|
Pacifism
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancedfarmer |
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 |
|
|
| Yoepus |
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. |
|
|
| skaborough fats |
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 |
|
|
| Arbiter |
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 |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
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! |
|
|
| 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*. :) |
|
|
| trancedfarmer |
| 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*. :) |
yes indeed... idealistic pacifism is not my cup of tea.
but in terms of the affectiveness of pacifism for the individual, i.e. me, i feel that it is the highest and most desireable action to take against aggression or difficulty. From a religious perspective, it is the surrender of ones self, of ones selfishness, and that in itself is an answer... is it a desireable one- that depends on how you live your life. to me pacifism is a very religious concept and i know that that is why i have struggled with it so much. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| trancedfarmer |
| 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. |
yeah that and the fact that we all support violence through taxes and whatnot...
but that doesnt mean that one cant be a pacifist.. anyone can take a non-violent stance.. i did and i drove me to a very different lifestyle... |
|
|
| Nadi |
| 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. |
|
|
| Busy Child |
| 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. |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
outlaw religion and you will see pacifism
;) |
|
|
|
|
