thought on pacifism

[MacPelto]

"Pacifism is actually irresponsible since it creates a greater pool of easy victims and therefore increases the need for men and women to risk their lives to defend those victims."

Try this on for size...

Pacifism is morally reprehensible because humans, like all animals, learn from experience. To teach a goblin that attacking another human being is easy, safe, without ill consequences, etc. is to teach him that it is ok to do so, and in his own best interest, since he gains. Whether you desire to teach a lesson is moot - the goblin will learn something no matter what. The question is what will he learn? It is socially irresponsible to teach him anything besides 'Don't try to take that which does not belong to you!'

Paraphrase from The Guru...

An unarmed man can only flee from Evil - Unfortunately, Evil is not overcome by fleeing.

Mac

 

[TheEgg]

I have discussed this issue with 5 self-avowed pacifists over the years.

My opinion is that at least for these 5, they simply hide their cowardice behind pacifism, to make themselves feel better.

 

[fix]

IMO, pacifism is nothing more than an excuse for cowardice in the vast majority of cases. There are exceptions of course, such as those who do not want to be defended in any way for whatever reason. But, in most cases it is just a weak individual.

 

[Sean Smith]

I can't agree with, but can respect, a person who is a genuine pacifist, if only for the courage of their (admittedly often dumb) convictions. However, most pacifists seem to be freeloaders... not willing to entail risks, but happy to enjoy the benefits of others taking those risks on their behaf. They use a pacifist ideology as a responsibility dodge.

Some of the medics and corpsmen who served in the military in various wars were what might be called "genuine" pacifists. They weren't shirking risk or responsibility off on others; they simply had a personal conviction against killing, and lived up to that conviction. Those whining about the evils of war as a way to avoid them are merely cowards.

 

[cordex]

I see a few different levels of pacifism:

Situational Pacifists: People like the majority of THR members. We do not go around punching and shooting people. We avoid violence when we can. However, when there is no other choice, we are able and willing to resort to violence to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Peaceful when there's a choice, willing and able to drop the hammer when there isn't.

Moral/Religious Pacifists: People such as the lady Trebor brought up, who believe that their soul would be lost or moral code would be violated if they fought to defend themselves. Personally, I consider these people deluded and ignorant, but they often truly believe what they profess.

Fashionable Pacifists, aka Ivory Tower Pacifists: This group is made up of the celebrities, professors and politicians who pretend to espouse pacifism because it fits in with their warped view of reality (for Bob and Tom listeners, "Kristi's World"), formed primarily in the hermetically sealed hallways of Hollywood, educational institutions and public buildings. Also included are the mindless followers of these people. The ignorance displayed by this group is simply that: lack of experience and knowledge. If subjected to reality, many (most?) will drop their philosophy in a heartbeat. They might not fight back, but they'll quickly lose their aversion to the idea and will immediately request that someone else do it for them.

Also, there is a distinction between being willing to sacrifice your own life to make a philisophical point, and being willing to let those you supposedly care about die because you have a problem with the concept of fighting. Any so-called human who would stand idly by while their loved ones were tortured and killed to adhere to a code of nonviolence does not deserve the protection they're offered by our police and military, nor the love of those that they'd watch die.

 

[BigG]

Even Gandhi would get a gun, were his loved ones threatened, IIRC.

 

[spacemanspiff]

i wonder how many pacifist 'christians' also believe in 'once saved, always saved'.

if you're already saved because you declared your belief in the christ, what difference does your further actions make, positive or negative?

 

[Cassandra]

My good friends

Perhaps many pacifists are in summation easy victims, situational pacifists etc. but I am not one of those. I have with my good brain chosen the highest road, pacifism. I call it the silent power. Yes knives and guns you can see and they ward off and threaten perpetrators who make their intentions known. But the silent power does much more than that. It threatens the very identity of the perpetrator as the perpetrator.

Let me begin by saying this, Pacifism is the silent strength. It requires strength of spirit rather than strength of body, thus attainable to anyone, even the dude on a wheelchair. If a person exudes enough peace and infectious tranquility, they will make the perpetrator forget his weapon, perhaps even his very intentions. Have you ever met an infectiously happy person and felt happy for the rest of the day. Most people aren’t that self aware or they simply don’t follow the subtle movement of their emotions. A number of psychological studies have been done on this. Two of my professors did a book called, The Faces of Forgiveness: they base their work on a pillar in human interaction. If two people in conversation when an emotion begins, it is hard to tell where it began because what a person feels is read on the face of the other and then mirrored back to him. Where I come into play here is to look into the face of anger and hostility with a face, reflecting peace and life. To me it is as though there is a third party present who is the face of ultimate peace and well-being.

(I understand this may be a reach for some of you folks who’ve sworn by your weapons of defense. With you I have no quarrel, for I too understand your reasons well. It’s a reach because your medium of defense reveals to me that you have a very tactile focus in life. I consider myself much more spiritual.)

This is not victimization or cowardly by any means, rather it is the most amazingly offensive tactic imaginable, because basically the perpetrator, as he is facing me, is no longer a perpetrator. It brings him over to my side for a little while. Next time he comes over to my side for a little longer. The peace reflected off my face becomes a ray of hope and places within his spirit a nagging longing for more. Pretty soon he is conquered altogether—he is no longer the perpetrator.

And folks! I swear by what I have just described. I do all sorts of “dangerous†things, even other weapon bearing women wouldn’t. I’ve most recently tried it out on a guy from the bar that I sort of know, who needed a ride home. He was drunk and very angry. He used to be in a gang, wore a pistol on each hip, and I’ve also perceived that he’s raped a few women in his drunken stupor or otherwise. He was crazy at the bar—but he was much more calm by the time we got to his house. My only regret was that my own spirit of peace wasn’t stronger. Some might say I have a strong spirit. I know some fear looking into my eyes. I’m not sure what all people say about me behind my back. My neighbors have recently mentioned, how I seem to walk into dangerous situations with this sort of buffer around me. That’s more or less the idea.

Good discussion board here. I’ve checked it out a few times but was prodded by Oleg to say something here. And I do believe it a most appropriate place to speak. I understand that I will be meeting a few of you in Nashville at “the gatherin.†It will be a pleasure.

Cassandra de paz

 

[fix]

First off, welcome to THR. It takes a lot of courage to defend an unpopular position and you have displayed that. You, as a pacifist, are off my list of cowards. However, I feel that you may be a little misguided, or possibly inexperienced.

If a person exudes enough peace and infectious tranquility, they will make the perpetrator forget his weapon, perhaps even his very intentions.

While this may be true in your experience, it does not pass the real world test. There are people in this world who will smile back at you while they kill you. While you may have the courage to stand up to that and die safe in the knowledge that you did the right thing, widespread adoption of your philosophy becomes impractical. I have done my share of traveling around this world we live in while studying for my Masters Degree in Reality at the USMC and I have seen men who are so depraved and so violently evil that were they faced with someone who displayed your kindness to them, they would take even greater pleasure in their barbarian acts. While it would be wonderful if we all adopted your philosophy, it's just not possible. As long as there remains evil on this earth, there must be people willing to confront that evil, and deal with it violently where necessary. Without these people, we would be overrun with evil.

While I accept your positions (your life after all), I think that your characterization of your philosophy as an offensive tactic is very much flawed.

 

[freewheeling]

Cassandra (is that irony intentional?):

Let me begin by saying this, Pacifism is the silent strength. It requires strength of spirit rather than strength of body, thus attainable to anyone, even the dude on a wheelchair. If a person exudes enough peace and infectious tranquility, they will make the perpetrator forget his weapon, perhaps even his very intentions. Have you ever met an infectiously happy person and felt happy for the rest of the day.

Although you may express this as a conviction, from an empirical standpoint it is no more than an hypothesis. I'm willing to accomodate pacifism of the sort that doesn't shirk danger, but only to the extent that it doesn't impose the consequences of the pacifists' convictions on others. And I'm afraid that when it comes to mass violence vs. mass oppression, I have to concur with Neibuhr that it's unethical and immoral to resist or undermine the determination and ability to make war for a just cause. The problem is that tactics of nonviolence, as practiced by Gandhi, are effective against liberal states (in the classic sense) with the rule of law, but not against illiberal ones with arbitary laws.

I will acknowledge that there is a distinct moral difference between the martyrdom of the early Christians and the martyrdom of the late Muslims. And it is no accident, I think, that the civilization established by the former now has the upper hand on the latter. For those Muslims sincerely asking "What went wrong?" that might be a good place to start looking for answers.

 

[TheEgg]

Cassandra -- I will take you at your word and assume that you are posting this in all honesty. Do not take my comments as an insult, because I mean them simply to try and help you.

If a person exudes enough peace and infectious tranquility, they will make the perpetrator forget his weapon, perhaps even his very intentions.

This is simple wishfull thinking -- you simply have never run into a really bad human being (and I hope you never do -- you will be dog food). There are predators out there that you seem unable to even imagine. They WILL NOT react this way -- they will simply rob you, rape you, and then kill you.

This is a sad fact, and you are living in a dream world.

 

[Sean Smith]

If a person exudes enough peace and infectious tranquility, they will make the perpetrator forget his weapon, perhaps even his very intentions.

Spoken like someone who has no concept of what much of the human race is really like. You sound like someone who has had the good fortune of not having to grow up. I hope you don't have to get attacked to learn how stunningly naive and childish your worldview is.

 

[cordex]

Cassandra,
I fervently hope that your silent strength never lets you down, that you never are forced to lose faith in it, and that you never, ever, ever encounter someone who remains unaffected by your tranquility. If you ever do, I hope that you are in the company of Oleg and Betty or others like them who are willing and able to defend you with other means.

A word of advice, if I may:

I do all sorts of “dangerous†things, even other weapon bearing women wouldn’t.

Do as a real-life weapon bearing woman (or man) should - avoid "dangerous" things in the first place where possible. Rely on your tactic of acting as a calming influence as a secondary tool where avoidance failed. Just a thought.

 

[Dave R]

Pacifism is misunderstood here.

I beileve I'm on pretty firm footing when I say that Pacifists believe in not INITIATING violence.

Ghandi said you should defend yourself if attacked. The Dalai Lama says you should defend yourself if attached. The Quakers say you should defend yourself if attacked. The Jews say you should defend yourself when attacked. The Christians say you should defend yourself when attacked.

There's a dfference between being a Pacifist and being a liberal wuss.

 

[buzz_knox]

This is simple wishfull thinking -- you simply have never run into a really bad human being (and I hope you never do -- you will be dog food). There are predators out there that you seem unable to even imagine. They WILL NOT react this way -- they will simply rob you, rape you, and then kill you.

I 100% agree with that. I have sat in the same room with people who would consider your "Face of Forgiveness" nothing more than a challenge, and who would enjoy wiping it off and destroying your sense of self. I pray you never meet them.


And pacifism is not misunderstood. Like "anarchy" it is a word that has been coopted to mean something other than it's traditional meaning. Traditional pacifism is completely non-violent. Situational pacifism (my compliments to the one who coined this term) allows violence under select situations. But it is, in fact, an oxymoron and a corruption of the term.

 

[Trisha]

Merry met, Cassandra!

The spiritual path, attaining predominance to the tactile, physical domain of flesh and blood, seems to lead to the initiation of a degree of self-loathing for being still anchored, constrained to the mortal veil.

I study and practice transcendental rapture, seeking Kundalini and balance - and I've opened my eyes and heart to celebrate the achievements of the flesh in the study of the arts of war as being inherently necessary to my harmony. One is not greater than the other, and I believe you may be loosing your way, for I believe sustained perfection such as you ascribe to knowing to border on the threshold of delusion - for man is mortal, and given the burden of celebrating the knowledge that all mysteries are unknowable.

Wa is, at most, to be touched, not made captive and wielded at whim.

Your perspective and insights are most welcome, but I would pose you a question: Are you not commiting an act of war in your own way?

The pacifist avoids conflict. You seem to be resolving, even deliberately seeking out conflict and situations of grave peril to demonstrate a craft of dominance, I think.

Trisha

 

[Drjones]

I worked with a woman who was a "True Pacifist." She was a minister in the Church of the Brethren. The way she explained it to me was that they believed that the Spiritual Harm you did to yourself by harming another, even in self-defense, was ALWAYS greater than the physical harm they could do to you. (Btw, the attacker also suffered great spiritual harm in attacking you)

Another way to look at it was that would you be willing to risk your chance to go to heaven just to prolong your life here on earth?

Now, I don't agree with these concepts, but I can understand them. She truly believe that she could miss out on her promised afterlife if she harmed another, AND was willing to accept the consequences of that while here on earth. That takes a lot of faith.

Now, I DO separate her beliefs from those people who call themselves "Pacifists," but are merely uncomfortable with the notion of defending themselves, YET are perfectly willing to let someone else do it for them.

This still doesn't hold any water.

I'm assuming this friend of yours lives in America, right?

Well, as such, she is still benefitting from the violence others are doing on her behalf to keep her safe, most notably our Armed Forces and police.

Until she moves to a country or place where absolutely no one is looking out for her safety in any way, shape, or form, she is a complete hypocrite, just like most pacifists.

 

[BigG]

Note to BigG: While You Were Away:

We have plumbed depths way above my pantlegs on this one.

 

[LawDog]

If a person exudes enough peace and infectious tranquility, they will make the perpetrator forget his weapon, perhaps even his very intentions.

Lass, I'm afraid this one fails the Real World Test: Mahatma Ghandi was big on the Peace and Infectious Tranquility bit. His assassin forgot neither his weapon, nor his intentions.

Buddhist monks are also somewhat famous for Peace and Tranquility. A quick Google Search will reveal that Buddhist monks and abbots get geeked by guys with guns and blades on a fairly regular basis.

And that's not counting Cambodia, where perpetrators who were very aware of their weapons and their intentions came very close to wiping out Buddhism within the borders of that country.

Peace and tranquility is all very well, and I'm glad that they've worked for you so far, however, in my experience, peace and tranquility only work when the critters of the world understand that there is a knuckle-dragging monster somewhere close who is ready to do violence to the critters on behalf of the Peace and Tranquility types.

LawDog
(Peace Officer/Knuckle-Dragging Monster)

 

[spacemanspiff]

cassandras post reminds me of the discussion i had a while back. heres excerpts from it:

LILY: it is that I, as an individual person can change MY destiny.
You seem to be reacting to a fear of being a victim, and are therefore victimized by that fear. Transform the fear, no need to defend.
because living in integrity, as love, requires no defense, it simply IS. I see nothing of the scenario that you are describing that is capable to survive..its all dead, and waiting to crumble.
Both sides of the issure you are speaking of are doomed. As we stand in compassion, we have no fear, and survival becomes a non-issue.
BEING is the only issue.

ME: no need to defend? so you would not put a defense if someone tried to rape you? you would let them have their way with your body and then kill you? sounds to me like you are afraid of taking control of your own life.
self defense is a human right. those who seek to trample that right are not human in my book. those who try to convince others they 'dont need to defend' themselves are not human either.

LILY: i see what youre saying
but take it UP a level, ok? If i am realized, i SEE what causes rape, i see the energy flows that create it. And then, i am no longer susceptible to it.
If we are going to evolve, we have to let the victim mentality go..but that doesnt in anyway mean being passive, ok? It means we have to see deeper into the cause of all this crap.
And, in seeing, we can then effectively manouver thru it. We have to get away from an imposed moral code...meaning..taking resonsibility for being who we are to ourselves, and not ever rely on anything outside ourselves to dictate who we are. We have to increase awareness, and in that i would see that rapist a mile away and avoid him.
As i clear my energy body from attachments i begin to create the world i want. You are close to seeing this..look at it again, and ponder it without being defensive. If we are in control of our life, able to manipulate matter, we no longer have to defend it....we just live it in the moment, constantly in the moment, becuase that is where all the power resides. We would not succumb to that rapist, becuase we have come to understand what annihalation is....
we have lost our fear of death. This is a path that requires true courage, and on it we are warriors.


soooooooo, in effect,"lily" was saying that victims of crime bring it upon themselves because criminals fed into their fear. makes me wanna puke.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I don't have any tranquility. I demand a recount.

 

[cordex]

LawDog,
Thanks for draggin' those knuckles.

Love the sig-line too.

 

[MacPelto]

The peace reflected off my face becomes a ray of hope and places within his spirit a nagging longing for more. Pretty soon he is conquered altogether...

So, my question is, does this work on the bubonic plague bacterium too, or would you just kill those?

 

[MJRW]

I question even if pacifism as Cassandra described really is the highest road. Even assuming it works, it is doing nothing and banking on the beneficial reaction of the opponent. It is the doing nothing nor the will to do anything that I have issue. In my opinion, doing something is almost always harder than doing nothing. The highest road? I don't think so.

 

[Baba Louie]

Welcome to THR Cassandra

Pacifism works really well, until somebody decides to have you for dinner.
Then, I suggest Plan "B"
Mostly I practice that level of pacifism all of the time.

My WA isn't that highly developed to keep taking punches to the face reassuring me that I'm above all of this mere physical world stuff.

But thats just me. YMMV