Pacifism is cowardice!

I don't think a person should be completely pacifist, it depends on the situation. We have to remain somewhat flexible in our ideology, and use whatever we need that works best for a given situation. (Like Marxists supporting temporary nationalism, even when they are apposed to nationalism ultimately)

I believe state sanctioned violence to increase capitalist interest is wrong. But violence against a true aggressor is justified if necessary.

Does it make a person a coward to be apposed to violence, except in the most extreme and necessary situation?
Even most pacifists will agree that violence is not always avoidable. The 80's anarchist scene was mostly pacifist at first, but a lot of anarchists had changed their minds by the mid 80's, realising that sometimes violence is the only, and thus a justifiable, path to achieve their goal.

Pacified. Classified.
Keep in line. You're doing fine.
Lost your voice? There ain't no choice.
Play the game. Silent and tame.
Be the passive observer, sit back and look,
At the world they destroyed, and the peace that they took.
Ask no questions, hear no lies,
And you'll be living in the comfort of a fool's paradise.

By letting it happen without a fight...
You're already dead, You're already dead.
With your endless debates about wrong and right...
You're already dead, You're already dead.
Nothing's going to change if you're not prepared to act,
There's no point complaining after the fact,
Content to be a number, branded X and neatly packed...
You're already dead, You're already dead. Crass, 'You're Already Dead' 1984

Crass, a pacifist anarchist group, changed their minds in their last year of existence after experiencing the miners strikes.

Pacifism is not cowardliness, it is the realization that violence breeds violence, and it should be apposed not glorified and excused, it should remain the most extreme act after all else fails. It should never be accepted as a normal solution.

Originally posted by buster2010

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.

I don't like kool-aid. I prefer PowerAde. Thanks anyway.

I'll tell you something else. It doesn't take courage to get yourself killed, which is what will often happen if you lay down your weapon, either sooner (if you're lucky), or later. And if you're really unlucky, others will die before you because you weren't there to protect them.

reply to post by j-man


No worries there. I'd be surprised if I didn't ruffle feathers with my OP. Peace, dude.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
*snip*

What does my daddy and mommy have to do with this issue? Sounds like someone needs to stick to the topic instead of sneaking around insults.


Mod Edit: Removed quote of actioned post.

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)

As someone who associates with many Pacifists and other activists... I'm going to have to partially agree with this post.

I think 100% uncompromising Pacifism in every situation is absolutely *snip* foolish and cowardly. There are times when aggression/violence is appropriate and called for in life. This is an imperfect world, we are animals, we should maintain peace, but sometimes you must attack those who attack you when you exhaust other, more preferable/effective, options.


Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't think a person should be completely pacifist, it depends on the situation. We have to remain somewhat flexible in our ideology, and use whatever we need that works best for a given situation. (Like Marxists supporting temporary nationalism, even when they are apposed to nationalism ultimately)

I believe state sanctioned violence to increase capitalist interest is wrong. But violence against a true aggressor is justified if necessary.

Does it make a person a coward to be apposed to violence, except in the most extreme and necessary situation?

I hear ya, dude, and I agree with you. The keyword is "if necessary", but at least then, violence is still an option as the last resort. Without it, if you exhaust all your other options, all you have left is to lie down and die. And to answer your question; No, absolutely not, and I've never said that, though some people on this thread seem to have gotten that idea. In fact, this is the only stance possible in my opinion, on violence.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Exactly what I and many others on this thread thinks. To me, that policy when it comes to violence, is common sense. Starred ya, dude. Thanks for posting.

I am not a pacifist. Quite the contrary. I DO respect those that are willing to stand by their beliefs if that is what they are. I sure as hell could maintain equilibrium in the face of adversity. Kudos to those that stand behind their beliefs. Cowards? No. They have more fortitude than those that would stand up and fight. imo. That makes them a target to the aggressive. But they still go through with it? Call it what you want it sure isn't cowardice.

reply to post by ANOK


I think you got it right their

that's why soldiers and police or whatever don't go around shooting everything that moves regardless of what some may want you to think, that tends to drop to the maniacs and loops same works on the opposite.

People should know what is right at the end of the day and also what is needed, but too many people are deluded or up there own ass

reply to post by intrepid


I'm going to have to disagree with you. But, only as so far as to when it hurts innocent bystanders and/or third party peeps. I can see how it would require a certain amount of testicular fortitude to take a beating without giving any back. Not so much when you're not the person the aggressor is beating on, though.

reply to post by Gauss


From a US Marine holding a highly modified Remington .308 somewhere in the world, I agree with your post...!

Sniper

reply to post by Gauss


I would not bother responding to him, he is probably scared of his or her own shadow...

Sniper...

Wow this will throw people off about me but here goes.No Pacifism is the nature of the individual and so must be defended by the right minded non pacifist.Some people can't fight,don't even try to bu##sh#t me otherwise.They can't do it.So their sense of self value is skewed by a macho American culture as we grew up.John Wayne scoffed at such men in the movies.They are angry as are the secularist and now demand a voice once oppressed by a blind media and now are obviously are being uplifted by the same.We as strong American men should be strong in spirit to accept SOME of their ways.So long as it doesn't encroach on us as we have done to them.
They as intelligent beings should seek equality not retribution.

People start wars becouse there are fools who will fight and die for any reson.

in the big wars the people who start them.
just stay safe and tell the fools when to die.

are you a fool?

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by Gauss

 

society does need elements to be preserved from the old warrior societies - such as honor, pride, dignity, and an unrelenting, concrete solid, unwavering self-respect.

I agree. Wouldnt this be pretty cool though? Some guy insults you or wrongs you in some way and instead of calling the Police like a scared little rat, you go battle in the thunderdome.

Two men enter. One man leaves.

I hate that we cant work out our own problems. I should not have to worry about 'victims compensation' or assault charges if some jerk dishonours me.

There are flaws but screw the weak. This is why we have devolved. We live in a society that is almost 'survival of the weakest'.

We will never have a Spartan-like society. We will keep getting worse if we keep carrying the weak.

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

You said:

Im not sure if it can be changed because most of you really are pathetic cowards.

I can't be sure you weren't talking about me, and since I feel that you were, and I feel I've been slighted, why don't we hash this out in the way you so dearly want to above? Challenge accepted.

/TOA

Originally posted by Gauss
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Exactly what I and many others on this thread thinks. To me, that policy when it comes to violence, is common sense. Starred ya, dude. Thanks for posting.

Thanks. 8)

Yeah, I mean, I completely respect Pacifism, and most of the time I am a sane/rational Pacifist myself. In the vast majority of situations in life, even complex/trying ones, violence is not called for. However, the wisest thing to do is to avoid trouble and peace-make when you can, but to leave (almost) every tool on the table for safety/tactic's sake.

In essence- don't look for trouble, don't allow unnecessary escalation, exhaust all peaceful options, but if/when the time comes to defend oneself (or what one loves/values) be minimal, but do not be timid or hesitant to do so decisively and with tactical thoroughness.

reply to post by Gauss


Pacifism is Pacifism, and Cowardice is Cowardice.
But there is a thin line between them, just like there is a thin line between bravery and stupidity.

Originally posted by Germanicus

Everyone is a coward. Its sickening. People should be ashamed of themselves.

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

Everyone but you eh?? You Hard B*st*rd

reply to post by Gauss


So Jesus, and all true followers are cowards? You know the cheek thingy ...

What a thought provoking thread - thank you for the social experiment you have instigated.

My very first thought when I read the title of this thread - Slavery is Freedom - just like the book stated. My second thought is that when, as a Teacher I explain to Students that I am a pacifist - it always saddens me that not one class has known the word pacifist or its meaning.

I write the word pacifist on the board and we talk about how it came from the word PEACE.

Pacifist - pacifism - pacify - peaceful.

I also explain to the Students that when my back is to the wall - I do not let a person physically hurt me - it is natural to defend yourself but I always fight my battles with words - spoken and written - that is why writing is an art. It takes a lot of practice combined with an active intellect - to write words that can penetrate the hardest of hearts and the coldest of minds. I will keep trying - with my words - to create a peaceful world where everyone is secure. I try to be the best role model for Students.

Much Peace...for always...