What are some of your thoughts about Pacifists?

[The Kilted Heathen]

Pacifists are incapable of violence, and no threat at all. A peaceful person is one capable of violence, but who makes the choice not to be so.

 

[Koldo]

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.

"Nonviolent passive resistance is effective as long as your opposition adheres to the same rules as you do. But if peaceful protest is met with violence, its efficacy is at an end. For me, nonviolence was not a moral principle but a strategy; there is no moral goodness in using an ineffective weapon."

Do you know who said those words?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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 have no respect for Pacifists. I think they act immorally because they enable evil to triumph over good. Pacificism is essentially a naive philosophy.

Let's say the barbarians come riding over the hills. They take your land by force. They kill your sons. They rape your daughters. They enslave your people. You are going to do nothing to defend? Then you have acted immorally, because you have enabled their evil.

The above scenario for a just war has been seen down through history, the most recent of which was World War 2, when the Axis forces had it in their minds to take over the world, and with ISIS, who also wanted to take over the world.

We are also to defend the innocent. "Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is spilt" Leviticus 19:16

 

[Spirit of Light]

I have no respect for Pacifists. I think they act immorally because they enable evil to triumph over good. Pacificism is essentially a naive philosophy.

Let's say the barbarians come riding over the hills. They take your land by force. They kill your sons. They rape your daughters. They enslave your people. You are going to do nothing to defend? Then you have acted immorally, because you have enabled their evil.

The above scenario for a just war has been seen down through history, the most recent of which was World War 2, when the Axis forces had it in their minds to take over the world, and with ISIS, who also wanted to take over the world.

We are also to defend the innocent. "Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is spilt" Leviticus 19:16

In my view it is possible to defend without harming anyone. To get people in safety.
Without a thought of my own life.

Of course one person can only do so much. But I will not kill or harm intentionally, I do not carry weapons.
But my responsibility in a case like that would to help people escape.

I do not expect people to understand or respect my views

 

[Heyo]

In my view it is possible to defend without harming anyone. To get people in safety.
Without a thought of my own life.

Of course one person can only do so much. But I will not kill or harm intentionally, I do not carry weapons.
But my responsibility in a case like that would to help people escape.

I do not expect people to understand or respect my views

We can do both. You help those unable or unwilling to fight to get away while I kick some butt. Just don't stand in the way.

 

[RestlessSoul]

"Nonviolent passive resistance is effective as long as your opposition adheres to the same rules as you do. But if peaceful protest is met with violence, its efficacy is at an end. For me, nonviolence was not a moral principle but a strategy; there is no moral goodness in using an ineffective weapon."

Do you know who said those words?

Nelson Mandela, in 1956? Like I said, he changed his position later.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have no respect for Pacifists. I think they act immorally because they enable evil to triumph over good.

And that lack of respect is an act of spiritual violence in itself. And so it goes on

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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'm not a pacifist in regards to self-defense and defending someone harming others if in immediate danger. I see suppressing human instinct to protect oneself and others in immediate danger (if one can theorize while the danger occurs) is against human (and animal) instinct. So in that light I'm not.

If someone wanted to draft me to fight in war, plan an attack, or get back at someone I'm a pacifists there because I don't support intentional killing.

I also feel hardcore pacifist can take life for granted. We can theorize now but put ourselves in a life/death situation our abstract brain turns off and "animal" brain turns on. Unless pacifists defy fight/flight/freeze responses, I'm not sure how one can be a pacifists in an uncertain life as opposed to holding it as a attractive philosophy.

If you're defending yourself and/or say loved one in immediate danger that doesn't mean you support violence because your body/brain choose to survive. It just means your natural instinct clicked on. It's a whole 'nother thing (and this I am a pacifist) is if you planned the death penalty for the person who attacked you and/or family member.

I can see people being a pacifists but so much. However, on RF there are quite a few who aren't unapologetically; that, I don't support.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In my view it is possible to defend without harming anyone.

And this is why I say that Pacifists are naive. Look, these people are using force to impose their will and take advantage of you nad your family and community. Force. What are you going to do? Hold a candlelight vigil? Do you know how people like that deal with protests? They kill the protesters.

 

[Clara Tea]

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 the world was entirely composed of pacifist, it would be safe and very productive (war wastes assets).

However, there were/are Nazis who believe themselves to be superior, and believe that they have the right to attack peaceful nations and make a world under one leader. Others fight wars over old territorial disputes (Israel under attack). Other parts of the world have grumbling people who have accepted their domination, but want their land back (American Indians....confined to reservations, and as late as 1974 were not allowed to own land outside of their reservation without co-owning it with a non-Indian).

Every time religions win elections, they think that they will have morality and peace. The Ayatollah Khomeni said that he would put to death any Iranian educated in America (Americanized...corrupted...immoral). His harsh rule ended his rule.

Harsh rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan is causing mass exodus and much discomfort.

God told Christians to be pacifists..."thou shalt not kill" (old testament, but accepted by Christians)...."turn the other cheek"...."don't bear false witness against thy neighbor" (W. Bush made playing cards of Iraqi leaders, calling one the doctor of death--all designed to drum up war).

But once the 911 attack occurred, Christians abandoned their faith that God would handle their enemies, and they said that they should bring the battle to the enemy...fight them in their own country. But, of course, that means a lot of collateral damage....kids and women would be killed, since the terrorists tend to hide behind civilians for protection.

Should we have been pacifists after the 911 attack? Some think that God would have handled the attack. By attacking Iraq, the US confirmed the accusation of cruelty that caused they to attack the US in the first place. Maybe it would have been better to have publicly announced that the al Qaeda was cruel and murderous, and win over public opinion. As it turned out, the entire middle east thought of the US as an unwanted occupying force that did not belong there. We should have won over public opinion. Now, we exit Iraq as losers, disgraced, leaving behind tanks and other military equipment, and a great deal of anti-American sentiment. Maybe God's way was better? After all, God knows the future, and is very very smart.

W. Bush a pacifist? He made torture camps, and lied about it, changing the definition of torture. Under the new definition, torture never existed anywhere....not even in Nazi Germany. Perhaps he "passed his fist" too often (get it? pacifist).

Some enemies are too powerful to take on. But should we allow Communist countries to treat their people so harshly? To stop them would require war. Maybe we could slowly modify their behavior? Maybe we could show other countries that people can be very productive while living free, and the entire country would benefit from that productivity?

Yet, some Communist nations are beating us. China has a huge economy now (though much of their production is junk).

 

[Spirit of Light]

And this is why I say that Pacifists are naive. Look, these people are using force to impose their will and take advantage of you nad your family and community. Force. What are you going to do? Hold a candlelight vigil? Do you know how people like that deal with protests? They kill the protesters.

If I can save people around me (I do not have a family) I do everything I can, except harming others. But I can sacrifice my own life to make others live on

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If I can save people around me (I do not have a family) I do everything I can, except harming others. But I can sacrifice my own life to make others live on

If you come across a woman being raped in an ally, and you violently attack the rapist to stop him, that is a wonderful moral response.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If I can save people around me (I do not have a family) I do everything I can, except harming others. But I can sacrifice my own life to make others live on

How would you do that, though?

In immediate danger, would you walk up to the person, tap them on the shoulder, and say "beat me instead?"

Would that change the attackers intentions? Say she says, "oh, that's a good idea, I'll beat you up instead."

How do you fight with your immediate response other than to try to get the attacker to hit you or to walk away from others being attacked?

 

[sayak83]

I am a vegetarian

That is good. That makes you consistent.

 

[Spirit of Light]

How would you do that, though?

In immediate danger, would you walk up to the person, tap them on the shoulder, and say "beat me instead?"

Would that change the attackers intentions? Say she says, "oh, that's a good idea, I'll beat you up instead."

How do you fight with your immediate response other than to try to get the attacker to hit you or to walk away from others being attacked?

I have even this year stopped two fights and one assault on a Muslim woman, only by going between the people, stopping the attacker from being able to attack. Spoken to them, and yes got a fist or two but it is worth it. for me anyway.
I do not need to fight or use any force to stop others from being idiots

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If I can save people around me (I do not have a family) I do everything I can, except harming others. But I can sacrifice my own life to make others live on

If you are not willing to harm a perpetrator in order to save an innocent, meaning that the victimization continues, then you have become part of the problem.

Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of your neighbor. Leviticus 19:16

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you are not willing to harm a perpetrator in order to save an innocent, meaning that the victimization continues, then you have become part of the problem.

Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of your neighbor. Leviticus 19:16

I have unconditional love for all living beings, which means I can not harm any living being, not even flies.

That does not mean I like or love their action of harming others. only the being it self

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have unconditional love for all living beings, which means I can not harm any living being, not even flies.

And that view, because it enables evil, is totally immoral.

 

[Koldo]

Nelson Mandela, in 1956? Like I said, he changed his position later.

Long Walk To Freedom, 1994.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have even this year stopped two fights and one assault on a Muslim woman, only by going between the people, stopping the attacker from being able to attack. Spoken to them, and yes got a fist or two but it is worth it. for me anyway.
I do not need to fight or use any force to stop others from being idiots

In a life/death situation your theological brain cuts off and your instincts cut on. Every situation can't be applied equally to every other situation where you may not have a choice (your theological brain cuts off) and you go in survival mode.

After your body/brain feels safe of course there would be some guilt, regret, so have you. Even to where one can pray because its something you did unintentional.

If someone attacked someone else when you go in front of that person, would you assume she will hit you instead? Would her motives changes because you got in the way?

In the end, if they did not, the person would still be harmed and if the other doesn't change their mind, you basically in the presence of a person's death.

You don't have to theologically agree with violence. I just see there may be (not saying there will be) circumstances where that won't be on your mind until your body/brain feels safe.

That's why I don't like intentional killing. I'm actually aware of what I am doing and how I will harm another. If it's saving someone else or saving myself, I will feel guilt but not insofar I'd let myself get hit or watch someone else die.