What are some of your thoughts about Pacifists?

[Spirit of Light]

I wish there were more in the world, in a lot of ways.
However, in a more negative sense, I see it as a luxury. It's much easier (and more possible) to be a pacifist in a society where there isn't overwhelming levels of violence and crime.
I also find myself wondering how possible it is, or how positive it is, to be a pacifist when you have people depending on you. So, sure, I might turn the other cheek when faced with violence. Am I willing to make the same choice if it's my children facing violence? My wife?

So...that would be my basic tenets;
1) It's an honourable position but;
2) Pacifists are largely dependant on the environment around them
3) A pacifist is someone who won't physically step in if my child was being beaten.

That last is obviously an unusual and extreme example, but that's my point. On the daily, pacifism is fine. But I think MOST people can be pushed beyond this boundary, and I actually think they should move from pacifism to action, even if only in extreme situations.

If I saw your kids being beaten on the street i would step between and take the beating for them,so they could run away to safety

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Then may I present the “Grand theft auto pacifist”:

That dude has too much time on his hands.
Still, if he wants a more manageable and informative challenge, he should start playing Crusader Kings III as a pacifist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If I saw your kids being beaten on the street i would step between and take the beating for them,so they could run away to safety

And I respect that. It's an honorable choice. But I suppose that shorthand example was really just an amalgam of other thoughts and scenarios.
Perhaps my kids can't run away, for some reason.
Perhaps it's not a beating, but mortal danger.

Etc, etc.

I don't equate pacifism with cowardice (in many cases it is the opposite), but it does limit the pragmatic effect a person can have on an immediate situation.
I've managed to live my life almost entirely without violence...however, I reserve the right to use violence, if only as a last resort, and so wouldn't refer to myself as a true pacifist despite how I've been able to live.

 

[Heyo]

In another OP started by @firedragon , I answered his question, and in his OP I write about being a pacifist.
That made me think, how do other people react to someone who is a pacifist?

So the question may be, what is your view on pacifism and or pacifists?
Are you afraid of them?
Curious to why they think as they do?
Do pacifists create a danger to you as a person?

Do you trust people who identify as nonviolent and pacifistic?

NB: Discussion forum not Debate

I somewhat admire pacifists although it isn't for me and I think it is neither practical nor morally right.
For me violence is the very last resort and only justified in self defence. But sometimes you've got to kick a bullies butt do keep him from hurting more people. Less harm done over all and in the long run.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I somewhat admire pacifists although it isn't for me and I think it is neither practical nor morally right.
For me violence is the very last resort and only justified in self defence. But sometimes you've got to kick a bullies butt do keep him from hurting more people. Less harm done over all and in the long run.

I believe all pacifists should respect other peoples view and choice too if we don't how could we be taken seriously

 

[Koldo]

I can not do anything about what has happened in the past.

Sure, but you can now stop saying that Gandhi liberated India through non violence as if he had done all the heavy lifting by himself because you know better now. There was a lot of violence and threat of violence involved.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure, but you can now stop saying that Gandhi liberated India through non violence as if he had done all the heavy lifting by himself because you know better now. There was a lot of violence and threat of violence involved.

Gandhi's enduring legacy lies in the affirmation that great things can be achieved through a mixture of courage and compassion, peacefully and in a spirit of love and forgiveness of one's enemies. His example served as an inspiration to the British Trade Union movement, the US Civil Rights movement, and the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa, to name but three.

The only legacy of violence, is more violence. When tyranny and injustice are overthrown by violence, the result is always greater tyranny and worse injustice; the French and Russian revolutions are all the evidence you should require of that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, Gandhi failed. Independence to territories was a British economic compulsion. Nearly all territories were given independence at that time. Independence was not wholly because of Gandhi. And what happened after independence was not according to Gandhian view. Actually Gandhi said that the Congress party should be dismantled. Not doing that led to a 55 year rule of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Thankfully, that is over now and the dynasty is in tatters.

I doubt it was ever his intention to establish a dynasty, and he can hardly be held responsible for the failings of those who came after him.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Sure, but you can now stop saying that Gandhi liberated India through non violence as if he had done all the heavy lifting by himself because you know better now. There was a lot of violence and threat of violence involved.

That is something Gandhi has to answer for, i was not there

 

[Koldo]

Gandhi's enduring legacy lies in the affirmation that great things can be achieved through a mixture of courage and compassion, peacefully and in a spirit of love and forgiveness of one's enemies. His example served as an inspiration to the British Trade Union movement, the US Civil Rights movement, and the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa, to name but three.

The only legacy of violence, is more violence. When tyranny and injustice are overthrown by violence, the result is always greater tyranny and worse injustice; the French and Russian revolutions are all the evidence you should require of that.

It is as if you are erasing from history the likes of Malcom X and Nelson Mandela.

 

[Koldo]

That is something Gandhi has to answer for, i was not there

You answer for what you say though.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You answer for what you say though.

I can only stand by my own action words and thoughts, what other pacifists do is up to them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I doubt it was ever his intention to establish a dynasty, and he can hardly be held responsible for the failings of those who came after him.

I have not blamed Gandhi. He was just a failed pacifist who could not avert partition of India. After independence, his words did not carry much weight. Patel (Vallabh Bhai) listened to it and dropped his candidacy for being the Prime Minister. The crown passed on to Nehru as Gandhi desired.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the sense that I do not rule over others, it is their own choice what they see as acceptable to them.
Personally, killing is non acceptable for me to do at any level, that is the form of pacifist that I am

In another OP started by @firedragon , I answered his question, and in his OP I write about being a pacifist.
That made me think, how do other people react to someone who is a pacifist?

So the question may be, what is your view on pacifism and or pacifists?
Are you afraid of them?
Curious to why they think as they do?
Do pacifists create a danger to you as a person?

Do you trust people who identify as nonviolent and pacifistic?

NB: Discussion forum not Debate

I think pacifists are generally fine but somewhat misguided. I don't think that the path to maximal peace always involves no violence at all.

I also don't consider most religious "pacifists" to be actual pacifists. In my experience, a lot of people who refuse to participate in violence for religious reasons do so because they think that violence - when it's needed - is God's responsibility. IMO, a pacifist is someone who opposes all violence, so someone who supports violence when their god does it isn't a pacifist... even if they don't participate in violence themselves.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It is as if you are erasing from history the likes of Malcom X and Nelson Mandela.

Not at all. Both are assured their place in history.

Of course I consider Mandela, who quite clearly underwent an epiphany in prison and thereafter chose the path of non violence, to be by far the better role model.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think pacifists are generally fine but somewhat misguided. I don't think that the path to maximal peace always involves no violence at all.

I also don't consider most religious "pacifists" to be actual pacifists. In my experience, a lot of people who refuse to participate in violence for religious reasons do so because they think that violence - when it's needed - is God's responsibility. IMO, a pacifist is someone who opposes all violence, so someone who supports violence when their god does it isn't a pacifist... even if they don't participate in violence themselves.

Do you know how tiny i am in the eyes of Allah? How can i even question Allah’s decision?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you know how tiny i am in the eyes of Allah? How can i even question Allah’s decision?

So that's the reason you aren't a pacifist, IMO.

If you don't believe that violence committed by God is unjustifiable, then you don't believe that violence is unjustifiable under all circumstances.

You might believe that violence is justified in fewer situations than most people, but it sounds like you're still open to the idea that violence is sometimes justified.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So that's the reason you aren't a pacifist, IMO.

If you don't believe that violence committed by God is unjustifiable, then you don't believe that violence is unjustifiable under all circumstances.

You might believe that violence is justified in fewer situations than most people, but it sounds like you're still open to the idea that violence is sometimes justified.

You are free to believe what you wish

 

[sayak83]

In another OP started by @firedragon , I answered his question, and in his OP I write about being a pacifist.
That made me think, how do other people react to someone who is a pacifist?

So the question may be, what is your view on pacifism and or pacifists?
Are you afraid of them?
Curious to why they think as they do?
Do pacifists create a danger to you as a person?

Do you trust people who identify as nonviolent and pacifistic?

NB: Discussion forum not Debate

If you not vegetarian then you are not pacifist.
I respect pacifist ideologies and ppl who choose to follow it, but I also believe that using force can be justified in many circumstances.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you not vegetarian then you are not pacifist.
I respect pacifist ideologies and ppl who choose to follow it, but I also believe that using force can be justified in many circumstances.

I am a vegetarian