Pacifism is cowardice!

Originally posted by RAY1990
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

Starred just because it made me laugh. Damn those veggie-pacifists.

reply to post by Gauss


You don't seem too friendly, insulting those who choose not to engage in violent acts.

Cowardice is doing the bidding of people without questioning a word of what they say.

Originally posted by saabster5
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.

Ah. Sorry if I got a bit hotheaded there, then, mate. I misunderstood your post.

Originally posted by The Sword
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"

Right. Because all soldiers shoot "brown people" and "protect poppy fields". I don't know about American soldiers, but I know that my own country's soldiers are in Afghanistan not to protect Americans or Swedes, but to help the civilian population there make a better life for themselves without oppression. That includes destroying opium fields and providing farmers with other crops instead of it.

Originally posted by RAY1990
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.

Thanks for the post, dude. I think we're looking at things the same way. Most people who breeze through this thread in a fit of rage seem to think I advocate violence as the first and only solution to a problem. Not true. Violence is always the last resort - but it is and must always be, in my opinion, a resort.

Originally posted by RAY1990
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.

Thanks for the post, dude. I think we're looking at things the same way. Most people who breeze through this thread in a fit of rage seem to think I advocate violence as the first and only solution to a problem. Not true. Violence is always the last resort - but it is and must always be, in my opinion, a resort.

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.

You are not a coward, but you obviously live in the suburbs where there are no problems so you should not speak to those of us who have the misfortune of being in bad neighbourhoods and areas.

Some of us have friends and family who have been hospitalised and killed by maniacal members of society. I'm sure being a pacifist is real easy for some other people, people who will never have their pacifist theory ever tested.

This isn't about who is tough, I am not tough, I am sure there are many pacifists in this thread who could physically beat me to a pulp if they were so inclined... it's not about toughness, it's about common sense.

And this is the problem that people like myself have with pacifists, for all your rhetoric and feigned intelligence you still cannot grasp the importance of context.

reply to post by Germanicus


never laughed so much reading his books
he's film's good too though I think he would of liked it a bit longer, he had a good sense of right and wrong for a psycho too

I think a few ATS guys would laugh or be intrigued by what he believed was done to him and stuff lol

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Gauss

 

You don't seem too friendly, insulting those who choose not to engage in violent acts.

Cowardice is doing the bidding of people without questioning a word of what they say.

I haven't insulted anyone on this board, thankyouverymuch. And I also haven't done, nor advocated doing the bidding of people without bla bla bla. I'll say again as I've said before if you had bothered actually reading through the thread; "A soldier who follow orders blindly and without questioning them is a dangerous thing". Assuming I feel any other way would be ignorance and assumption on your end, and we all know what assumption makes out of you.

Kthxbai.

reply to post by Gauss


lol Well OP, you got me with that first picture!

I agree that pacifist activists, not the anti-war people but those who are gung-ho about nonviolence, are the most insane, stupid, hypocrite, moralist people around. THey even go to the extent of using VIOLENCE on those they define as being "violent" in protests, while they'll be hugging and giving flowers to violent riot cops, even defending them against the baaad baaad rioters.

But the people who criticize and protest wars set up by the establishment aren't the cowards. It's the war-mongerers/profiteers that are.... since it's never them who'll take the blows on the front line!
It actually takes a lot of self-determination and courage to do stuff like blocking military convoys, especially when facing years in prison. Can call it crazy, but surely not cowardly.

Pacifiscm is cowardice! Because trying to avoid violence is the same as not willing to protect your loved ones!

Give me a break... Talking about people being on high horses while you call them misguided fools and cowards...

mirror


ps. Why is this not in rant?

Originally posted by Echtelion
reply to post by Gauss

 

lol Well OP, you got me with that first picture!

I agree that pacifist activists, not the anti-war people but those who are gung-ho about nonviolence, are the most insane, hypocrite, moralist people around. THey even go to the extent of using VIOLENCE on those they define as being "violent" in protests, while they'll be hugging and giving flowers to violent riot cops, even defending them against the baaad baaad rioters.

But the people who criticize and protest wars set up by the establishment aren't the cowards. It's the war-mongerers/profiteers that are.... since it's never them who'll take the blows on the front line!
It actually takes a lot of self-determination and courage to do stuff like blocking military convoys, especially when facing years in prison. Can call it crazy, but surely not cowardly.

edit on 28/5/12 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)

I hear ya, dude. I'm not saying that it's wrong to protest unjust wars. Soldiers deserve better than dying for a rotten cause, and attacking them with violence isn't going to help anyone.

reply to post by Gauss


Originally posted by The Sword
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"



Right. Because all soldiers shoot "brown people" and "protect poppy fields". I don't know about American soldiers, but I know that my own country's soldiers are in Afghanistan not to protect Americans or Swedes, but to help the civilian population there make a better life for themselves without oppression. That includes destroying opium fields and providing farmers with other crops instead of it.



Thats a serious problem these days Gauss people tarnish all forces with the same brush, the job done in afghan is not just yanks and us brits their is loads of countries their all doing a good deed one way or another though some just can't admit it

Originally posted by j-man
Pacifiscm is cowardice! Because trying to avoid violence is the same as not willing to protect your loved ones!

Give me a break... Talking about people being on high horses while you call them misguided fools and cowards...

mirror


ps. Why is this not in rant?

Read the whole thread. Re-read first post. Carefully so. Over and out.

Originally posted by Gauss
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.


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

This is from your OP. I read the thread but I still don't agree with you.

Originally posted by RAY1990
reply to post by Gauss

 

Originally posted by The Sword
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"



Right. Because all soldiers shoot "brown people" and "protect poppy fields". I don't know about American soldiers, but I know that my own country's soldiers are in Afghanistan not to protect Americans or Swedes, but to help the civilian population there make a better life for themselves without oppression. That includes destroying opium fields and providing farmers with other crops instead of it.



Thats a serious problem these days Gauss people tarnish all forces with the same brush, the job done in afghan is not just yanks and us brits their is loads of countries their all doing a good deed one way or another though some just can't admit it

edit on 28-5-2012 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)

A sad and unfortunate truth, dude. Even worse is, a few rotten apples, or even when they're many, tarnish the image of the whole military force. Oh, well. Such is the burden that any soldier must carry, I suppose.

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by The Sword
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"

Right. Because all soldiers shoot "brown people" and "protect poppy fields".

I don't know about American soldiers, but I know that my own country's soldiers are in Afghanistan not to protect Americans or Swedes, but to help the civilian population there make a better life for themselves without oppression. That includes destroying opium fields and providing farmers with other crops instead of it.

Looks like you have no problem swallowing the koolaide.

It takes more courage to lay down a weapon than to pick up one.

Weapons only give courage to the weak a truly courageous man needs no weapon.

reply to post by j-man


You don't have to. That is the perogative of this wonderful thing called Above Top Secret.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Gauss


Fair enough, I guess my feathers got ruffled...