It is bad.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sometimes I think they need a closeup dose of reality in their own baliwick--not as a remote image of the World Trade Center on television. If only, failing to prevent terrorist acts, those in need of awakening could experience the fear instead of innocents.
 
If the other side is Ghandi, that's a good bet.

People forget that Ghandi's pacifism was backed up by the threat of millions of Indians rebelling if their best hope for peaceful change was killed. If he'd been killed, the place would have been torn apart. Combine that with the British realizing they were overstretched and you get a "victory for pacifism."
 
Ther's not much more one could add to what ya'll have already said. Sadly, most of the leftist crowd is so self righteous that it never occurs to them what their collective "dissent with no solution" does with respect to the struggle against evil. That may be another discussion; the left's warped view of evil. It seems to me they ascribe evil to the very lifestyle they live and cherish, while annointing the truly evil with "victimhood". I think that's worse than hypocricy, it is sheer obliviousness to reality.
 
There is no reaching a fool, they couldn't see logic if their eyeglasses were covered in it. If you try to reason with them, they usually shut-down mentally.

If you want peace, prepare for war.
Sic vis pacem, para bellum.

Jubei
 
A pacifist is a Republican who hasn't been mugged yet. A Republican is a Libertarian who hasn't been sued by his mugger's survivors.
 
buzz:
People forget that Ghandi's pacifism was backed up by the threat of millions of Indians rebelling if their best hope for peaceful change was killed. If he'd been killed, the place would have been torn apart. Combine that with the British realizing they were overstretched and you get a "victory for pacifism."
Of course though he WAS killed immediately after the British left.
By muslims of course.
Those same mindless religious zealots who have taken over from the great butchers of secular communism and fascism in their continuing quest for a worldwide Caliphate.
Got your evil right there.

Pacifism is fine when it is just a small group of parasites (Quakers for example), then the host can ignore them.
Unfortunately, in modern times, pacifism has become the default position for the educated elitist; UNLESS that war has been perpetrated by Socialists.

Klintons wars good, Bush's wars bad.

As in every other way the Socialists are liars and thieves.

G
 
Ah, but campers... I get the feeling some of y'all are going binary on me...

War sucks. Being closely involved with it sucks more.

But there's worse.

I do not think that "dropping the big one" or sending in the 82nd or starting to yank on the trigger right when the fellow starts running up to your car (after all, he could simply be wanting to remind you that you left your gas filler open...) is the initial solution to most problems. But I do think that the concept of talking softly, while in possession of that big stick, has great validity.

The problem at hand is convincing people who've been told since they were small children that "violence is bad" regardless of other long-term consequences. Largely, I suppose, because their teachers and their parents do not wish to think about the long-term consequences...

Sigh.

Why can't we all just get along? Such a concept. And it'd be just so cool if it really worked.
 
my .02

i had a professor once from guyana who was a real pacifist. he had been beaten, death threated, mobbed, etc. his brother was the dictator's personal bodyguard and had lost count of the number of people murdered after #15.

he really was a pacifist - not the kind that says, "violence solves nothing", but the kind that says, "violence stems from ignorance".

and after much argument, I had agree with one thing - much violence does indeed stem from ignorance. ignorance on the part of young brit muslims who think that by blowing themselves up they are helping a worthy cause, ignorance on the part of certain western leaders who choose to label enemies as "evil" and then dismiss any possibility of figuring out WHY THE HELL they would want to blow themselves up, and figuring out how to change the reasons that cause them to blow themselves up.

if we had spent a good fraction of the money that we do on tomahawks and patriots and other crap like that on humanitarian EDUCATION missions to places all over the world, even if it does seem like propaganda, there's a good chance we wouldn't be in the crappy situation militaristically, strategically, and politically that we are now.

once upon a time americans were people who represented freedom and sought to help their fellow humans.

now - i just don't know.

but i think that when people in other countries say things like "g* damn f*** americans", it is our responsibility as wiser, higher road people to not instictively react with "screw you frenchie", etc, but to think about why people are saying these things and try to remove those reasons.

ultimately, anyone who chooses to bleieve that the suicide bombers are idiots that are brain damaged and evil and brainwashed by religon are simply trying to fool themselves into thinking that we have been completely blameless.

...

okay, flame away... but think about it for a second first.
 
Probably the most profound statement ever made on the topic......


War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of men better than himself. -- John Stuart Mill
 
I'm a firm believer in Peace through superior firepower. This, of course, implies a certain level of moral and ethical fiber on teh part of those with the superior firepower, though.

As Mauserguy noted, 'Pacifism is a privilege of the protected', and Ghandi hisself said that if the choice was between cowardice and violence, he'd choose violence. Somethings are worth fighting for, and suing for peace from the kneeling position is not a wining proposition.
 
Pacifism is weak. It is unnatural. Do rabbits go on hunger strikes hoping the wolves won't eat them? Didn't think so. You might be able to tempt fate and defy nature for a while. But as anyone in a plummeting airplane or an earthquake will figure out-> in the end nature wins out over whatever technology or moral superiority humans can cook up.

For all the posturing and "getting in touch with nature" that leftists do, you'd think they would have learned that lesson early on.
 
ultimately, anyone who chooses to bleieve that the suicide bombers are idiots that are brain damaged and evil and brainwashed by religon are simply trying to fool themselves into thinking that we have been completely blameless.

It's a dirty world, and no one is completely clean, but neither the law nor conscience does not require us to be sinless saints to defend ourselves.

Whether they are evil, brainwashed, ignorant or mind damaged makes no difference. Whatever their root causes or grievances are makes no difference.

They've decided that innocent men, women and children are appropriate targets, and have gone about canvasing their deaths and dismemberments.

This sets them outside the brotherhood of human decency.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not vanquished by fleeing from it."

-Col. Jeff Cooper
Those decisions and actions sets them apart from you and I,
 
Ah, pacifism.

If someone doesn't want to harm others, that's their business. What's the alternative? Forcing them to fight against their will or morality? How?



I'd go even further: pacifism at best is morally bankrupt. It essentially can be boiled down to the allowing your family and loved ones to be harmed and killed (with all that can ential) and you doing nothing to stop it.

That's immoral. That's wrong.

Usually however, it's lofty term for cowardice, used interchangeably by those who claim it.

I don't believe in pacifism for many reasons, including religious/moral reasons. But I don't judge others for it. I know two hardcore pacifists. One is a Chaplain. The other guy was drafted into the Army back during Vietnam, were he served as a medic. He's since died, cancer.

Both were immoral cowards?

Ha! They had a lot more guts than I do. I'd never go anywhere remotely dangerous without at least a rifle, let alone running through a freakin battle with only a medic bag trying to save folks. To go into a hostile fire zone with only a Bible or a medic bag? That'd take more stones than I'd possess in ten lifetimes.

Not to pick on ya too much, crucible, but would you have the courage to voice your opinion of our Chaplain in front of our unit? ;)

I don't think ya'd survive ragging on Chuck (the medic) in front of his unit back in the day. Considering how many of them he had patched up.
 
Thing is, humanitarian aid doesn't work either... Folks don't like to be given stuff. Deep down, the average guy wants to earn his keep. So anger grows, and festers... How to fix things - I wish it were that simple...

And pacifism, as a concept, is admirable... I recall at least one alleged prophet muttering something about turning the other cheek...
 
Okaaaayyyyy... Methinx I tweaked someone. Or more than someone.

Pacifism is good. Being a victim is bad. And being an uneducated roller is boring.

Ohmigawd, we've got a massive rectocranial brainfreeze.

Campers. We've got thousands, if not millions, of folks out there who _know_ that "violence in any form" is _bad_.

Now, quit your knee jerking, and quit your posturing, and think. How can you and I get those folks to at least acknowledge that sometimes you just gotta open a big ol' can of whoopass?
 
Like any religion, pacifism is necessarily irrational. True believers don’t change their minds.

Peace is good, but it takes a lot more work than just not fighting.

~G. Fink
 
Pacifism.

It's admirable. I think we all have to agree.

I have to disagree. Pacifism at its best is an amoral philosophy which sometimes crosses the line (often) and becomes immoral and evil.

First, pacifists tend to suffer from a common malady of any extremist ideologues. They see the world in black and white, with no shades of gray in which the world often operates. Violence and war is bad, so it is always bad. There are times when war in unquestionably justified. In WWII we were attacked by the Japanese and on the European front we were fighting a clearly evil enemy in the Nazis. Letting the Japanese and Nazis control Asia in the case of the Japanese and Europe, North Africa and the Middle East in the case of the Germans (while murdering the majority of Jews in the world) would have been a much greater wrong than fighting a war. Any war in which a country is attacked in an unprovoked attack, the attacked nation is justified in defending itself.

Second, the tendency to see things in such strong terms, "war and violence are evil" often results in a further tendency to see anyone who disagrees as evil. It definately results in a tendency to see the military and those who choose to serve as evil. I spent my first two years of high school in a Quaker school. I've seen this first hand when I joined the Army. I had kept up with some of my friends from the Friends School when I transferred out, after graduating from high school and returning there to speak with some friends in the next year (they were having a night dance or drama program) I was discussing future plans with a young lady I was very close with. When I told her I was leaving for Basic Training in a month, she turned on her heal and walked off mid-sentence. She also told some other friends nearby who then refused to even acknowlege my presence.

Pacifism if put into practice requires that we ignore evil. That we don't respond when attacked and provoked. That we let great evils go unchecked, and eventually, that we allow our society to be destroyed when a less "enlightened" nation decides to take advantage of our self-imposed weakness.

Heck, even the poster boy for pacifism so often "sainted" by most people, Mohatma Ghandi's own words can put the lie to pacifism as a moral philosophy. His first reaction when he heard about the Nazi's genocide of the Jews was that the Jews should simply peacefully demand their rights, then he changed his tune to they should all commit mass suicide and offer themselves willingly and peacefully to their murderers. About the only way one could be a less moral man is to outright join with the Nazis.
 
Whoa...

I think in reading these posts that we have a serious problem with semantics.

I am a pacifist. Meaning I avoid violence when it can be avoided.

If faced with a fight, and I have the option of walking away, I'll walk away.

If faced with a fight I cannot walk away from, I will fight to the death.

If someone threatens me or mine with violence, I'll pull that trigger with no hesitation, and no remorse.

I simply draw the line between necessary violence and unnecessary violence.

Peace and pacifism is good, however sometimes violence is the only recourse.
 
GT
Senior Member

Of course though he WAS killed immediately after the British left.
By muslims of course.
Those same mindless religious zealots who have taken over from the great butchers of secular communism and fascism in their continuing quest for a worldwide Caliphate.
Got your evil right there.

No, Ghandi was killed by a Hindu.

http://www.vov.com/leaders/gandhi.html
Gandhi's victory came in 1947 when India won independence. The subcontinent split into two countries (India and Pakistan) and brought Hindu-Muslim riots. Again Gandhi turned to nonviolence, fasting until Delhi rioters pledged peace to him. On Jan. 30, 1948, while on his way to prayer in Delhi, Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who had been maddened by the Mahatma's efforts to reconcile Hindus and Muslims. An epic motion picture based on his life won several Academy awards in 1983.


As for the claim about Ghandi suggesting the Jews should have commited suicide, it seems that is a misrepresentation (although I would still criticise his actual words as being naiive).
See: here for a blog by an Israeli peace activist describing why he supports Ghandi's principles, and here (linked from the first page) the actual text of Ghandi's letter that people have been refering to (starts about half-way down the page).
 
George Orwell on pacifists:
Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
and

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough.
 
"if you want to avoid being preyed upon by society's predators, don't look like prey."

George Maharis as "Buzz" in the old TV series "Route 66", "If there ain't no lambs, there won't be no tigers."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top