Pacifism is cowardice!

Originally posted by Qwenn

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If somebody holds the wrong belief, then it's their responsibility, not mine. To say anything else is just them being unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions and life. Nobody is responsible for your actions and beliefs except for you.

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by Qwenn

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If somebody holds the wrong belief, then it's their responsibility, not mine. To say anything else is just them being unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions and life. Nobody is responsible for your actions and beliefs except for you.

Well done, you have come full circle and admitted that it is of no importance what you think of anyone elses actions, projecting your own beliefs onto others is the stumbling block, as it matters not in the least WHAT you think of any other persons actions, they are accountable only to themselves, not you.

Case proven !!!!!!

reply to post by Gauss

Most of the pacifism on this forum stems from politics. People of this sort inherently do not trust information and as a result they're "pacifists". This is not true pacifism because it's not rooted in the belief that all violence and war should be subdued, but it's instead rooted in the belief that information in support of a particular act of violence or war cannot be trusted. Thus, put in another situation where they have trust, these "pacifists" might very well be warmongers.

Originally posted by Qwenn

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by Qwenn

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If somebody holds the wrong belief, then it's their responsibility, not mine. To say anything else is just them being unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions and life. Nobody is responsible for your actions and beliefs except for you.

Well done, you have come full circle and admitted that it is of no importance what you think of anyone elses actions, projecting your own beliefs onto others is the stumbling block, as it matters not in the least WHAT you think of any other persons actions, they are accountable only to themselves, not you.

Case proven !!!!!!

That doesn't mean I'm going to shut up when they let innocent people get hurt because of their unwillingness to take action. Their beliefs may not matter, but the effects of them do.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Gauss

 

Most of the pacifism on this forum stems from politics. People of this sort inherently do not trust information and as a result they're "pacifists". This is not true pacifism because it's not rooted in the belief that all violence and war should be subdued, but it's instead rooted in the belief that information in support of a particular act of violence or war cannot be trusted. Thus, put in another situation where they have trust, these "pacifists" might very well be warmongers.

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

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I could understand that point of view. Nobody wants to fight for an unjust cause, after all. Well, almost nobody.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Gauss

 

I think some pacifists hate cruelty so much that they try not cause others pain and some war-mongers love to inflect suffering so much that they lust for war. Thus, I wouldn't say all pacifists are cowards just as I wouldn't say all war-mongers are idiots.

If pacifists deserve any derogatory comments it is that they tend to be delusionally optimistic.

And that's precisely what you're doing here, you're being delusionally optimistic. How else can you transform a coward into someone who hates cruelty? If a rapist had your wife at gunpoint, would it be cruel to shoot him to stop him from taking her away and raping her? What you just did is deny blame. There's no way to paint a coward as anything other than a coward.

It's cruel NOT to defend a loved one from a maniac. That's what you're denying.

Originally posted by Gauss
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).

Yeah but it's all about choice.
As an American we have our rights.
A right to follow beliefs to their logical conclusions.
If pacifism is your choice then so be it.
However that doesn't mean you can't fight battles. Cept that your weapon will be the pen and not the sword.

Cowardice and pacifism are not the same.

reply to post by CallYourBluff


Well I suppose in geological, and or cosmological scales of time and importance, no of course. My actions cannot change in a meaningful way, the course of the evolution of our planet, nor the way that planets orbit other stars in other galaxies.

But if what you are saying is that the way a person lives, or indeed the way they die, has no affect on anything what so ever, then I think you may be sorely mistaken. I could name countless persons in history, whose lives and then thier deaths, influenced things not just for generations, but for MILLENIA after thier era was well and truely over.

The imperialistic barbarism of Rome, echos in every throne held in every nation since the downfall of Rome. Rome itself based the vast majority of its culture on the Greek way of life of ages past. Echos of both ended up in the culture, art, and royalty of all the nations of Europe, and the med. And those things have passed on as far as America now, because the Liberty Belle, also known as the Statue of Liberty, is dressed in the traditional dress of the Roman/Greek people, a diaphanous toga, wreath in the hair, and so on. The actions of those who forged the first western civilisations of note, are still echoing in our time, and show no real sign of being consigned to the realms of the utterly forgotten, unlike the Phoenicians and the Etruscans. Most people couldnt even tell you they recognise those names, let alone are aware of thier import, but Rome will always be remembered. Who is to say therefore that in remembering Rome, we are not also remembering what came before Rome?

We are nothing but the echos of our forefathers and ancestors, mingled together in this time of multi culturalism. And if that is true, then the lives and deaths of individuals may also be sent forth into our time. The ripples of each life and death must have an affect on things, if you are an advocate of chaos theory at least.

For this reason, I believe it is irresponsible to merely accept what one cannot change.

reply to post by ManjushriPrajna


That depends entirely on the type of Buddhism.... A Zen Buddhist may do as you describe, a Theravadin Buddhist would not under ANY circumstances harm any living creature.

One of the basic tenets prescribed to by Ghatama Buddha was that of non interference, being an observer only.

You should probably learn a little more about the religion you adhere to...

Jaden

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

You made an argument supported by falsehoods. Basically, you set up a straw man and then killed it victoriously. The problem is none of it was supported by reality so it was an impotent argument.

Soldiers are trained to be non-thinking, unemotional robots? Is that what you just said?

You said they come home and must deny their emotions to go on?

If they don't then they fall to pieces; suicide, drugs, etc.

All war exists because of politicians and their lust for power and control, you say. You must also be thinking that war exists because we follow the politicians like obedient servants.

You do realize that going to war is not a choice? If a man comes home broken and we fail to fix him then this is the price of freedom. Nobody WANTS to fight wars, but they happen anyway. Nobody wanted Hitler to rise to power and parade his army across the sovereignty of other nations. But these things happen and soldiers go to war and sometimes they'll come back broken.

You sound like someone who does not want to register the reality of this world. So you distort reality to fit your desires. It's more comfortable for you to believe that war is unnecessary.

I feel ashamed to say that you make me sad. Not angry. Sad.

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.

Only you and God can technically know your motivation, that's why hate crime laws should not exist.

So while no, it doesn't necessarily mean on its face that you are a coward, there is a strong correlation between pacifism and cowardice and in all likelihood, YES, you ARE a coward.

Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden


You've not read my posts.

So while no, it doesn't necessarily mean on its face that you are a coward, there is a strong correlation between pacifism and cowardice and in all likelihood, YES, you ARE a coward.

If you are willing to die for your belief in pacifism. Does that make you a coward?

My terms are pacifism.
I will always choose to push forward a non violent solution and will always avoid temptation towards violence.

That changes the second the opposition decides to use their term...should they employ violence (the first strike), my pacifism is inconsequential and then I employ terrorism (terrify them with great violent resolve without any remorse) until one of us is defeated, or they see the logic in my terms.

So, I am not a pacifist I guess..but my terms and ideals are.
But throw the first punch and I will eat your face off.

I think I have a sensible outlook. The only difficulty is knowing when to stop. When the person whom throws the first punch is laying in a bloody pulp and requesting peace, it can be difficult to stop when you have the advantage..that is when true strength needs to be shown...the strength to stop and re-establish peaceful discussions..hopefully not needing to demonstrate the flaw of violence again..nor take your win as some sort of demonstration on how you have a more rational or worthy viewpoint.

Just because you can punch hard doesn't mean your viewpoint has more merit.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

If you are willing to die for your belief in pacifism. Does that make you a coward?

No, it makes you suicidal.

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.

The pen is only mightier than the sword in its ability to get many more swords into action...

The statement "the pen is mightier than the sword" is so often misused I have to laugh when I see it as justification for pacifism...

It is the exact OPPOSITE of pacifism.

The pen will reach many audiences, allowing you to get more swords, that is the ONLY way that it is mightier than the sword...

It ALWAYS comes down to violent action in the end.

The only question is how much you have allowed those who would use you to their ends take away from you and corrupt the system in their favor before you are willing to stand up for yours and other's liberty?

There is a reason that the American forefathers stated that from time to time there must be violent revolution.

They understood that usurpation and corruption were an inherent portion of the human psyche and condition and that it is necessary to stand up to it before it gets too rampant.

Americans have been lethargic for too long and have allowed the corruption to spread systemically to the point that a reboot is necessary and hopefully we will learn from the mistake and step up much sooner next time.

Jaden

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

You've not read my posts.

So while no, it doesn't necessarily mean on its face that you are a coward, there is a strong correlation between pacifism and cowardice and in all likelihood, YES, you ARE a coward.

If you are willing to die for your belief in pacifism. Does that make you a coward?

No it makes you a naive idealist with no understanding of reality.

Jaden

Originally posted by EvanB
I personally think the TRUE pacifist is very brave.. Someone who has the conviction to turn the other cheek is harder than the one resorting to violence which is easier to do than just stand there and keep check of yourself..

I do not have time for the sniffling cowards who parade themselves as pacifist to hide their cowardice.. Wimpy cowards who would runaway rather than stand up for loved ones...

But war is hell.. Believe me I know... But I thank God that there are anti-war people out there, people who bring tptb to account for their bloodthirsty actions and keep peoples eyes opened and informed... And the TRUE pacifist?? Is a braver man than me..

Jesus essentially died by turning the other cheek. He had a chance to raise the sword.

A pacifist willing to die to stay a pacifist isn't a coward, but they're not smart either. And if the cost of pacifism is the death of a loved one, how much have they accomplished?

Pacifism can't really work if its result is the death of innocent people. Essentially, by not acting in their defense, a pacifist has produced a result equal to if they had directly murdered them.

You could say that Jesus could have acted by destroying the sinners. Thus, by not acting, Jesus killed many innocent people who were victims of sinners. But that would have destroyed free will and only God can decide to do things in that manner. Jesus could only show us the path.

Besides, in the christian religion, most of this sh** is handled on the other side. In other words, God doesn't slay you here to prevent you from killing innocents, he condemns you to hell for eternity. So whatever you do wrong here is stored in God's memory and he will hold you accountable. This is a bit different than how God handled things before Christ. He directly slain sinners in the Old Testament.

Originally posted by jonnywhite

No, it makes you suicidal.

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

So you're saying that someone dying for their beliefs makes them suicidal?

I don't consider myself suicidal. But if a lion were to attack my kids I would kill that thing with my bare hands.

Does dying for your country make you suicidal? Are you saying our soldiers are suicidal?

Believe me when I say you are not ruffling my feathers at all.
All soldiers in every army in every country are fed an ideology to fight in every war.
And all soldiers suffer the same fate.
Some accept that ideology and some don't and many can't deal with it.
No matter what country your from does not matter when your placed in a situation of kill or be killed there is not much choice.especially when running away is not an option.
We don't know each other, other than what we post.
And you already made it clear your just here to ruffle feathers.
Weather we both served or not is irrelevent, ones belief are the topic.
Fighting for a real cause is one thing, and justifying killing are different ideologys.
Your assumtion that everyone who responds to your post is baited is incorrect some are amused.

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?