Pacifism is cowardice!

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by Masterjaden
No it makes you a naive idealist with no understanding of reality.
Jaden

............
And inversely what about people who would kill for their beliefs? Killing is ok.
But letting yourself be killed is bad?

It's bad if by not killing then other innocent people will die.

For example, if a murderer threatens your children with a knife and you have a gun and can kill him but you choose not to and this results in yourself and your children dying then you're directly responsible. It's as if you had yourself murdered your own children in cold blood.

reply to post by jonnywhite

It is bad if by not acting other innocent people will die.

Agreed.

But that's not the current point.
Let's say there is no one else at risk.
For miles.
Just one person.
And that person decides to stick to his beliefs. Pacifism.
Is he a coward?

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

It is bad if by not acting other innocent people will die.

................
Let's say there is no one else at risk.
For miles.
Just one person.
And that person decides to stick to his beliefs. Pacifism.
Is he a coward?

How likely do you think that's? You do know humans are social creatures?

Don't cherry pick to support your argument.

You do also realize that even if the person was alone they probably have family and friends. By not acting to preserve their life by killing the other person, they've inflicted pain on their loved ones. Long after they're dead this pain will linger. They're directly responsible for it.

Pacifism is not harmless.

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



If there's anything in this world that disgusts me, then it's pacifists. Pacifists put themselves on high horses, and look down on others who do not follow their beliefs - who are willing to get their hands dirty to protect others. Pacifism is opposition to war and fighting, but in recent days, it is more of an opposition to any and all forms of violence. I will say this; 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 cowards who renounce any and all responsibility to protect the people they love. Pacifism is an excuse not to take responsibility, and easy to hold on to until you know how difficult it is to watch your loved ones suffer. I have yet to meet a pacifist who retained his belief in pacifism when his loved ones were threatened. Those people were hypocrites, as it turns out. It's easy to renounce violence until the day comes when your family is threatened.

We all wish there could be a world where we didn't have to use violence. But between serial killers, bank robbers, gangbangers, and terrorists, not everybody has the option of putting down their guns and preaching non-violence. Protecting people's lives is more important than some half-baked notion about non-violence, a half-baked notion that, if followed, will cost the lives of innocent people. And yet at the end of the day, the pacifists will still sit on their moral high horses, and look down at anyone who uses violence, no matter how many innocent lives were saved by its use.

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

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

There's a ton of tough talk here...but, where's all your action?

All I hear is how its super duper tough to use violence when necessary, but um, your call to all of that is LONG OVERDUE.

If you weren't the very coward you were claiming others to be, you would have already had this whole FASCISM thing that the worlds' governments are doing locked-up...wouldn't ya? Guys like you and the so-called "militias" are practically impotent.

So, its best you just stay a pacifist...otherwise, someone might expect you to follow through with those WORDS of yours.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
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.

I'm not interested in if you're baited or not. Anyway, your view of soldiers is narrow. The profession of soldiers is so much more than just kill or be killed.

Originally posted by Serenity777

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



If there's anything in this world that disgusts me, then it's pacifists. Pacifists put themselves on high horses, and look down on others who do not follow their beliefs - who are willing to get their hands dirty to protect others. Pacifism is opposition to war and fighting, but in recent days, it is more of an opposition to any and all forms of violence. I will say this; 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 cowards who renounce any and all responsibility to protect the people they love. Pacifism is an excuse not to take responsibility, and easy to hold on to until you know how difficult it is to watch your loved ones suffer. I have yet to meet a pacifist who retained his belief in pacifism when his loved ones were threatened. Those people were hypocrites, as it turns out. It's easy to renounce violence until the day comes when your family is threatened.

We all wish there could be a world where we didn't have to use violence. But between serial killers, bank robbers, gangbangers, and terrorists, not everybody has the option of putting down their guns and preaching non-violence. Protecting people's lives is more important than some half-baked notion about non-violence, a half-baked notion that, if followed, will cost the lives of innocent people. And yet at the end of the day, the pacifists will still sit on their moral high horses, and look down at anyone who uses violence, no matter how many innocent lives were saved by its use.

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

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

There's a ton of tough talk here...but, where's all your action?

All I hear is how its super duper tough to use violence when necessary, but um, your call to all of that is LONG OVERDUE.

If you weren't the very coward you were claiming others to be, you would have already had this whole FASCISM thing that the worlds' governments are doing locked-up...wouldn't ya? Guys like you and the so-called "militias" are practically impotent.

So, its best you just stay a pacifist...otherwise, someone might expect you to follow through with those WORDS of yours.

So, you expect me to save the world all by myself? You should try taking responsibility for your own life instead of hoping someone else will save you.

reply to post by jonnywhite

Jesus, knowing Natural Law is Superior to Mans Laws, violently threw out the moneychangers. He also cursed the fig tree.

If Jesus was a pacifist, the story would have had a sit-in outside the temple instead.

reply to post by jonnywhite

How likely do you think that's? You do know humans are social creatures? Don't cherry pick to support your argument. You do also realize that even if the person was alone they probably have family and friends. By not acting to preserve their life by killing the other person, they have inflicted pain on loved ones.

But that's not the topic of the OP!

Pacifism is cowardice!

I'm not cherry picking. I'm trying to stay on topic.

By your same line of reasoning if putting yourself in harms way when you could of saved yourself is bad.
Because it will inflict pain on loved on loved ones.

Why do we have firefighters and police men risking their lives every day?

It's all about beliefs!
They believe in saving the lives of others. Even at the risk of their own.
Even if the outcome would inflict pain on loved ones.

Pacifists believe in pacifism so much that they will risk their own life for their beliefs.

reply to post by rainbowbear


ahhh.. but that's not the argument.
He let himself be killed.
When he had all the power in the Universe to stop it.
A very Pacifist way of doing things.
Died for his beliefs.

Return not evil with evil.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

By your same line of reasoning if putting yourself in harms way when you could of saved yourself is bad.
Because it will inflict pain on loved on loved ones.
...............

Then this boils down to:
1) Does pacifism offer more benefit than killing?

Whichever offers more benefit is more worth doing.

Neither is harmless. Most things aren't. Everything is a cost/benefit ratio.

Cost/Benefit of the Operation Iraqi Freedom:
a. Killing Saddam and preventing further terrorism/genocide was the benefit.
b. Inflicting emotional pain on loved ones and suffering casualties were the costs.
(obviously, there were other costs and benefits, but this is brief for a reason)

If we had chosen NOT to kill Saddam, what would the cost/benefit ratio be? Broadly, I am pitting pacifism against "measured" violence and asking which is a better cost/benefit ratio.

reply to post by jonnywhite

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.

Your assumption not mine.

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

Non thinking is a broad term. Soldiers are trained and molded to blindly obey orders. the option of free thinking and choice are removed from the equation.

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

No, that is in their training to help them deal with war and does not always work.

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

Many do , do you have a better reason why vets suicide rate is so high right now ?

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.

Yes.

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.

Yes it is. No it's not. Your right , and yes it does. Right again, no kidding, and that does not justify war and killing.

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.

No, thats you. In many cases war is unnessary , it all comes down to what ideology you accept as truth.

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

Funny thats how I feel about you.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Then this boils down to:
1) Does pacifism offer more benefit than killing?

Whichever offers more benefit is more worth doing.

Neither is harmless. Most things aren't. Everything is a cost/benefit ratio.

Cost/Benefit of the Operation Iraqi Freedom:
a. Killing Saddam and preventing further terrorism/genocide was the benefit.
b. Inflicting emotional pain on loved ones and suffering casualties were the costs.
(obviously, there were other costs and benefits, but this is brief for a reason)

If we had chosen NOT to kill Saddam, what would the cost/benefit ratio be?

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

If you're going with that scenario not invading would of been the way to go.
Less people would of died than if we had invaded. And people who are still dying after the war.

In any case resolving your differences like adults rather than killing each other is always the way to go.

reply to post by Gauss

I'm not interested in if you're baited or not. Anyway, your view of soldiers is narrow. The profession of soldiers is so much more than just kill or be killed

Again you assume.
I have the greatest respect for anyone who serves their country.
What I have is contempt for a government who brainwashes it's military personel and government leaders who abuse their power and authority to further their agenda with people / soldiers they consider fodder.

Originally posted by grey580


If you're going with that scenario not invading would of been the way to go.
Less people would of died than if we had invaded. And people who are still dying after the war.
..........

How do you know? If we had not enacted Operation Iraqi Freedom with the purpose of annihilating the Saddam regime and its leader, how do you know that the price to pay would not be higher? Can you see the future? We know that Saddam had some "loose" connections to anti-israel terrorism and we also know that Saddam was killing his own people and being a general nuisance - i mean, we had witnessed him in his attempt to annex Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War. We know he had had chemical weapons. He was stalling inspectors so that we could not accurately measure his activities.

Fears play a role in it because you would be asking people to have faith that Saddam will not do further harm because you would hem him in and denature him. The problem is that Saddam did not earn the benefit of the doubt. He had proven other peoples fears in the Persian Gulf War and in the chemical weapons attacks during his war with Iran and the Kurds.

Still, we cannot know for sure so a cost/benefit ratio is still worth exploring.

Watch this for a review of the doubts about Saddam preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Here is the wiki for the Persian Gulf War - Saddam wanting Kuwait's oil:
en.wikipedia.org...

It's important to know what led up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. We also have to examine the US's role in the Iran-Iraq war. Reagan took some chances and so did senior Bush.

Bottom line, I feel the fog of war makes judging these things difficult.

Some might regard me as foolhardy for participating in a thread about pacifism and cowardice because of my French nationality. And in advance, may I state that I don't represent France or it's people on this forum. So spare me the sins of my nation, as I spare you yours.

Pacifism is anything but weakness.

Pacifists aren't driven simply by a desire to be weak in the face of an enemy, to let their own side and themselves down. Most pacifists believe in God & the teachings of Jesus Christ. They wish to see the world transformed in our own lifetime by putting a special emphasis on action, of deed rather than theory. Pacifists recognize good and evil but reject the notion that Christ's teachings permit us to kill in his name ... whatever the circumstances.

Who here can reconcile "thou shall not kill", "love your enemy", "show the other cheek" with killing people ? Jesus didn't teach us to kill anyone. Anyone ? We say in the Notre Père "Thy Kingdom Come" ... the Kingdom of God, of love, the one we hope to pass to at death.

Well I can't wait until death. I want God's Kingdom now, here on the Earth we all share. I want a world where violence and the threat of violence is not only the absolute last resort, it's one which is never exercised under any circumstances whatever. Idealistic ? Perhaps. Cowardice ? NEVER.

Others might say that a little bit of evil sometimes justifies a good outcome. But how presumptive of them to know God's wishes, are they not ? We were told clearly not to kill.

Force or the threat of force doesn't subdue. It doesn't subdue the Afghanis, the Iraqis or the Iranians. But love WILL change their hearts. Love and joy and peace and gentleness and all those other virtues which those in power today seek to extinguish from the political narrative of the Western world.

Pacifists aren't cowards. We're torn at heart by the injustices of this world. But those injustices will never be cured by violence, never. Violence makes more violence, then yet more still. It's passed from one generation to the next.

I despaire of the OP and the position he and so many of his compatriots take. For their country was created by the quiet, stalwart and persistent peaceful discontent of those thoughtful men of faith in the eastern states, like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut & Massachusetts ... by men who not only opposed violence, they opposed a distant government thousands of miles away in England which sought to tax them for the aggressive waging of colonial wars in their name.

Their discontent and unhappiness, their quiet pacifism sowed the seed of the creation of the United States. That wasn't the act of cowards, that's the actions of the brave, every bit as brave as those who fight and die in the name of the USA in foreign fields today.

The OP calls that cowardice ? Well, this pacifist politely disagrees.

reply to post by jonnywhite

How do you know? If we had not enacted Operation Iraqi Freedom with the purpose of annihilating the Saddam regime and its leader, how do you know that the price to pay would not be higher? Can you see the future? We know that Saddam had some "loose" connections to anti-israel terrorism and we also know that Saddam was killing his own people and being a general nuisance - i mean, we had witnessed him in his attempt to annex Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War. We know he had had chemical weapons. He was stalling inspectors so that we could not accurately measure his activities.

Fears play a role in it because you would be asking people to have faith that Saddam will not do further harm because you would hem him in and denature him. The problem is that Saddam did not earn the benefit of the doubt. He had proven other peoples fears in the Persian Gulf War and in the chemical weapons attacks during his war with Iran and the Kurds.

Still, we cannot know for sure so a cost/benefit ratio is still worth exploring.

Dude really? You're on ATS and you've not read any of the posts regarding the Iraq war?

While I don't have a crystal ball. I do see that from a historical perspective that while Sadaam was in power Iraq was relatively peaceful. Sure he was a iron fisted dictator that killed his share of people.
However what you didn't have under Sadaam was the wholesale slaughter of Iraqi citizens in Shia vs Sunni conflict.
Women could walk the streets. The morgues were not filled to overflowing with bodies from the people murdered on a daily basis.

Sadaam was at one point in time a lackey of the United States. But he didn't want to play lapdog to the USA anymore so we took him out. Beginning with that whole Kuwait setup where we told him it was ok to invade and then turned on him. Made him into the bad guy and took him out.

However I digress this whole post is completely off topic and better suited for another thread.

Pacifism has not served Nepal very well.I am a poor judge of this of course being an internally driven fighter.But it seems to me there is supposed to be a Yin and Yang in life.So violence and peace are equal.As repellent as it is there are plenty of asocial people who will want to take from any pacifist anything they want.I suppose you just give them material items but what about personal defense?Ones family, ones' house ,ones country.This isn't a debate on why we war it is a debate on violence.I haven't laid a fist to anyones face since 1986 because I didn't have to.Yes I do have a complex mind and usually am able to stop attackers by telling them I can't fight just kill. Most are simple attempting to boost their ego and I will in fact try to kill them and inform them as such as that is how the law has made it.Once I say "I am a war vet' I will be left alone period otherwise I will fight for my life as I am now ill from COPD.I never want to harm any person without great reason.But that choice will be the aggressor's not mine.Yes I do see it as a horrible mess and I don't see any solutions being achieved only loss.The choice is made by the angry party here I try to be calm and clear.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Wrong... Jesus died because the Father told him to as a final sacrifice.

Jaden

Originally posted by grey580

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?

Jesus was no pacifist...

I guess you like to selectively read the bible then??? He attacked the money changers who were defiling his Father's temple.

Jaden

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by rainbowbear

 

ahhh.. but that's not the argument.
He let himself be killed.
When he had all the power in the Universe to stop it.
A very Pacifist way of doing things.
Died for his beliefs.

Return not evil with evil.

Righteous violence is NOT evil...

Jaden