Pacifism is cowardice!

reply to post by Gauss


Gandhi and King were pacifists and used non-violence. Two of the wisest men to ever walk the earth. I venture to say they knew more adversity than you do, but they chose the "cowardly way" according to you. Maybe you need to dig a little deeper ...

I would agree, but I would also add that violence simply for violence's sake is a form of cowardice. There is a time to fight, and there is a time seek peace; the problem is knowing which is which.

reply to post by Gauss


Lol what a thread.
how many people do you know of say a husband/father saying to the guy raping there wife/daughter i would stop you but you know I'm a pacifist so have at it.
police actually tell you now thats it better not to do anything if you get caught up in a bank robbery so not really cowardice there

I guess you could say im a pacifist because i chose not to join the military and fight in a "war"

I'd have to be a complete idiot to do that knowing what we do about the afgan and iraq war. I think its a shame all those people died in those wars actually thinking they were somehow defending there country.
When really there just fighting for the imperialists.

Off course you can't have peace with out war.
I do thank the last real war heroes,and that is the WW2 vets.

Originally posted by AllIsOne

reply to post by Gauss

 

Gandhi and King were pacifists and used non-violence. Two of the wisest men to ever walk the earth. I venture to say they knew more adversity than you do, but they chose the "cowardly way" according to you. Maybe you need to dig a little deeper ...

Gandhi was only successful because he had violent soldiers leading the way and fighting for his movement.Just as King was only successful because others were threatening violence.

If you actually read about the movements you'll know the establishment worked and acknowledged both as an act of damage control, the belief being that other violent elements, elements more dangerous to their position of power, would gain more widespread popularity

peaceful movements are always made on a foundation of violence, always.

The reality is that Gandhi actually caused a lot of damage to human society, because people who don't know better, have adopted his supposed association of pacifism, chosen consentually or not, with positive morality.

On the other hand...

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Violence should not be used gratuitously or excessively. Paradoxically, doing so actually tends to reduce its' real effectiveness. The few times when I have employed violence, have always been with the most extreme reluctance.

At the same time, however, it needs to be understood that there are situations in which Gandhi's stance will get people killed. I actually tend to feel considerable resentment and anger towards Martin Luther King as well, to be totally blunt; because his approach was ultimately self-destructive, and pacifism is nearly always adopted with the attitude that self-preservation is less important than virtue.

Anyone who thinks that refraining from violence is always the correct option, sorely needs to learn to think for themselves; yet at the same time, the Hebrew proverb about living by the sword, and dying by the sword is true.

Violence is a very situational thing. Maybe 1-5% of the time, it's justifiable and necessary, yes. The rest of the time, no; and it should be avoided if reasonably possible.

Originally posted by Gauss
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)

Then you have a different view of pacifism to me. I am more than prepared to loose my life in the defense of self or others, I'm just not willing to assume I have the right to take a life, and don't hold to the belief that taking the lives of others is the only or best way to defend yourself.
I also don't presume that I alone know what's best for anyone but myself.


Shrugs. ymmv

Ro

I AGREE!!!!!!

Originally posted by JailTales

Originally posted by AllIsOne

reply to post by Gauss

 

Gandhi and King were pacifists and used non-violence. Two of the wisest men to ever walk the earth. I venture to say they knew more adversity than you do, but they chose the "cowardly way" according to you. Maybe you need to dig a little deeper ...

Gandhi was only successful because he had violent soldiers leading the way and fighting for his movement.Just as King was only successful because others were threatening violence.

If you actually read about the movements you'll know the establishment worked and acknowledged both as an act of damage control, the belief being that other violent elements, elements more dangerous to their position of power, would gain more widespread popularity

peaceful movements are always made on a foundation of violence, always.

No, Dr. King was successful because the violent acts of Bull Connor showed the world the truth. And the truth shall set you free.

Of course there were constant calls for violent retribution, but Dr. King knew better. That is a fact. He never stood for violence.

Originally posted by MollyMN
I AGREE!!!!!!

How is burning the flag of an occupying country terrorism?

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by JailTales

Originally posted by AllIsOne

reply to post by Gauss

 

Gandhi and King were pacifists and used non-violence. Two of the wisest men to ever walk the earth. I venture to say they knew more adversity than you do, but they chose the "cowardly way" according to you. Maybe you need to dig a little deeper ...

Gandhi was only successful because he had violent soldiers leading the way and fighting for his movement.Just as King was only successful because others were threatening violence.

If you actually read about the movements you'll know the establishment worked and acknowledged both as an act of damage control, the belief being that other violent elements, elements more dangerous to their position of power, would gain more widespread popularity

peaceful movements are always made on a foundation of violence, always.

No, Dr. King was successful because the violent acts of Bull Connor showed the world the truth. And the truth shall set you free.

Of course there were constant calls for violent retribution, but Dr. King knew better. That is a fact. He never stood for violence.

No he didn't, which is why the establishment loved him so much - damage limitation. It gave the ruling elite the opportunity to enter in "dialogue", hence their support for him.

Dr King was a great help for the establishment.

Click here for more information.

I dont use violence as an answer to everything, but by God, it is my given human right to use it to defend myself, my family, my land, and my country. Given basis that it was a justifiable attack to use defense in.

But other than that, harm no flies ^^

In response to the "turn the cheek" quote from the Bible - there is more than one way to interpret that. The first is that we should be passive - but it is also equally possible to interpret this as defiance. You are shaming the person inflicting pain by saying "is that all you've got? I can take that and more. Here, you want the other one? Does that make you feel bigger and stronger?" The same with "if a man sues you for your cloak, give him your robe as well." (okay, I'm remembering this from the top of my head so I hope you are getting my reference.) This is another 'peaceful warrior' tactic - shame the greedy person who has sued you into looking publicly bad - you will not walk away a victim. Just food for thought...

My personal take - our bodies would not survive a day without our internal "warriors" in our immune system. We owe our breath to the cells within that protect us. On the other hand, if those same "warrior cells" start attacking us and destroying the body they are supposed to be protecting, we die (or live in extreme pain and limited function). The bottom line for me is balance, and the wisdom of being able to recognize and handle a real threat. I'm not saying it is wrong to be peaceful or to seek peaceful solutions - in fact I vastly prefer this to jumping into violence. I also know that it is noble to defend the weaker, the vulnerable, the young and the elderly, to provide for their safety. My "from the top of my head" two cents...

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat
reply to post by Gauss

 

Thus sayeth the coward. Only ppl that reject "deciding not to kill" are the great cowards among us. Destruction and horror are your contribution to Mankind. Give me a Gandhi, Martin Luther King, even Jesus over a sniveling little weasel like you.

I wouldn't call him a weasel or a coward. A brainwashed, jingoistic, testosterone poisoned grunt, perhaps, yes...but a coward or weasel, no.

reply to post by JailTales

Dr King was a great help for the establishment.

Yes, that's why they killed him. Makes total sense to me now ...

He became an even bigger thread to the establishment when he started to tackle the poverty issue. The fun stops when the $$$ is threatened.

reply to post by Gauss


I remember an old Kungfu episode where the question was asked about what to do when attacked. The answer by the master was something like: Run away rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. Kill rather than be killed. (Something like that.) Anyhoo, S&F for you.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by JailTales

 

Dr King was a great help for the establishment.

Yes, that's why they killed him. Makes total sense to me now ...

He became an even bigger thread to the establishment when he started to tackle the poverty issue. The fun stops when the $$$ is threatened.

They killed him because he started getting involved and supporting trade unions and the labour movement, had nothing to do with civil rights

There is a time for diplomacy, a time for non violent civil disobedience, and a time to fight. The key is knowing when the time ends for each and the necessity begins to move to the next stage. Most people, sadly, do not know or understand the keys.

an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare

reply to post by Bixxi3


Your example about rape totally misses the mark.

Originally posted by revmoofoo
As I've grown older I've become a pacifist. Which isn't an easy task when you have anger issues and PTSD (to name but 2 of the many reasons why I became a pacifist) Sure, I was in the Army and sure I was a martial arts instructor. However, just because I still have all the skills (and still practice them 20 years on) that doesn't mean I have to use them.

That said, I will (and have done in the past) fight to defend my family...show me a loving soul who wouldn't.

I'm not a coward, but I am a pacifist who has seen far too much of life to be anything else.

Rev

edit on 28/5/2012 by revmoofoo because: ETA

Amazing how the road of life can lead people in such opposite directions. I used to think there was good in everyone, and that everyone deserved a second chance. I don't believe that anymore. We have this one life and there are those that relish the idea of sucking the fun out of it. If I heard of drug dealers suddenly being killed all over the country, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.