Pacifism is cowardice!

Originally posted by Gauss
reply to post by grey580

 

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

Ya, yknow, his ideals dont mean squat when you are protesting rightfully but getting beat down by police, or when a call to arms comes.

Pacifism seems like a convenience of a domesticated and subdued society.

Pacifism and non-violence are two different things, though they have the same inherent implications. The philosophy of pacifism is one of peace in any situation, that violence is never justified. The philosophy of non-violence is that the most preferable solution to a problem is the most peaceful, but there are times which call for physical action for the sake of saving lives and defending the weak.

I think some posters here might be unfortunately confusing the two.

reply to post by rainbowbear


Oh, you forgot to include international law, corporate law, federal law, state law, admiral law, martial law...

Nature evolves, dude. Although we are yet to realize the wisdom of civilization, this doesn't mean it won't one day come to pass, and it's not worth striving for.

Originally posted by ManjushriPrajna
Pacifism and non-violence are two different things, though they have the same inherent implications. The philosophy of pacifism is one of peace in any situation, that violence is never justified. The philosophy of non-violence is that the most preferable solution to a problem is the most peaceful, but there are times which call for physical action for the sake of saving lives and defending the weak.

I think some posters here might be unfortunately confusing the two.

I think you might be right. I must admit, I too was somewhat unclear on the differences. Thank you for clarifying.

reply to post by Gauss


Does it matter?
What if there are 50 pacifists?
And they all die. And only they die?
No one else it hurt.

reply to post by ManjushriPrajna


true. Even in this scenario however, one path, pacifism- is in opposition to Natural Law, in that you do not defend yourself against aggression.

the other, "non-violence" justifies violence in self defense. Im confused as to how you could be non violent yet protect yourself without violence. In fact, non-violence may be an illogical response to violence. So to me, the idea of non-violence really means pacifism.

Maybe you would care to provide us with definitions?

reply to post by unityemissions


um, no. those laws are governed by men-for men. what im talking about governs everything. Animals, plants, rocks......

Its cause and effect.

Originally posted by Gauss

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.

Only in your brain.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by unityemissions

 

um, no. those laws are governed by men-for men.

How does a law by men for men not exist you're not making sense, buddy.

what im talking about governs everything. Animals, plants, rocks......

Does gravity dictate whether or not I go to jail? It doesn't govern everyone in all of our actions. We do towards each other.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Gauss

 

Does it matter?
What if there are 50 pacifists?
And they all die. And only they die?
No one else it hurt.

Then it's their decision. But the issue most certainly does matter, because if you could save somebody's life by the use of force, and didn't, in my opinion you'd be as guilty as the person doing the life-taking.

I have always said if people where not meant to fight we wouldn't have skulls and rib cages but arn't we supposed to be evolving.

Originally posted by Gauss

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.

Protecting others with a selfless heart requires no reward or debt to you, if you say you are protecting them, whether they want it or not, then you are projecting your opinions onto others, perhaps you should keep out of others business, stop telling people what you expect from THEM and let them get on with their lives free of your divine judgement on their shortcomings. You may declair them cowards, but I don't think they give a rats ass what you think !

If you were on a ship, and a man with a knife threatened to kill innocent people...

The pacifist wouldn't get involved and would hope things works out on their own. Most like they would try a diplomatic approach, and if that didn't work, would hope for the best.

Someone who is, say, a Buddhist, who practices non-violence, would mull over the sitation. Negotiation is preferable, but if the madman is bent on killing people, if the only viable option were to do something violent to stop him, then what must be done must be done.

A better example may be my views as a Buddhist on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. To go into a country to take out a man like Osama Bin Laden would prevent them from killing more innocent people. But there was no reason for us to go into Iraq, and staying in Afghanistan was foolish as Osama turned out to be in Pakistan all along. A pacifist would have been against both wars.

Originally posted by Gauss
Then it's their decision. But the issue most certainly does matter, because if you could save somebody's life by the use of force, and didn't, in my opinion you'd be as guilty as the person doing the life-taking.

I agree. Doing nothing when you could of saved a life makes you negligent.

But that's not what we are talking about.

What I'm trying to get across is conviction of beliefs. If you believe in being a pacifist. And are willing to die because of your beliefs. Putting no one else at risk. Are you a coward?


Personally I'm a non violence kind of guy. Fighting should be a last resort. Because that means we failed using our minds to solve our differences. And if you attack me that means that I must obliterate you from existence. And there is no honor in that.

Originally posted by Qwenn
You may declair them cowards, but I don't think they give a rats ass what you think !

That is their perogative, because if you failed to notice it, we have the freedom to hold our own opinions in this life.

reply to post by grey580

im in agreement that a pacifist that dies for his beliefs is not a coward. I would die to defend his beliefs--what does that make me?

I would even go so far as to say that even a pacifist is protected by SOMEONE willing to use violence according to Natural Law.

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by Gauss
Then it's their decision. But the issue most certainly does matter, because if you could save somebody's life by the use of force, and didn't, in my opinion you'd be as guilty as the person doing the life-taking.

I agree. Doing nothing when you could of saved a life makes you negligent.

But that's not what we are talking about.

What I'm trying to get across is conviction of beliefs. If you believe in being a pacifist. And are willing to die because of your beliefs. Putting no one else at risk. Are you a coward?


Personally I'm a non violence kind of guy. Fighting should be a last resort. Because that means we failed using our minds to solve our differences. And if you attack me that means that I must obliterate you from existence. And there is no honor in that.

I see what you mean. It would not make them cowards - on the contrary. I might get furious at them for just lying down to die, but I could not call them cowards. And I share your belief in non-violence (though I did not know that was what it was called until today).

Your post is well placed under political ideology.
Your opening line says alot too..

I'm sure this post will ruffle a few feathers. That's what it's intended for, so knock yourselves out.

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer either change in society, or adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. It is how society sees things.

en.wikipedia.org...

If prostitution is the oldest profession creating soldiers is second in line.
It takes little brain power to become a solder, skill is another issue.
Military ideology takes away a soldiers options of free thinking and choice it incourages abandonment of emotions ie. fear,sorrow, regret, and compassion.But I'm sure you see those as a sign of weakness too.
People can only suppress their emotions so long, then they explode.
Ever wonder why so many vets are depressed when they return home or why they drink to much or why they have a high suicide rate ?
There are those who accept the military ideology and return home uneffected, with no regrets and no remorses.
And there are those who return in a bag, or so wacked out from killing they act out in society and get taken down by the cops or end up in jail.And then there the ones who turn to drugs, alcohol or those who believe suicide is the only choice they have left to deal with their emotions.
Elected officials force their ideology of fighting wars on the people to move their agenda for further domination and control over the people, funny how it's their children that never fight in their wars.

Whats worse being a pacifist or a blindly obedient soldier ?

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by Qwenn
You may declair them cowards, but I don't think they give a rats ass what you think !

That is their perogative, because if you failed to notice it, we have the freedom to hold our own opinions in this life.

I am sure that you are well experienced in holding your own, no one else should be expected to follow your decisions, after all you may be WRONG, heaven forbid, then you would be encouraging others to hold wrong beliefs.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Your post is well placed under political ideology.
Your opening line says alot too..

I'm sure this post will ruffle a few feathers. That's what it's intended for, so knock yourselves out.

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer either change in society, or adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. It is how society sees things.

en.wikipedia.org...

If prostitution is the oldest profession creating soldiers is second in line.
It takes little brain power to become a solder, skill is another issue.
Military ideology takes away a soldiers options of free thinking and choice it incourages abandonment of emotions ie. fear,sorrow, regret, and compassion.But I'm sure you see those as a sign of weakness too.
People can only suppress their emotions so long, then they explode.
Ever wonder why so many vets are depressed when they return home or why they drink to much or why they have a high suicide rate ?
There are those who accept the military ideology and return home uneffected, with no regrets and no remorses.
And there are those who return in a bag, or so wacked out from killing they act out in society and get taken down by the cops or end up in jail.And then there the ones who turn to drugs, alcohol or those who believe suicide is the only choice they have left to deal with their emotions.
Elected officials force their ideology of fighting wars on the people to move their agenda for further domination and control over the people, funny how it's their children that never fight in their wars.

Whats worse being a pacifist or a blindly obedient soldier ?

I wouldn't know, as clearly your experience in the military differs entirely from mine. Firstly, blind obedience has never been something sought after when I served. Secondly, the belief that a soldier doesn't have to be smart, only strong, is a myth stemming from some idiot who's never served a day of his life in the military. Thirdly, you seem to be under the impression that all militaries of the world fight in wars like the Americans do, which is wrong, and shows your ignorance on the issue.

Fourth, fear,sorrow, regret, and compassion are all emotions natural to everybody including me, so stop assuming that I despise them, because we all know what assuming makes out of you. Compassion is an important trait in any human being, and somebody without compassion is either a psychopath or a politician. And true courage comes from overcoming fear - in other words, to be truly, truly courageous one has to first be afraid.