.

reply to post by Gauss


A very good thread and a well written post, but buddy I gotta say you're way off. Pacifism is an ideological goal, sure the most peaceful of pacifists will use violence to protect their families but that does not make them hypocrites. It makes them human. Like I say, pacifism is the ideal in an imperfect world. A hypocrite would promote the idea of pacifism and then start wars, like our foreign policy setters.

Your comments on 'cowardice' are extremely disrespectful. For example:

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

How about the Syrian uprising (especially in the first 12 months, but even now) the protestors who take to the streets in the name of peace, despite being shot at and tortured? They risk their lives to protect the ones they love without resorting to violence.

Or the civil rights and countless other movements - you don't have to be violent to have integrity.

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 aware that violence is terribly deconstructive and as humans, we have a responsibility to rise above it.

I understand you come from a military background, but that in no way objectively qualifies the military lifestyle. The concept of war is insane in itself. That concept is rooted in violence, a violence that pacifists want no part in.

Anyone can raise a fist, not everyone can keep it down.

In my Dad's day in Ireland he use to see parents duke it out when they had a beef with each other then go have a beer afterwards because the air was cleared.When I was in school I had a number of fights just to defend myself from bullies.When you get older how many fights do you really get into unless you are being stupid and hanging around the wrong places(eg like going down an alley when your gut tells you it is a wrong idea to do so or go to some seedy bar).Be aware and notice trouble brewing and move on.If you have a strong presence and look people in the eye no one will bother you.If you show a weak posture with head down or look away form people some people will see that and might prey on you.Use the thing between your ears it is the best weapon.Most people who are going to use violence against you are not that smart....Martial art training.....You train to fight so you don't have too.....

reply to post by Gauss


I don't belive pacifism is cowardice. Pacifism is an opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Not a complete refusal to diffend yourself. I'm a pacifist, meaning I will not go and look for trouble. If trouble finds me I will try to reason with it but if push comes to shove there is no way in hell I'm going down with out deffending myself. Personaly I find pacifism to be harder to achieve than letting your animal instincs take over given that it's in our nature to distroy each other.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

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.

Your dystopic example is pretty extreme. Your shallow Nietzschean perspective and claims that we're nothing more than a cancer is rather shallow. If that's all we really were then we wouldn't feel guilt after committing acts of violence against other individual. Only a few are capable of harming others without any remorse and that tells me a lot about how we are suppose to behave. Violence is wrong and goes against our very nature. Our goal is to survive, if violence had been such a vital part of our existence then we would have known extinction a long time ago. We survived using our brains, and that is what allows us to be on top of the food chain.

You're splitting hairs arguing if meat is murder. It's completely off topic and just a whole other can of worms.

At the end of the day, we should be ultimatly responsible to ourselves, what we do and how we act, has to be our own choice and not dictated to us by others. We all have guidlines in our lives which work to allow us to act WITHIN our consciences. If I do not fight in a situation, that is my choice, to some it may seem cowardly, to others saintly, but it is my choice, not yours, or the governments either. Saying that you are fighting for other peoples rights means nothing if you then expect them to do the same for others, because that takes their right of freedom of choice away, making your argument redundant.

I also don't believe that putting someone in the army and telling them that killing is suddenly acceptable, they are made into killers by removing that barrier, then when they come back, expecting them to be normal, no they can never be normal again.

You cannot ever harm anyone, except self defense or defense of others, and in that situations many would do what Christ did, lay down their arms and prefer to die and go home.

This world is a trap. And they are trying to downgrade our light souls into demons with all these traps.

Pray and meditate and wake people up, but all dying is, is the golden ticket to way better places, than here, but dirtying your hands in a revolution, that should have been accomplished by doing the real work, the negotiationg, the commitees of citizens and equalizing in every town, no homeless, doing what hte governments don't do, and firing them in huge numbers, real newspapers put out by the people.

What is stopping us? Why in the US is everyone so trained to think an evil heartless dog eat dog pyramid economy is GODLY when early Christians shared, and why have the PTB made all the sharing countries into fascist traps, so people can't see or think clearly.

Before you harm anyone, feed the poor and help the homeless. THAT WILL FREE THE PLANET

Its just a thoughtscape. Change your thoughts from demon to angelic and kind.

Originally posted by Qwenn
At the end of the day, we should be ultimatle responsible to ourselves, what we do and how we act, has to be our own choice and not dictated to us by others. We all have guidlines in our lives which work to allow us to act WITHIN our consciences. If I do not fight in a situation, that is my choice, to some it may seem cowardly, to others saintly, but it is my choice, not yours, or the governments either. Saying that you are fighting for other peoples rights means nothing if you then expect them to do the same for others, because that takes their right of freedom of choice away, making your argument redundant.

I also don't believe that putting someone in the army and telling them that killing is suddenly acceptable, they are made into killers by removing that barrier, then when they come back, expecting them to be normal, no they can never be normal again.

I'm not telling people I protect to go and enlist to return the favor. I'm merely saying that a pacifist of the kind that never, ever will use violence (and yes, they do exist, especially in my homeland), and therefor will not even use violence to protect oters, is a coward. They still have the choice to do it. But in my opinion, that makes them cowards.

I don't know...I hear people talk about honor in relation to war, and it makes me cringe.

honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.

Link

How can someone else say another is honorable or dishonorable simply for an action or lack of...if they aren't aware of someone's beliefs? It makes no sense.



As for being a coward for not fighting Are you sure all non-fighters are cowards? Seems like a funky world-view you got going on there. I'm guessing you're an SJ...maybe ESTJ.

I fight for what I believe in, and this includes the notion that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Originally posted by unityemissions
I don't know...I hear people talk about honor in relation to war, and it makes me cringe.

honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.

Link

How can someone else say another is honorable or dishonorable simply for an action or lack of...if they aren't aware of someone's beliefs? It makes no sense.

As for being a coward for not fighting

Are you sure all non-fighters are cowards? Seems like a funky world-view you got going on there. I'm guessing you're an SJ...maybe ESTJ.

I fight for what I believe in, and this includes the notion that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Then you fight nonetheless. Anyway, only tose who would not even raise their fists to defend others are worthy of my disdain. And there are a lot of those. Some call themselves pacifists, others are just cowards, but the pacifists are the worse of the two, because they put themselves on high horses to cover up their cowardice.

And of course, not all pacifists are like that, but most that I've met are. Ghandi is an exception, of course, as is Martin Luther King, and the Tank Man from Tianamen Square.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by CallYourBluff

 

While I consider OP's comments to be flawed and blinkered in the extreme, and almost certainly designed to get people angry, I cannot agree with your statement either. Life can be beautiful, hilarious, epic, and wonderful. But sometimes, some scenarios demand solemnity and focus.

It cannot be carnival day every day!

Your opinion doesn't make the truth that anything you do or will do makes life any less pointless.

ya, I think pacifism is a control tool for the masses. It goes against Natural Law, which is what MOST people are actually saying they abide by when they say that they are non violent but that they would kill to protect themselves or their family.

Natural Law is all there is. And its this Law that some people in control think that they are above.......

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by unityemissions
I don't know...I hear people talk about honor in relation to war, and it makes me cringe.

honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.

Link

How can someone else say another is honorable or dishonorable simply for an action or lack of...if they aren't aware of someone's beliefs? It makes no sense.

As for being a coward for not fighting

Are you sure all non-fighters are cowards? Seems like a funky world-view you got going on there. I'm guessing you're an SJ...maybe ESTJ.


I fight for what I believe in, and this includes the notion that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Then you fight nonetheless.

Anyway, only tose who would not even raise their fists to defend others are worthy of my disdain. And there are a lot of those. Some call themselves pacifists, others are just cowards, but the pacifists are the worse of the two, because they put themselves on high horses to cover up their cowardice.

And of course, not all pacifists are like that, but most that I've met are. Ghandi is an exception, of course, as is Martin Luther King, and the Tank Man from Tianamen Square.

Or maybe you lack the intellect to understand the depth of pacifism.

reply to post by Gauss


Well it all depends.
What happens if the pacifist is willing to die to be true to his beliefs?

Is he then a coward? Or is he brave? Choosing death before dishonoring himself?

Originally posted by CallYourBluff

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by unityemissions
I don't know...I hear people talk about honor in relation to war, and it makes me cringe.

honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.

Link

How can someone else say another is honorable or dishonorable simply for an action or lack of...if they aren't aware of someone's beliefs? It makes no sense.

As for being a coward for not fighting

Are you sure all non-fighters are cowards? Seems like a funky world-view you got going on there. I'm guessing you're an SJ...maybe ESTJ.


I fight for what I believe in, and this includes the notion that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Then you fight nonetheless.

Anyway, only tose who would not even raise their fists to defend others are worthy of my disdain. And there are a lot of those. Some call themselves pacifists, others are just cowards, but the pacifists are the worse of the two, because they put themselves on high horses to cover up their cowardice.

And of course, not all pacifists are like that, but most that I've met are. Ghandi is an exception, of course, as is Martin Luther King, and the Tank Man from Tianamen Square.

Or maybe you lack the intellect to understand the depth of pacifism.

I doubt it. As much as people love pacifism, it isn't exactly rocket science.

reply to post by grey580


My opinion on that depends, once again, on whether or not he is the only casualty of his decision.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
ya, I think pacifism is a control tool for the masses. It goes against Natural Law, which is what MOST people are actually saying they abide by when they say that they are non violent but that they would kill to protect themselves or their family.

Natural Law is all there is. And its this Law that some people in control think that they are above.......

edit on 29-5-2012 by rainbowbear because: you know how it is

edit on 29-5-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

Starred your post, dude. This post is really spot on. Thanks for posting!

reply to post by CallYourBluff


The depth of pacifism? Please, enlighten me.

Pacifism only makes perfect sense in a just, civil world. Humanity doesn't exist in that world.

I look to my father who is incredibly naive for his age. He gets screwed over daily for assuming the best or people and remaining a pacifist. I, on the other hand, started off just as naive, but adapted my perceptions and beliefs better fit my goals in this world.

I choose my battles wisely, but an absolute pacifist, I am not that fool.