Asimov Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 My dad is a severe pacifist. I abhor violence, but not the point where I wouldn't even be willing to defend myself or kill someone in order protect others and my own life. My dad contends that there is ALWAYS a non-violent way to proceed with issues. Yea, there is, that doesn't mean that way works at the time or is the most viable solution. What are your thoughts on pacifism. I know Kevin will be one who is against this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Pacifism at all costs is not my cup of tea, though I am generally a peaceful guy. I've been in a few situations where there was no other resort but violence. Though they have been rare, they have clearly challenged the idea of pacifism. Pacifists count on the idea that everything can be solved with reason. I wish that were true. I will always seek peaceful resolutions, unless the compromises required to do so are too great. For example, I am not a pacifist when it comes to "officials" telling me how I must lead my life. So far I've avoided confrontation, but if it ever comes down to the employment of force it will be made clear to them that I don't like being fucked with. I have my boundaries and I don't appreciate them being tested. I know my ways aren't for everyone, but I should be at least entitled to them so long as they affect no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Pacifists count on the idea that everything can be solved with reason. Everything can be, sometimes reason dictates violent action to solve a dilemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Everything can be, sometimes reason dictates violent action to solve a dilemma. That's me, pretty much. I ahbor pacifism almost as much as I detest violence on innocents. Reality dictates that those who are not willing to fight when the times comes, die. Submission in the face of foes or such is sickening to me. Perhaps it's male pride, perhaps it's Heathen pride, but the concept of turning the other cheek is absolutely sick and shameful to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Pacifists count on the idea that everything can be solved with reason. Everything can be, sometimes reason dictates violent action to solve a dilemma. I meant to say "everyone can be reasoned with". Violence is a reasonable solution on some occassions, but you're talking an internalized reason, where I'm speaking more of a cooperative reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Yeah, there's a nonviolent way to solve every delemma, you may not live to reap the benefits of it, but yeah, there's always a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Yeah, there's a nonviolent way to solve every delemma, you may not live to reap the benefits of it, but yeah, there's always a way. I guess you could say that I value my life more than my prescription to a philosophy, unless that philosophy is what makes my life worth living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 That's so right, Dhampir. It's hypocritical to say you value life to the point of pacifism and then say that you will sacrifice your own and others to uphold such a moral philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 That's so right, Dhampir. It's hypocritical to say you value life to the point of pacifism and then say that you will sacrifice your own and others to uphold such a moral philosophy. Saying you'd die for pacifism really means you would die for your own pacifism. If you would die for such a cause, it would also mean betraying the cause by your failure to promote pacifism in others. Then there's the funny one-liner: "Pacifism, or else...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 One may only be as pacifistic as he or she can defend doing so. Anything else is philosophical jargonism leading to yhe pacifists life being taken for no cause but the cause itself. I am generally well adjusted and quiet man. However, pass the borders which I consider mine, and prepare to have any and all use of removal used upon you. Refuse to initiate violence for the sake_of_doing_violence, however violence_cures_more_than_it_causes_ill. Being a prepared pacifist is not a bad thing. k, very frackin' well prepared, L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I know someone who is very much a pacifist. He doesn't have it in him to hurt another, not just a philosophical view, but more of that he cannot rather than will not use violence. And he shouldn't have to. That being said, my view is that, while I would not use violence, if possible, I will fight, if need be. I just hope I don't have to. If I do, though, I plan to be the one walking away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Everything can be, sometimes reason dictates violent action to solve a dilemma. Too true. Although I have never encountered such a dilemma outside of my work with inner city children. If the time comes to kick ass, ass will be kicked. If there is any other option, I'm taking it. Julius Caeser once said, "the best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war." I would concur with that statement both at a national and personal level. At the personal level, that's like saying that the best way to never die by falling from an airplane is to always wear a parachute. Who wants to bother with that bullshit? My life has been blissfully free of violent attackers. Maybe I live in lala land, but it seems to me that no degree of preparation can truly insulate you from the pitfalls of this world. Great, you're a black belt in karate and you do some great chop sake type shit, but the attacker has a gun so who gives a fuck. This macho posturing like you gotta be able to do a roundhouse and have 30 grenades strapped to your chest to be safe? Wacko. Yes, I know I'm gonna get some survival types with real large scrotums tellin me about the credit card knife they have in their wallet and how a ridgehand to the throat will make the guy suck your dick. Could anything be more boring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padreko Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Ok I'll take the bait on this one. That's so right, Dhampir. It's hypocritical to say you value life to the point of pacifism and then say that you will sacrifice your own and others to uphold such a moral philosophy. How is it hypocritical? Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances. -Wikipedia.com It would be hypocritical to DEFEND yourself if you're an extreme pacifist. By that I mean you profess to believe that one should not harm others under any circumstances. I understand your point of valuing life vs valuing beliefs because the latter is directly related to the former. But I don't think its fair to make the blanketed accusation because you assume that person x is only a pacifist because x believes life is of supreme importance(is this correct?). This may not be the case and x can still have pacifist views and not think life is of supreme importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I understand your point of valuing life vs valuing beliefs because the latter is directly related to the former. But I don't think its fair to make the blanketed accusation because you assume that person x is only a pacifist because x believes life is of supreme importance(is this correct?). This may not be the case and x can still have pacifist views and not think life is of supreme importance. Wait. "This may or may not be the case"?? Give me one rational example of a pacifist philosophy which does not hold life as being of supreme importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 How many philosophies don't hold life in a position of supreme importance? Even if that life is your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 How many philosophies don't hold life in a position of supreme importance? Even if that life is your own. Yeah, Life is not of great importance, therefore I'll become a pacifist. Sounds like the rationale for a big "Kick me" sign on your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 The heart of pacificism, to me, is a personal belief that causes you to not wish to use violence as a means to your ends. Ideological pacifism would hope that no one ever uses violence, but even staunch pacifists don't expect that to happen any time soon. It's a personal decision to not unnecessarily harm another human being, and it seem like one of the noblest ideals still around, IMHO. My best friend from highschool, his father was a conscientious objector in the Viet Nam war, so he became a medic, by necessity, and he still ran to the front lines with only a sidearm to grab the fallen soldiers and bring them back so he could care for them. This man is the farthest thing from a "pussy" that I can imagine. In fact I think he had more balls than any other vet that I have personally met. The pacifist. How many philosophies don't hold life in a position of supreme importance? Even if that life is your own. Yeah, Life is not of great importance, therefore I'll become a pacifist. Sounds like the rationale for a big "Kick me" sign on your back. I may be slow, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 The heart of pacificism, to me, is a personal belief that causes you to not wish to use violence as a means to your ends. Ideological pacifism would hope that no one ever uses violence, but even staunch pacifists don't expect that to happen any time soon. It's a personal decision to not unnecessarily harm another human being, and it seem like one of the noblest ideals still around, IMHO. My best friend from highschool, his father was a conscientious objector in the Viet Nam war, so he became a medic, by necessity, and he still ran to the front lines with only a sidearm to grab the fallen soldiers and bring them back so he could care for them. This man is the farthest thing from a "pussy" that I can imagine. In fact I think he had more balls than any other vet that I have personally met. The pacifist. Then maybe we're at odds of definition here. You're referring to a pacifist who objects to violence on moral or religious grounds, and I'm referring to an attitude or policy of non-resistance. When you say, "not unnecessarily", then you're actually describing me. I suppose I am a pacifist by that definition then, as is Nivek, Asimov and a couple of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 If pacifism is some ideological position that demands you pray for your attacker while he shoves a night stick up your ass, I am unfamiliar with it, mostly because that is retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 The heart of pacificism, to me, is a personal belief that causes you to not wish to use violence as a means to your ends. Ideological pacifism would hope that no one ever uses violence, but even staunch pacifists don't expect that to happen any time soon. It's a personal decision to not unnecessarily harm another human being, and it seem like one of the noblest ideals still around, IMHO. My best friend from highschool, his father was a conscientious objector in the Viet Nam war, so he became a medic, by necessity, and he still ran to the front lines with only a sidearm to grab the fallen soldiers and bring them back so he could care for them. This man is the farthest thing from a "pussy" that I can imagine. In fact I think he had more balls than any other vet that I have personally met. The pacifist. How many philosophies don't hold life in a position of supreme importance? Even if that life is your own. Yeah, Life is not of great importance, therefore I'll become a pacifist. Sounds like the rationale for a big "Kick me" sign on your back. I may be slow, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Well, I was confused by the post I responded to before yours -the idea that a person could not hold life as of supreme importance and still be a pacifist. It doesn't make sense. I thought you were being sarcastic in your response. Apparently you were not. Anyhow, whether the majority of philosophies hold life to be of supreme importance is irrelevant. I can certainly offer one that doesn't, existentialism. An existential pacifist would be a strange thing. For the purpose of the discussion, I was accepting Asimov's definition of a pacifist as someone who would go to such an extent in their philosophy that they would not even offer resistance in the case that someone was attempting to take their life. Maybe it is blowing a concept out of proportion to the average, which is a logical fallacy. I will say that at its extreme, pacifism is self-defeating. Practically speaking, however, most cases don't lie at the extreme. BUT, he was talking specifically about one person. I think the comments are spot on. If pacifism is some ideological position that demands you pray for your attacker while he shoves a night stick up your ass, I am unfamiliar with it, mostly because that is retarded. Nevertheless, I think the metaphorical equivalent in real life has probably happened. Well, there is Jesus - if he ever existed. Now that is retarded. I hope no one models their own life after the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Well, there is Jesus - if he ever existed. Now that is retarded. I hope no one models their own life after the guy. It's difficult to label someone a pacifist when they advocate taking up swords and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 How is it hypocritical? Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances. -Wikipedia.com It would be hypocritical to DEFEND yourself if you're an extreme pacifist. By that I mean you profess to believe that one should not harm others under any circumstances. I understand your point of valuing life vs valuing beliefs because the latter is directly related to the former. But I don't think its fair to make the blanketed accusation because you assume that person x is only a pacifist because x believes life is of supreme importance(is this correct?). This may not be the case and x can still have pacifist views and not think life is of supreme importance. How is it hypocritical? They abhor violence let allow it to happen....that is hypocritical. Well, there is Jesus - if he ever existed. Now that is retarded. I hope no one models their own life after the guy. It's difficult to label someone a pacifist when they advocate taking up swords and such. Jesus advocated taking up swords? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 How is it hypocritical? Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances. -Wikipedia.com It would be hypocritical to DEFEND yourself if you're an extreme pacifist. By that I mean you profess to believe that one should not harm others under any circumstances. I understand your point of valuing life vs valuing beliefs because the latter is directly related to the former. But I don't think its fair to make the blanketed accusation because you assume that person x is only a pacifist because x believes life is of supreme importance(is this correct?). This may not be the case and x can still have pacifist views and not think life is of supreme importance. How is it hypocritical? They abhor violence let allow it to happen....that is hypocritical. I think I see what you're saying. If they hate violence so much why wouldn't they take whatever steps necessary to squelch it? Like incapacitating foam? Jesus advocated taking up swords? Well, he came to bring a sword, but he accurately predicted that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. He liked mixed sword metaphors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Well, he came to bring a sword, but he accurately predicted that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. He liked mixed sword metaphors. I took that as meaning something else - that if you draw arms against your brother you will die in the manner in which you dealt it out. Sew death, and you'll reap death. The Picsean Jesus was the pacifist (he did die without putting up a resistance, after all), but the Aquarian Jesus is supposed to be a war monger. Or so I thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Obviously, the verse means that violence begets violence, but Jesus had his violent moments. Let's remember the temple and his tirade with the whip made of cords. Jesus wan't a pure pacifist, no matter how you slice it. And he died a violent (albeit imaginary) death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts