NationStates Jolt Archive

i am a pacifist but i was wondering waht every one thinks.i have to say i look up to gaondi as the modren exsample.and of these how dont konw gondi hi was the leder of indea wene it became a nation in 1948 i think crectte me if i am wrong.

A quick tidying up:


What is your opinion on pacifism?

I am a pacifist and I was wondering what everyone thinks. I have to say, I look up to Gandhi as the modern example. For those who don't know, Gandhi was the leader of India when it became a nation in 1948 (I think. correct me if I am wrong).

I'm mostly pacifist. If someone goes for me or my property I'll defend both (and this applies on a nation-state level) but I don't see violence as a constructive way of doing things.

I'd rather we could all move beyond the stupid dick-waving which constitutes most of the use of armed forces these days. If you have it, use it (and use it well, Sudan could use military intervention) if you can't use it, don't have it.

A quick tidying up:
thank you

pacifism can be extremely powerful if it catches the attention of the world. it does however work best against an opponent with a conscience.

To each his own.

I do however raise the leary eye when I hear somebody join the army, take advanced combat training, and declare they are a pacifist when they are about to be deployed.

pacifism can be extremely powerful if it catches the attention of the world. it does however work best against an opponent with a conscience.

Or against an opponent with a good reputation to protect

To reply to that. I don't really think that there is anything wrong with being a pacifist. It's actually a good thing, to have the strength to refuse to kill, which is a natural reaction for humans. Honestly, if you can face up to any obstacle and still hold on to your beliefs, kudos to you, but there's always the chance that you risk everything for absolutely no effect at all. I guess there's a time and a place for everything and situations can go to an extreme where you are required to make a decision or face horrid consequences. Fortunately, these situations are a rarity for the average person so you will have to deal with that only when the time comes, if it ever comes. I hope you do keep up your belief. It's a rare thing these days and you can make the world proud.

i am a pacifist but i was wondering waht every one thinks.i have to say i look up to gaondi as the modren exsample.and of these how dont konw gondi hi was the leder of indea wene it became a nation in 1948 i think crectte me if i am wrong.

I like Gandhi: "Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice." ~~ Mohandas Gandhi

I also like the Dali Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~~ The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Being a pacifist does NOT mean you have to accept violence perpetrated against you. It simply means you will not perpetrate vioence against another without the cause of self preservation.

To each his own.

I do however raise the leary eye when I hear somebody join the army, take advanced combat training, and declare they are a pacifist when they are about to be deployed.
i have a similar reaction

while people can change, have an epiphany so to speak, it does seem ODD that they would have one just as they are going to be sent to iraq.

I like Gandhi: "Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice." ~~ Mohandas Gandhi

I also like the Dali Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~~ The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Being a pacifist does NOT mean you have to accept violence perpetrated against you. It simply means you will not perpetrate vioence against another without the cause of self preservation.

I much prefer your definition. It keeps things in a more reasonal point of view.

While I don't like pure pacifism, I think it is a vital part of a democratic system. We need pacifists to oppose all wars so as to make those who would support one understand the gravity of that decision. I am a supporter of the Just War Doctrine:

For war to be legitimate, at one and the same time:


The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain.
All other means of putting it to an end must have been shown to be impractical of ineffective
There must be a serious prospect of success
The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.


Of course, interpreting these conditions is a completely different matter...

Being a pacifist does NOT mean you have to accept violence perpetrated against you. It simply means you will not perpetrate vioence against another without the cause of self preservation.

I concur!

In China the saying goes: you should not have a heart that harms others, but you should not not have a heart to protect yourself against others' harm.

Pacifism has its limits - sometimes ya just gotta use force to defend yourself. And I've had personal experience from when my idiotic parents told me NOT to stick up for myself (and take the BS moralistic pacifist route) and it's left me with some nasty memories.

Not to mention the people may grow too complacent during their time of peace.....

There should be a poll on this thread...

pacifist here. too tired to discuss stuff (its 1.30am-ish here) but a couple of links:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi

A quick tidying up:
Thank you!

thank you
Oh! I didn't even get that far (like another two posts below...)

I like to think that I am a pacifist at heart as well. But - I also have to admit that whenever people (or peoples, for that matter) are attacked, killed (like it's happening all over the world, but recently especially in Darfur), there is legitimate reason to step in.

The use of force as a countermeasure to protect innocent lifes is well more justifiable that in some other cases.

Yet, I have to say, I personally make strong distinctions of when I would accept a military intervention.

I concur!

In China the saying goes: you should not have a heart that harms others, but you should not not have a heart to protect yourself against others' harm.


Ditto.

I like Gandhi: "Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice." ~~ Mohandas Gandhi

I also like the Dali Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~~ The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Being a pacifist does NOT mean you have to accept violence perpetrated against you. It simply means you will not perpetrate vioence against another without the cause of self preservation.

u r right on the dot.

pacifism worked with the brits because the brits had some morality left and Gandhi worked that angle.

The same Gandhi did not speak out against Indian intervention against pakistani invasion of kashmir (47' war) since he knew that was the best option. He infact supported the war and wanted India to go the full length.

i am a pacifist but i was wondering waht every one thinks.i have to say i look up to gaondi as the modren exsample.and of these how dont konw gondi hi was the leder of indea wene it became a nation in 1948 i think crectte me if i am wrong.
Pacifism is admirable but naive.

Pacifism is admirable but naive.

*agrees*

i ment to put a poll on here and i thout i did saroy.i will try agen later and open apoll plese frgive me. i am new.

I am an old war mongerer me. I dont mind pacifists, i have a few pacifist freinds..my mothers a pacefist...

i ment to put a poll on here and i thout i did saroy.i will try agen later and open apoll plese frgive me. i am new.
If you tell me you're not a native english speaker, everything will be okay.

Other than that, I think the other pacifists have done a fine job of clarifying things.

I was able to discover that pacifism for me does not go against my base nature as I had my first ever (non-playground orieneted) agressive act directed at me (I'm a little sketchy looking, so people don't mess with me that often) and my initial reaction wasn't violence-even before the odds where considered (I was outnumbered 4 to 1). Some frat jock drunk mothafuckas threw their water on me while walking by. Don't know why, don't care. "Kicking thier ass" wouldn't have provided me with anything. They have to live with who they are and I have to live with who I am. I am satisfied.

I'm ambivalent. Some pacifists, like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have accomplished great things through non-violence, but part of me looks down on pacifists as victims waiting to happen and somewhat less than a real man.

I am a pacifist. I will not harm others. I will defend myself if I am in serious jeopardy but only with the minimal amount of violence neccesary. I will not, however, kill. If it came down to me or him, I would rather it be me.

There are varying degrees of pacifism, some more reasonable and workable than others. I guess I am a pacifist of sorts, but only in the sense that I believe agression should be contained unless the benifits clearly outweigh the costs.

If I take an objective look at myself, I'm actually a quite bloodthirsty and violent induvidual. I'm obsessed with war and killing, I look for weakness and how to exploit it in everyone I'm with. I study martial arts with a passion and obsess over military theory.

Worse, I don't study the technical beauty of gadgets and guns like so many do, I'm purely concerned with their application. I've even left our asthetic appreciation of explosions behind. Its unusual.

So in this sense, I'm clearly not a pacifist...but at the same time I'm loathe to start a conflict, seek to avoid fighting wherever possible, and do not advocate war if it is not absolutely needed. So compared to many induviduals I've met, I AM a pacifist.

How strange this world is!

I'm ambivalent. Some pacifists, like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have accomplished great things through non-violence, but part of me looks down on pacifists as victims waiting to happen and somewhat less than a real man.
I would say, and this is not a direct comment about yourself, that I would look down on those who would use violence as anything other than a final and self-protective means, especially towards a pacifist, as far far less than a real man, simply a coward afraid of being found out.

I would say, and this is not a direct comment about yourself, that I would look down on those who would use violence as anything other than a final and self-protective means, especially towards a pacifist, as far far less than a real man, simply a coward afraid of being found out.
I agree about using violence against the helpless (pacifists). Intellectually I agree with you on not using violence except as a last resort, but part of me is just a cave man. I want to raid the enemy tribe, kill the men and take away the food and the women. I think it's wired into us genetically. After all, our ancestors were the ones who successfully killed and drove off their more peacefull competitors.

Having said that, I keep myself under control. I may think of violence first (sometimes I have a very short fuse) but I don't use it as my first option. In fact, after age 25 I haven't found the need to use violence (outside the training mat) at all.

Pacisfism has its perks, but, being peaceful is better. Pacifism means you don't fight. Being peaceful (to me) means you don't fight, but you will defend yourself when you are attacked.

i am a true pacifist becouse i dont even defend myself.and waht is ther to gane by war and fieting. everyone want world peace so bad and stff will.i have see waht these lieds to and and i am sadend by it.i hope for meny things but i never just want to benafet myself. and drem of a day weht out all these border national or international and all it woud take is respect.and the abndenment of the idele of war.and i am a philosopher.

i am a true pacifist becouse i dont even defend myself.and waht is ther to gane by war and fieting. everyone want world peace so bad and stff will.i have see waht these lieds to and and i am sadend by it.i hope for meny things but i never just want to benafet myself. and drem of a day weht out all these border national or international and all it woud take is respect.and the abndenment of the idele of war.and i am a philosopher.
Is English your native language? If not, kudos for learning a new language. If so, then this is sad.

i am a pacifist but i was wondering waht every one thinks.i have to say i look up to gaondi as the modren exsample.and of these how dont konw gondi hi was the leder of indea wene it became a nation in 1948 i think crectte me if i am wrong.
My "openon" is you should get a spell checker.

pacifism works best when most people ARENT. you have to have people with the will to fight to protect your country (or what you have), if you have to dither and debate, youll lose it all

THEN the guys with a good conscience can be pacifists and serve to moderate our warlike ways.

i am a pacifist but i was wondering waht every one thinks.i have to say i look up to gaondi as the modren exsample.and of these how dont konw gondi hi was the leder of indea wene it became a nation in 1948 i think crectte me if i am wrong.

Pacifisim really doesn't work. Its a constrained world view that limits your ability to act on things of severe importance. What people must do is REASON and rationalize with situations like intelligent people. When it comes to the option of violence those rationalization questions must be as follows:

1. Is violence necessary to achieve a goal that is either moral or important to the populace's best intrest. Is there really no way to achieve those goals through diplomacy, negotiations, working through a system? Are our goals only motivated by personal faith of the faction, or are they real goals that should be accomplished to protect others and have a larger sense of moral rightiousness?

2. Are we and others who want these goals achieved WILLING to take the consequences for violent actions we instigate? Violence will beget more violence and suffering. If you are not going to burden the consequences, then you shouldn't bother with violence.

If your killing people out of your personal faith or religion, violence is an immoral action automatically. If your doing it out of the protection of other's in your community or the protection of their rights, its a bit more of a valid reason but one that should still be debated on whether it is justified.

I don't like pacifiism. It is either immoral or hypocritical.

I ask a simple question of all pacifists?

Consider this question, it's far-fetched and highly unlikely, but makes my point clearly.

A suicide bomber is about to blow himself up and the resulting blast would kill your family, yourself, and a few other people. You have the ability to stop him, but it can only be assured by killing him. Do you kill him?

If yes, then you are not a true pacifist and calling yourself one is hypocritical, as you are willing to resort to violence. The matter then is just at what point you will resort to violence.

If no, then you are untrustworthy, dishonorable, and completely immoral. I would not want to be your friend, part of your family, or have any type of close relation with you.

pacifism is the servant of imperialism.

Sometimes you have to fight in self defence and even Ghandi accepted that- he frequently said that if non-violence didnt work then you have to turn to violence

i am a true pacifist.says who?

you have your own defitinition of "pacifist"...

and we do not have to go by your definition.

to the porson how ask if i will kill it is no. not even for my own defence or my famliys defence. i will die if it will save others from dieing.

If yes, then you are not a true pacifist .interesting...what I said just 2 post before...aplies you like a glove.

you have your own defitinition of "pacifist"...

and we do not have to go by your definition.

interesting...what I said just 2 post before...aplies you like a glove.

you have your own defitinition of "pacifist"...

and we do not have to go by your definition.

I can call myself a Buddhist then go around proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to God. I would not be a Buddhist, even if I call myself one.

I could call myself a libertarian and then call upon the government to institute a dictatorship and implant barcodes in everybody so the government to track everybodies movements by GPS. I would not be a libertarian, just because I call myself one.

I could label myself communist then call on the government to remove all economic restrictions, destroy all welfare programs, and promote free trade. I would not be a communist just because I labelled myself one.

I could call myself a vegetarian and then go to Applebee's and order a large steak and a platter of ribs. I would not be a vegetarian just because I called myself one.

This kind of crap muddies our language and makes English little more than Orwellian double-speak. It's all double-plus bad.

Words are how we communicate, by changing definitions at will you destroy communication.

A pacifist is someone who rejects violence as a method for problem solving. Someone willing to kill a person, whtever the reason, is not a true pacifist. You can be pacifistic and still recognize circumstances in which killing is necessary.

It is not my definition, it is the definition (although the wording may be different). Someone who kills other people or is willing to kill other people is not a pacifist.

Stop ruining our language. Just because you call yourself something doesn't make you that something. By changing the meanings of words to suit your beliefs you only create confusion and destroy our ability to communicate.

there is no need to kill and killing is barberic!

I can call myself a Buddhist then go around proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to God. I would not be a Buddhist, even if I call myself one.

I could call myself a libertarian and then call upon the government to institute a dictatorship and implant barcodes in everybody so the government to track everybodies movements by GPS. I would not be a libertarian, just because I call myself one.

I could label myself communist then call on the government to remove all economic restrictions, destroy all welfare programs, and promote free trade. I would not be a communist just because I labelled myself one.

I could call myself a vegetarian and then go to Applebee's and order a large steak and a platter of ribs. I would not be a vegetarian just because I called myself one.

This kind of crap muddies our language and makes English little more than Orwellian double-speak. It's all double-plus bad.

Words are how we communicate, by changing definitions at will you destroy communication.

A pacifist is someone who rejects violence as a method for problem solving. Someone willing to kill a person, whtever the reason, is not a true pacifist. You can be pacifistic and still recognize circumstances in which killing is necessary.

It is not my definition, it is the definition (although the wording may be different). Someone who kills other people or is willing to kill other people is not a pacifist.

Stop ruining our language. Just because you call yourself something doesn't make you that something. By changing the meanings of words to suit your beliefs you only create confusion and destroy our ability to communicate.It is your definition...it is NOT the definition

you are very arrogant to pretend you are the one to be the sole holder of the truth

BTW...wanna see another Definition?

here:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=56929&dict=CALD

Definition
pacifism

the belief that war is wrong, and therefore that to fight in a war is wrong

there is no need to kill and killing is barberic!

Well, you say you are prepared to die for your beliefs...and at the first available opportunity...you will.

If killing is barbaric, how civilized is one's own death? Lemmings aren't any more civilized than rats.

Commiting suicide by refusing to protect yourself is no smarter, no more civilized than killing someone else without reason.

i added a poll that you all wanted.and i do hope you vote it will cloese in three days thank you ;)