ForumGarden

In the interest of NOT hijacking another thread where a similar conversation is happening, I would like to have a discussion about pacifism. Are you a pacisfist, or are you...well....what IS the opposite of pacifism? I understand a true pacifist will not, under any circumstance, use violence, even if a loved one is threatened with violence. That makes me about as far from a pacifist as you can get.

While contemplating what makes a person passive, I got irritated. If someone is doing harm to another person, I believe someone should step in and do something. If someone were to try and hurt someone I love, I'd stop at nothing to prevent it, including (but not limited to) becoming violent myself. Whatever it takes to stop them. I could no more change that in me than I could remove my own leg. In admitting that, I have also realized that the same applies to the pacifist. They are as incapable of violence as I am of standing by and doing nothing.

Yet that makes me wonder even more. If a truly passive person were to come across their child being beaten, or raped or attacked in any manner, would they REALLY stand by and do nothing? This is wholly beyond me. I cannot understand it for anything. What happened to the protective instinct of a parent? Is it really overridden by a person's belief that no violence, ever, for any reason is neccessary?

How about you? Are you a pacifist? Or whatever the opposite of that is? Is the opposite of pacifism always violence?

I think someone here has said that the opposite of a pacifist is a hero. I think I like that definition best.

BabyRider wrote: In the interest of NOT hijacking another thread where a similar conversation is happening, I would like to have a discussion about pacifism. Are you a pacisfist, or are you...well....what IS the opposite of pacifism? I understand a true pacifist will not, under any circumstance, use violence, even if a loved one is threatened with violence. That makes me about as far from a pacifist as you can get.

While contemplating what makes a person passive, I got irritated. If someone is doing harm to another person, I believe someone should step in and do something. If someone were to try and hurt someone I love, I'd stop at nothing to prevent it, including (but not limited to) becoming violent myself. Whatever it takes to stop them. I could no more change that in me than I could remove my own leg. In admitting that, I have also realized that the same applies to the pacifist. They are as incapable of violence as I am of standing by and doing nothing.

Yet that makes me wonder even more. If a truly passive person were to come across their child being beaten, or raped or attacked in any manner, would they REALLY stand by and do nothing? This is wholly beyond me. I cannot understand it for anything. What happened to the protective instinct of a parent? Is it really overridden by a person's belief that no violence, ever, for any reason is neccessary?

How about you? Are you a pacifist? Or whatever the opposite of that is? Is the opposite of pacifism always violence?

I think someone here has said that the opposite of a pacifist is a hero. I think I like that definition best.


Hello fellow pacifist. I think a parent as a pacifist would definately take action when a person is being violated, they just would not take violent actions. They would use their voice, or do everything in their power to break down the situation without violence. I am not 100% pacifist, I do everything in my power to not react violently. I have raised my daughters that violence is NOT the way to solve any problem. One it worked on the other it back fired on, so much so that she is a bit of an imposing character. However having said that, I believe I may go "mother bear" on anyone who was harming my child. I think it becomes instinct over anything else. Don't forget though I am Canadian second generation, we pride ourselves on our pacifist ideals. (goofs huh heh heh)

There is no such thing as a true 'pacifist', IMO.

As you state there are certain occasions when even the most mild mannered of people will step in and attempt to stop a wrong being perpetrated.

It's basic human nature.

Anyone I've ever come across who describes themselves as a 'pacifist' is simply using the term to disguise cowardice.

Sorry to disappoint you pacifists but I must admit quite openly that if, for example, either of my daughters or perhaps my elderly mother, were being attacked by thugs with, say, crowbars or guns, and the only way I could save them was to use violence, then, believe me, punks, I would use violence!!!!!

OK, now let's take it a step further: If there are *true* pacifists, and they will never resort to violence for any reason, then what does that make them? In my opinion, if a person sees violence being committed and does nothing, they are as bad as the person doing the violence. Bend over and take it? I don't think so. Stand there and watch? DEFINITELY not.

BabyRider wrote: OK, now let's take it a step further: If there are *true* pacifists, and they will never resort to violence for any reason, then what does that make them? In my opinion, if a person sees violence being committed and does nothing, they are as bad as the person doing the violence. Bend over and take it? I don't think so. Stand there and watch? DEFINITELY not.


They must have other means of dealing with situations, like I mentioned they talk their way through it (now that works well in a gun fight right NOT) Or they walk away from the situation (and risk a bullet to the spine) I dunno, I think somewhere there has to a a true alternative to violence or violent retaliation, but I can't see one working.

BabyRider wrote: OK, now let's take it a step further: If there are *true* pacifists, and they will never resort to violence for any reason, then what does that make them? In my opinion, if a person sees violence being committed and does nothing, they are as bad as the person doing the violence. Bend over and take it? I don't think so. Stand there and watch? DEFINITELY not.I was thinking about what you said and had to agree with you, i thought of the Amish way of life so had a look to see how they coped with being pacifists......







"I understand your belief in nonresistance and pacifism. Does this principal extend to personal situations where you are confronted with imminent evil -- say a known murderer confronting you and your family in your home? Can you use force to preserve your life in this situation? To what extent? What is the Biblical basis for your position?"







"Both Amish and Mennonites are committed to a lifestyle of peace and non-violence. Yes, this pervades every aspect of life. However, no one can predict with certainty how anyone would really react to an absolutely unprecedented crisis such as described above. Emotions as well as thoughts are involved and the situation is personalized. Having said this, we would hope that as people who have practiced a lifestyle of peace, we would not resort to force and violence in a crisis situation such as the one described.

We must briefly make several points:



There is no assurance that use of force would save my life or the life of my family if confronted by an attacker.

We could recall many accounts of unhoped for deliverances, whether by mediation, nature, or divine Providence, when Christians refused to use force when confronted by an attacker.

If the result is death at the hands of the attacker, so be it; death is not threatening to us as Christians. Hopefully the attacker will have at least had a glimpse of the love of Christ in our nonviolent response.

The Christian does not choose a nonviolent approach to conflict because of assurance it will always work; rather the Christian chooses this approach because of his/her commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord.

The analogy to war in the situation described above tends to break down when we think of the vast preparations for war -- accumulation of weapons, training of the military, etc. War is planned and seldom is aggression so clearly defined with the defense staying on its home turf.

Some of the Biblical references for peace and non-resistance are: Matthew 5:38-48; John 18:36; Romans 12:18-21; and I Corinthians 6:18."........



No-one could ever truly say that they would 100% never use violence if one of their own was being harmed.

A pacifist is someone completely satisfied with the status quo. A self worshipping intellectual coward.

mmmmm...pacifist. i hate violence. i see a lot of it. and yet i would shoot to kill in defense of an innocent. no hesitation. have done actually. not sorry. there are probably people here who have killed and don't want to talk about it. i know a couple. i would do it again.

lady cop wrote: mmmmm...pacifist. i hate violence. i see a lot of it. and yet i would shoot to kill in defense of an innocent. no hesitation. have done actually. not sorry. there are probably people here who have killed and don't want to talk about it. i know a couple. i would do it again. I have never killed anyone but would LOVE the opportunity! Skinheads! Conservatives! Child Molesters! BUT reality is I would be forever affected by actually killing someone in a non-combat fashion.

there is no non-combative fashion.

I believe we all fall somewhere on a continuum between complete bury-your-head-in-the-sand pacifist and all-out serial killer run-over-them-twice agressor. Self-knowledge and our God-given freedom to choose can counteract any impulses on the extreme ends. So that most of us balance between the two. It's called being assertive - only using violence when violence is definitely called for and stopping the violence when the need is past.

lady cop wrote: there is no non-combative fashion. Walking up to someone quietly and blowing their brains out is non-combative. At least on the part of the victim! Pushing someone off a cliff, poisoning someone, dropping bombs on civilians. There are alot of non-combative ways to kill.

ok....how are you honey? i only shoot to kill killers.

lady cop wrote: ok....how are you honey? i only shoot to kill killers.Oh yeah. I guess I was thinking of political enemies! See what living in a RedState does to a person!!!!

BabyRider wrote: OK, now let's take it a step further: If there are *true* pacifists, and they will never resort to violence for any reason, then what does that make them? In my opinion, if a person sees violence being committed and does nothing, they are as bad as the person doing the violence. Bend over and take it? I don't think so. Stand there and watch? DEFINITELY not.
This kind of post doesn't exactly invite or encourage people to voice an opinion of any kind on pacifism. I'm a little surprised, however prissy that sounds.



And Philadelphia Eagle? Do you take into account those who go to prison for long terms in order to maintain their own pacifist beliefs? (Conscientious objectors and the like.) To go to prison when you know you could avoid it doesn't scream "coward" to me.



Whether a person agrees or disagrees on the topic, a little respect for opposing views and what it takes to live up to them would be appreciated.

A Karenina wrote: This kind of post doesn't exactly invite or encourage people to voice an opinion of any kind on pacifism. I'm a little surprised, however prissy that sounds.



And Philadelphia Eagle? Do you take into account those who go to prison for long terms in order to maintain their own pacifist beliefs? (Conscientious objectors and the like.) To go to prison when you know you could avoid it doesn't scream "coward" to me.



Whether a person agrees or disagrees on the topic, a little respect for opposing views and what it takes to live up to them would be appreciated.I get your point Karenina. In truth I knew several people that were committed Quakers. They were committed pacifists and opposed to war and violence of any kind. I do have much more respect for that than a supposed 'Christian' that supports war, the death penalty and carrying guns into WalMart. My personal political views clash with pacifist beliefs so I see them differently than I once did.

David, thank you. And I totally get what you're saying too. My own views are mainly pacifist, as in avoid violence when other methods could be used, but I am a realist as well. I know there are times that I am not willing to pay the price to be peaceful.

Like you, I have a ton of respect for those who hold to their beliefs when (to me) the easier path would be to resort to violence. I mean that on an emotional level, if that makes sense.

Thanks again.

A Karenina wrote: David, thank you. And I totally get what you're saying too. My own views are mainly pacifist, as in avoid violence when other methods could be used, but I am a realist as well. I know there are times that I am not willing to pay the price to be peaceful.



Like you, I have a ton of respect for those who hold to their beliefs when (to me) the easier path would be to resort to violence. I mean that on an emotional level, if that makes sense.



Thanks again. :)Absolutely makes sense. Any beast will violently attack. Some for fear, protecting their turf or young or out of hunger. Anger is a reaction beasts will express as well. For humans to pride themselves in how violent they are or wish to be is a colossal step backward. "Taking our Gloves Off" is purely a simian reaction from ignorance and a touch too much self love. To negotiate, understand and work things out is human. To lust for the blood of others because...well...because some think it's manly is proof we have no right as a nation criticizing others for abuses. I'd dine with a pacifist any day than with a militia-wannabe 'Merican that yearns for war and blood but waves the Bible and won't enlist in the celebrated slaughter.

Popeye wrote: Conservatives? :yh_questnI bloody HATE conservatives!

A Karenina wrote: This kind of post doesn't exactly invite or encourage people to voice an opinion of any kind on pacifism. I'm a little surprised, however prissy that sounds.



Whether a person agrees or disagrees on the topic, a little respect for opposing views and what it takes to live up to them would be appreciated.AK, I don't think I expressed myself quite the way I intended to. Going back and reading that again, it does sound...er...off.

I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs or dumping on people for being passive. I don't understand it, that's for sure, and being a person who would aggressively protect people I care about, I guess I'm coming across as TOO combative.

I don't go around looking to pick fights, as hard as that may be for some to believe, and I do my best to avoid physical confrontations.

When I said, "The person who stands there and does nothing is as bad as the person committing the violence", I meant that. But "doing something" can mean calling a cop. I was not suggesting that unless all pacifists go out and beat the crap out of someone they are losers in my book, I am really trying to understand it, and doing a p!ss poor job of saying "Help me understand this."

So. Someone please help me understand this. :yh_bigsmi

The greatest pacifist in history was Gandhi. His biography is here. Or you can watch the movie.

:yh_think Popeye wrote: Hate them enough to kill? Just because they believe different than you? Ummm. Yeah! Seeing how many US kids and Iraqis and Afghans they've murdered YES! Chanting for war in the pews while making up a list that dictates who can marry and who can't? The rest of their Divine Agenda!! I hate them enough to...to throw lemonade at them!!!!!!!

Popeye wrote: LOL, Why waste a perfectly good glass of lemonade. I was just agog at your violent tendancies. And the fact that you want to kill them because they kill (war) is kind of, well, odd. Do you want to kill those who murder, or have abortions?Oh No! I'm pro-Abortion Rights and against giving this government the authority to murder it's citizens. Other than that I'm pretty moderate.

Popeye and Dave: Would you two like to be left alone? :yh_rotfl

Where's LC when you need her? I've been hijacked! :yh_bigsmi

(I'm kidding, guys...enjoy)

Hey, Popeye...really, I was joking. I kind of get a kick out of the directions some threads take...please continue!

BabyRider I'm so glad that I read your post wrong. Thank you!! Muah!

It was kinda freaking me out...I was sitting here thinking of Gandhi and MLK as I read the thread because they are pacifists that I admire so much...and then reading your post - it just didn't sound like you.



Some days it's just good to be wrong (for me, I mean). LOL



Back to the discussion at hand...bringing up the "great" pacifists (above), and seeing how effective they actually were in the face of violence has had a huge impact on my way of thinking. I can't imagine that peaceful sit-ins would've worked against someone like Genghis Khan, yet it did work against the British. Khan was amoral (in my opinion), and perhaps that's where we can draw a line between effective pacifism or not. Thoughts?

Popeye wrote: Sorry, just getting to know everybody, and Dave is the first one. I'm done, I've learned all I need to know about him. LaterPlease don't judge us all by just this one member Popeye.

He can post those kind of assanine statements about killing certain people he does not agree with and get away with it.

You are not the first to wonder about that form of speech from him.

I think deep down he is really harmless and they are just idle threats.



Welcome to FG.............

A Karenina wrote: BabyRider

Back to the discussion at hand...bringing up the "great" pacifists (above), and seeing how effective they actually were in the face of violence has had a huge impact on my way of thinking. I can't imagine that peaceful sit-ins would've worked against someone like Genghis Khan, yet it did work against the British. Khan was amoral (in my opinion), and perhaps that's where we can draw a line between effective pacifism or not. Thoughts?


See, that's where I stand. Pacifism works fine against a sane enemy who's lost its way, such as the British or American gov't. If the Jews had been officially pacifist against the Nazis (and it appears they were, in a way) the nazia would just see it as further evidence of their weaknes, and gleefully continue the slaughter.