TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pacifism
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Pacifism
What do you think about pacifism and those who take a non-violent stance. If you are a pacifist explain why.
Please feel free to use humor in this thread.
Personally i am confused about my stance right now. I was a pacifist but find it difficult to say that now... i still feel against violent action, but i dont know if saying that violence is not the answer ever is appropriate.
thanx
Taking a pacifist stance is ideal. It simply does not work. One can only be a pacifisit if all others in the world are pacifists, clear and simple.
Altought I believe none-violent resistance should be the founding corner-stone of every revolution/resistance movement, it does not always work (but neither does violent...). However, on a judgement of history none-violence only seems to work on the internal, or national scale... on the scale of intra-national, or the world, it seems always to result in the most dire consequences.
What I mean, is Ghandi and Martin Luther King (american guy) did very well against their local regiem. But when you look at it applied by nations, such as sanctions (post WWI, or Iraq for modern example), you see it results in much more dire consequences then if say, violence would be enacted (when germany or Iraq violated the arms agreement, had the US attacked then war on a large scale could have been avoided, undoubtly saving more lives).
So as you can see.. sure being a pacifist is a great ideal, but realisitically if you support it, you end up killing more people then you are saving (above examples), at least on a global or intra-national scale.
My tad, hope it sways you a bit... Let's see what the other blocs will says.
Well "give peace a chance" always sounds nice...
Pacifism does work. Ghandi brought the worlds largest Empire to its knees. Thats a testiment. But pacifism is a protest tactice. It will work in Northern Ireland, Middle East, anywhere people are tired of killing each other, and are tired of burying their families...
On an International scale I agree that it doesn't work, but thats because of the nature of politics... its an adversarial system. Sanctions do work, but only if properly backed and carried through. It doesn't help that France and Russia are constantly lobbying for relaxed sanctions against Iraq (they do business with the Iraqi Govt. by the way). You have to hard line with sanctions, but there must be a reward at the end (a stick is good to spurr a donkey, but the carrot works better).
Ahh... just a thought from the hip...
Cheers,
Fats
If an individual wishes to be a pacifist, I don't have a problem with it. They may sometimes put themselves at a disadvantage by choosing pacifism, but in the end that's a choice I feel they have the right to make.
Pacifism as a defense against an aggressive opponent is a risky strategem. Gandhi used pacifism to fight the british empire because he knew that the valued their image of being civilized. I doubt he would have even tried to use it if India was being occupied by the Mongols, however, because they simply would have slaughtered him and anyone foolish enough to follow him.
Pacifism is not a practical international policy at this juncture. Countries which endeavor to avoid war at all costs end up doing very little harm, but also very little good, for they fail to realize that only by means of violence can many things be done that ought to be.
Power is the will to do what one's adversary will not - thus one who does not have the will to escalate the issue to the level of violence is weak in comparison to one who does.
In the end, pacifism rarely accomplishes anything. You read a lot about the few success stories, but most of the time, radical change can only be affected by force. It is simply the way of the world.
Cheers,
Arbiter
i think that everything that needs to be said has been.... i agree pretty much with the rest of you - i can assure you i'm not a violent person. i prefer peace! However, the "pacifist" angle just does not work with today's politics and *religion*. I would always prefer having peace-talks as opposed to going to war, but some people are just not reasonable!
I am optimistic on what is going on in the middle-east right now - we finally got france, russia, and china to agree to a new "dismantle NOW!" resolution for iraq.... iraq has recently accepted - however, what befuddles me (heheh, i said "befuddles"..) is if it was so "easy" for iraq to accept this, why didn't they just do it years ago and save everyone so much trouble? I think they are still hiding something; or at least have some "stipulations" they will come up with WHILE the inspectors are doing their rounds...
..but yeah, pacifism all the way!
one more thing - i wanted to elaborate about how i feel about pacifists...
I have no problem with pacifists (obviously).... its the *idealists* that i cannot stand... they are usually unreasonable as far as listening and negotiating, and are so set in their fairy-land ways and beliefs that they won't see whats really happening out there.... i consider myself more of a *realist*. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ABTsportsline one more thing - i wanted to elaborate about how i feel about pacifists... I have no problem with pacifists (obviously).... its the *idealists* that i cannot stand... they are usually unreasonable as far as listening and negotiating, and are so set in their fairy-land ways and beliefs that they won't see whats really happening out there.... i consider myself more of a *realist*. |
in this day in age, you cant be a pacifist, or you can but itll be extremely difficult. Because of technology, anything that happens on the other side of the world affects your country in some way almost instantaneously. That is why the united states is always buggin their nose in other peoples business.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Busy Child in this day in age, you cant be a pacifist, or you can but itll be extremely difficult. Because of technology, anything that happens on the other side of the world affects your country in some way almost instantaneously. That is why the united states is always buggin their nose in other peoples business. |
My views on pacifism depend on what level of people i'm dealing with. If I have a problem with one person, than I'm almost never going to resort to violence. If its something involving whole countries I still think that you should strive for peace, but anyone who thinks they don't need some sort of army or self defense is fooling themselves.
yea well, its always a shame some conflicts must be settled with war, but some countries like to use the peaceful method to buy them more time to do whatever sinister they want to do. The united states have learned this from the past and we are SICK OF IT. There is a time where it is necessary to lay the foot down and regulate.
outlaw religion and you will see pacifism
that makes no sense....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancedfarmer that makes no sense.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancedfarmer that makes no sense.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Busy Child sure it does! |
Pacifism is the ideology of the weak. If you are oppressed, enslaved and your rights under international law are denied, applying non-violent protests or trying to negotiate with your oppressor will only bring you one thing-Contempt.
It is in the nature of the conqueror to hate the conquered for their weakness.
I used to believe that non-violent protest was appropriate and that negotiations through the United Nations would inevitably protect the weak and the oppressed. I used to think the international community(in general) cared about the oppressed peoples in this world and genuinely wanted to lift the shackles of slavery from those peoples struggling for self-determination.
I was a fool.
The truth is the West and the United States in particular dont give a fuck about anything other than their own vested interests. Principles are always sold out if its expedient.
Theres only one language the bullies of this world understand. Violence.
the principles behind non-violent opposition do not ussually lie in achieiving an auspicious outcome, but rather ussually deal with acting in accordance to a natural selfless law that one finds significant and beneficial to the planet. it doesnt have to bring us an end to bloodshed, all non-violence has to do is be honest and compassionate towards others.
of course one can hardly expect to win over a violent giant like the U.S., which kills pacifists left and right... non-violence is supposed to be a tool for those who wish to live peacefully and who do not tempt themselves with petty vengeance...
Thats true.. if everyone has the same beliefs and same moral standards.. We wouldnt have conflicts like we do today haha but still its very far fetched. If the world would function as a whole instead of seperate nations that would help.. but then again who would vauch for a universal economy haha but im sure dictating enemies and targeting them is not a solution. It will definately lead to more problems.. but then again.. what else can be done?
i guess its a very personal affirmation. it rarely is effective to push upon others.
i think a lot of people use pacifism as an excuse not to fight, and therefore is often cowardly. Like refusing to fight for your country or something.
pac�i�fism
n.
The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
OR
pacifism
n 1: the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable [syn: passivism] 2: the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration
==============================================
I think Canada is normally known world-wide for their Pacifism and art of negotiation.
I even found a civil group here in Canada, Nonviolent Peaceforce Canada that teaches it and has some interesting views...
Pacifism has worked for me personally (when I was younger and for some reason people wanted to fight me) but I'll tell you right now it a HARD stance to take and still keep your dignity about yourself.
I always had the rare gift of making the aggressor look like an asshole in the end...lol 
This is sort of analigious to a country.
Terrorism feeds on Pacifism, knowing full well that it can be weak and indecisive...
Something I think Bin Ladin was hoping and expected...
But in every conflict the pacifists have to take a stand or risk being walked over and taken advantage of, knowing full well that if nothing is done, a repeat is almost expected.
So does that mean pacifism doesn't work since they choose to retaliate?
Not at all.
Aggression and retaliation is always the last answer for the pacifist.
In extreme cases however, that answer of aggression and retaliation just comes more quickly when a countries people want answers.
A purely pacifist stance with choice to do nothing but sit back and negoitiate does not move a situation forward fast enough to a resolution at times.
I'm not talking about bringing out the guns and let the bullets fly to force a point.
I'm saying that sometimes, a county has to accept responsibility and LEAD instead of succumbing to the bullying of an idealist.
A leader will make decisions that are unpopular with others and have the foresight to move a situation forward to a resolution...
Sidenote:
I just thought of a quote I heard once and thought it was pretty amusing...
"If you're not the lead dog, the view's all the same"...
canada is also positioned far away from any conflict. the U.S. is also seperated from most of the world, save S. America, but since were such bullies we still seem to get involved in many conflicts.
| quote: |
| i think a lot of people use pacifism as an excuse not to fight, and therefore is often cowardly. Like refusing to fight for your country or something. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancedfarmer i think it takes more courage not to fight then to fight. How is harming others courageous. Granted there are many who use pacifism as an excuse not to go into the army and what not, but they are still abstaining from violence, which is rarely productive. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancedfarmer i think it takes more courage not to fight then to fight. How is harming others courageous. Granted there are many who use pacifism as an excuse not to go into the army and what not, but they are still abstaining from violence, which is rarely productive. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.