Are You a Pacifist?

[MoseyWalker]

What does that mean? Is it a bad thing, or a good thing?

Sounds really good to me:


pacifist

adjective

Inclined or disposed to peace; not quarrelsome or unruly: irenic, pacific, pacifical, pacifistic, peaceable, peaceful. See peace/conflict.

pac·i·fism Pronunciation (ps-fzm)
n.
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

Who will argue that it is not good for breathing creatures?

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Yes, but...

while the Wiki article is pretty good, I did catch at least one common error-- the present pacifism of Quakers is actually a fairly modern evolution from the early Quakers who did not entirely disapprove of war, but preferred not to fight in it if possible to avoid it. This principle should not be confused with cowardice, since some Quakers were hanged for their refusals. I think it was John Woolman who said "At some point in your life you are a coward if you don't fight. Then, you are a coward if you do."

I do know a few absolutists who, somewhat naively, refuse to admit violence exists and must be addressed, but most of us are a bit more pragmatic.

[kevinmc]

2. Yes .... and we should .....

kill anyone that isn't one.


:sarcasm:

[ellisonz]

3. No.

I accept it as an ideal, but not as a pragmatic course of action. Sometimes force must be used, but it must be measured, reasoned, and never unjustly aggressive.

:-(

[Nostradammit]

4. Six years ago I thought I might be

Not so certain anymore.

The society-at-large must protect itself from out of control predation. The herd eventually must kill that which would destroy it.

Maybe someday we'll evolve beyond the need for animal reactions.


Not yet.

[tavalon]

5. Isn't amazing how the older one gets

the less black and white things are? Unless, of course, one is a dry drunk who never grew up past adolescence.

[Nostradammit]

10. Infinite shades of gray

and lots of reds and yellows and blues.

At 43 I've barely grown out of my own adolescence and yet I feel like an old sage next to our current leaders.

[tavalon]

22. I'm your age and I agree its weird that we are the learned sages

We are more erudite and understanding of the big picture than the DC elites.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Riiight.

Because war has done so much good over the last six years.

:eyes:

[Nostradammit]

34. And sitting back and letting a handful of criminals take over this country

hasn't done much good, either.

I'm completely against the use of violence for aggressive motives but have come to understand its need for defensive purposes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. And you're about to get on that any minute now.

Right?

[Nostradammit]

38. Yep.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Yes, but the number six has been carefully chosen.

If you try "8" or "67", to pick two examples, then the "war never does any good" argument looks much less clear. On the other hand, if you pick "4000" then the amount of *harm* that war has done makes it clear that it's very seldom a good idea - certainly much less often than it's reverted too. But not "never", I think.

[tavalon]

6. It sounds great and as a utopian ideal, I'm all for it

There is little that would provoke me to violence but I know that there is a possibility though not a preference.

[Dean Martin]

9. I'm more of a....

Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone type. Live and let live. I don't care what anyone else is doing with their life, it's none of my business as long as it's not harming anyone.
Anyone who tries to harm me or my family is going to regret it however.

[Piperay]

7. No

it sounds nice in theory but it's an impossibility.

[Bluebear]

8. Proudly so. nt

[Jeanette in FL]

12. I am with you, Proudly as well

War is never the answer.

[krispos42]

11. There are missing connotations

There is a general perception, I think, that a 'pacifist' is not only peaceful, but ONLY peaceful, if you get my drift. Ghandi was a pacifist, as were his followers. The would NOT, under any circumstances or provocation, including, IIRC from the movie I saw in high school, the ordered ranks of several companies of British Army soldiers pouring rifle fire into a packed crowd.

I am peaceful. I am not a pacifist. I don't like conflict, but I will defend myself and my family, with lethal force, if needed. I'm pretty sure I'll feel really bad about it, probably need counseling for quite a while and all that. I just hope if it happens, it is a clear-cut case of self-defense.

In order to reach a non-violent resolution to a dispute, both sides have to want to it. Now, there is a lot of slop in most any dispute, so most disputes can, I believe, be eventually resolved as long as there are smart, able, and innovative negotiators.

Sometimes they can't. World War Two comes to mind. But usually they can.

[me b zola]

43. That is what I believe a pacifist to be

I consider a pacifist someone who would refuse to resort to violence after watching their loved ones being brutalized and/or killed.

I have deep respect for those with the courage & strength to practice pacifism, but it ain't me.

[B Calm]

13. Anybody who failed to enlist during a time of war is a Pacifist

I enlisted into the Navy during the Vietnam War. I'll never consider myself a Pacifist. Don't get me wrong, I think being a Pacifist is a good thing.

[GumboYaYa]

14. No, I believe in non-violent resistance......

there is a big and important distinction between that and pacifism. Pacifism does not work, non-violent resistance frequently works.

[personman]

15. No

If there is one person in the world you love enough to fight to save, you can't be a pacifist.
In some situations I believe pacifying can enable worse violence then fighting back.

I think it's important to ask yourself, if someone attacked a loved one right in front of you, would you do anything about it? or just stand there?

This is quite a different question though from "Should we allow our lieing weaselly government to send us to war?"

I do think pacifism is an ideal to strive for.

[benEzra]

16. Yes and no...

depending on the definition.

If you mean someone who eschews aggressive violence and who will not fight unless forced to by an aggressor, that'd be me. If you mean someone who would lay down and die because of moral qualms about using force to stop a violent attacker, then no, I wouldn't fit that definition. So it depends on how you define it.

I am also pro-military, but anti-casual-use-of-the-military.

[mmonk]

17. No. Just against unprovoked warfare, torture,

and crimes against peace and freedom.

[Az]

18. I am

No questions asked. War does not solve problems. It kills people.

Pacifism is by no means easy. Sometimes figuring out the peaceful path to solve a problem can be incredibly difficult. It may even involve humbling yourself. And humbling oneself is something we in our consumer/competitive culture find nearly impossible.

Our culture is one of competition. We are taught to fight with each other rather than work with each other. This is diametrically opposed to human nature. We are a empathetic cooperative social species that is at our best when striving together in shared purpose. But our Corporate controled culture has fosted the Corporate mentality upon us. Thus when we see a problem we look for the most direct and advantageous solution for ourselves. And very often killing people is seen as the quickest way to get what we want.

[sniffa]

19. i'm a vioLent pacifist

series!1!1

[Blue_Tires]

48. +1

[mdmc]

20. yes

[TahitiNut]

21. There's a huge difference between being a pacifist and a coward.

I'm a pacifist in the sense that I believe in and participate in non-violent protest and will, to the limits of my abilities, put my life on the line to support peaceful resolution to conflicts, both individual and national. I regard armed resistance as an absolute last resort. At the same time, I will NOT sit back and allow my neighbors and kin to serve alone. IMHO, the vast majority of combat veterans are pacifists - because they KNOW what it's all about. I don't think ANYONE can comprehend the insane horrors of war more than those who've lived it. For me, the 'job' of a pacifist is to make it unnecessary to fight. That means doing absolutely everything possible as a citizen, up to and including risking one's own safety and liberties in opposition to those who'd send other to die or even allow others to be sent to die.

I don't believe a conscientious pacifist could, in good conscience, politically support anyone who voted 'yea' on the IWR. I can't. I don't believe a a conscientious pacifist could, in good conscience, let a small minority of others bear the entire burden of fighting and dying due to a failure of the citizenry of a democracy to prevent it. In my view, being a pacifist means taking responsibility for both what one supports and one's failure to prevent such wars. I'd rather have 100% of that kind of pacifist in uniform - people who, to the absolute limits of their ability - eschewed "shooting first and asking questions later."

I'm the kind of pacifist who supports Dennis Kucinich - who supports a national policy of pacifism and gets derision and disdain from the so-called 'pacifists' who sneer and laugh (from the comforts of their dens) at his "Department of Peace." I'm the kind of pacifist who believes in 100% national service - where we all put our asses on the line for our beliefs, even in our democratic form of governance. It's easy to be a posturing pseudo-pacifist from the peanut gallery. The rubber hits the road when it's time to put one's own ass on the line. Gandhi was a pacifist - yet he supported the fight against fascism. He NEVER ran from a confrontation and, instead, put his body in the way of violence and spent time in prison for his acts yet NEVER stopped acting.

Self-defense is not antithetical to pacifism, imho. Allowing others to die "in my name" due to my own failures or inactions is cowardice, not pacifism. Today, at the age of 63, I'm humiliated to be more of a coward than pacifist - even if I have a LOT of company. I'm ashamed to be an American these days.

[WI_DEM]

23. No

I don't think Hitler could have been stopped without world war and I doubt slavery could have been eliminated without the American civil war.

[krispos42]

49. Ghandi thought the Brits should have fought the Nazis with pacifism

That during the darkest days of the Battle of Britain, when Churchill ordered all church bells in the country silenced with the ironclad directive that they would only be rung when the Germans launched their invasion of British soil, the British should lay down their arms and become pacifists.

Quoting Ghandi:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

But the Nazis were evil enough to set up concentration camps and execution facilities throughout Great Britain and slaughter the entire population with poison gas and crematoriums.

You see, the Nazis had found out that if a brick-lined oven was hot enough when you began throwing Jews and Gypsies and homosexuals and mentally disturbed people in them, their own burning fat would help consume them, so the process was efficient. 800 to a thousand bodies at a time would occupy an oven, taking about 5 hours to be fully consumed.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Fucking sons of bitches!

Anyway...

Auschwitz could 'process' 20,000 people a day, gassed and cremated. Himmler would have had no problem rounding up British pacifists, sending them to a camp in Liverpool or someplace, and telling them to get in the showers for a 'delousing'.

The Nazis had to industrialize death because having soldiers doing it personally drove the soldiers insane. Shooting dozens of innocent, helpless people a day, day in, day out, drove them insane. Pacifism depends on this reaction in the oppressing troops, that the soldiers with the guns and clubs would sicken of death and violence towards the pacifists and start to desert and rebel against their officers.

By industrializing the slaughter, and making the healthy Jews and other prisoners throw the gassed bodies into the crematoriums, the Aryan race was spared the trauma of performing and witnessing the death and pain. So it would just have gone on and on, the prisoner squads that move the bodies being completely replaced every couple of weeks, and Nazi guards supervising.

Pacifism cannot work against that kind of cruelty. Against that madness, that true struggle for survival of not just a nation, but the literal survival of the entire population of the nation, only armies and navies and air forces can resist.

In nearly all armed conflict, when a nation is conquered, the population survives. The people as well as the land, the resources, and the buildings and infrastructure, are all part of the conquest, part of what you fight to take.

In the case of the Nazis, a population of pacifists are not part of the conquest, not what the Nazis would want. They would be in the way, their inferior blood soiling the human race. And they would be killed, their empty land filled with blue-eyed, blonde-haired Aryan colonist families working the land formally occupied by English and Scottish pacifists.

[SaveElmer]

25. No...

Sometimes our national self interest and defense requires war...I am NOT talking about the current war...

[porphyrian]

26. Not really, but I'm for avoiding violence as much as possible.

I like me a good argument, and even some that aren't all that good. I believe violence should be the last resort, when all other options have been exhausted.

[rpgamerd00d]

27. "Inclined or disposed to peace; " That is me. But, I will use force for defense.

[Efilroft Sul]

28. No.

"If you want peace, prepare for war."
-- "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by Vegetius.

But if I have to bring up another bromide: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."
-- JFK

Pacifism is a worthy ideal. But as long as there are evil men in this world, pacifism is limited in its application.

[Orsino]

29. Very nearly.

Violence is always bad, but every once in a while, the application of minimum necessary force is permissible, as a response to overt aggression.

[Ioo]

30. Hell NO!

If you cross us, we will kick your ass. I think we should have turned Afganastan into a sheet of glass.

On that Note, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? NOTHING!

[aikoaiko]

31. I do not meet all the criteria

There are some military actions I would not refuse to participate in and there are some necesarry military actions, but I am generally not quarrelsome.

[The2ndWheel]

32. Unfortunately

I'd like to destroy Monsanto, the Pentagon, the NSA, CIA, Lockheed Martin, mining companies, oil companies, etc, etc. But I just keep getting up and going to work everyday like the good chemically filled consumer I'm supposed to be.

[MzNov]

33. I thought I was until, errr, Dumbya got annointed n/t

[sakabatou]

36. No, not really.

[RB TexLa]

39. No

[proud patriot]

40. So far , I have lived a pacifist life

However I don't think my pacifism has been tested yet .

So the honest answer is I don't know .

[uppityperson]

41. Yes and proud of it.

people have a tendency to confuse pacifism with letting yourself be run over and it isn't so. I am a paficist, feel disputes can and should be settled peacefully, but will defend myself if need be.

[MrSlayer]

42. No. Sometimes you have to fight.

Otherwise you get steamrolled. Fuck that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Yes.

And, if anyone cares, I thank the United States Marine Corps for being transformed into one.

[EFerrari]

45. Do you mean, in general, am I against slaughtering people

because two way conversation takes effort?

You bet.

:)

[sammythecat]

46. Like everyone here

I consider myself peaceful. I like peace, harmony, and contentment. If I were religious, and could choose a religion for the world, it would most likely be Buddhism or Jainism. Peace, harmony, and a reverence for all life are central to these beliefs.

I hate to bring up a shop-worn scenario, but I will. If I were to witness an outrageous and severe act of cruelty to man or beast, I can envision myself in a merciless, if not murderous, rage. Actually, I don't believe there is a soul on earth that couldn't be driven to rage, given the right set of circumstances. The list of "right sets of circumstances" would be almost endless.

One example: We've all heard about children in Africa having their hands cut off with machetes. If you witnessed one of these "animals", who happened to be twice your size, cut the hands off one boy and then grab the hand of another, and you were standing behind him holding a shotgun, what would you do?
Would you:
Blow his fucking head off?
Shoot him low in the groin so as to give him a slow, excruciating death?
Stamp your feet and tell him to stop?
Grab him by the arms and try to hold on long enough till he changed his mind?

I happen to be against the death penalty in all cases. I want that to be the law of the land, but I think that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about passion in a moment of severe crisis. Sitting here at my computer, my feeling is I'd probably choose to shoot him low in the groin, and feel bad about it later. I'd always be glad I stopped him, but I might come to hate myself for my cruelty.

How about you MoseyWalker? I enjoy your posts. What are your thoughts on the matter?

[NaturalHigh]

47. No...

If someone is coming to kill me or my family or friends, I will not hesitate to use deadly force in defense.