Pacifism???

[acushla]

I noticed Madjo has a new 'signature' to go along with his new Avatar.

I was reminded of a discussion some years ago where the question was: If three men broke into your home and stripped your wife naked and held her down while another went upstairs and put a bullet through your 3 year old child's head...would you still remain a pacifist?

[biggman15]

I noticed Madjo has a new 'signature' to go along with his new Avatar.

I was reminded of a discussion some years ago where the question was: If three men broke into your home and stripped your wife naked and held her down while another went upstairs and put a bullet through your 3 year old child's head...would you still remain a pacifist?

As it happens I'm a Pacifist... Atleast in the fact that I avoid Confrontation... Which is why I try to makes friends with Virtually Everyone... And While I'm not Married And I don't have Any Children... In A Case like that... My 20 Gauge would Probably get a Workout...

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/93/660595wz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Each Slug Contains 3 Chunks of Lead.... Well I don't really remember What type of Metal it is... But Lead sounds good....

[acushla]

As it happens I'm a Pacifist... At least in the fact that I avoid Confrontation... Which is why I try to makes friends with Virtually Everyone... And While I'm not Married And I don't have Any Children... In A Case like that... My 20 Gauge would Probably get a Workout...
I will state the obvious...like myself, when push comes to shove, you are not a Pacifist.

I appreciate your honesty.

[jkrzok]

There are broadly speaking two types of pacifism. One holds that all violence is unjustifiable. You can call this passivism. This type of pacifist would watch his wife die. He would, as Christ said, turn the other cheek. This is the pacifism of early Christianity and Buddhism.

There's also the pacifism that holds that all international disputes can and should be solved through negotiaton. This pacifist would fight to save his wife. Pacifism here is not a moral absolute as in the first instance and in fact may have little impact on the pacifist's personal behavior, especially in any sort of self-defense situation.

Given that I hold that there really are no moral absolutes in themselves I consider myself a pragmatric pacifist. I believe that all situations are better solved through peaceable means, if only to avoid the pain, death, cost and uncertainty of armed conflict. I would avoid conflict and would work to be considered a concientious objecter for a military draft. I would, however, defend myself if attacked.

[madjo]

Is the world black and white all of a sudden?
No, it isn't.
Sure no one is 100% pacifist, but no-one can be the exact opposite 100% of the time (sorry, don't know the term of that atm.)...
so indeed, when that stuff happens, that you described, it will certainly 'tick me off' (understatement)

But are you always looking for confrontations, acushla? I hope not.


Given that I hold that there really are no moral absolutes in themselves I consider myself a pragmatric pacifist. I believe that all situations are better solved through peaceable means, if only to avoid the pain, death, cost and uncertainty of armed conflict. I would avoid conflict and would work to be considered a concientious objecter for a military draft. I would, however, defend myself if attacked.that actually described what I meant with my 'sig' :)
would you mind, if I took that term 'pragmatic pacifist'? :)

[rorythedog]

"Sure no one is 100% pacifist, but no-one can be the exact opposite 100% of the time (sorry, don't know the term of that atm.)...".

There are many applicable words here. All use varying amounts of asterisks.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I'm a pacifist who plays unreal tournament 2004...

[BALTY]

I'm a pacific... pacifi... poacifskt oooo how do you spell it? Nevermind! Don't laugh at me ...:reallymad :dead: :mad:
I'll kill you if you do!!!!!!!:cheeky:

[acushla]

....are you always looking for confrontations, acushla?
Sometimes, in a good natured sort of way, I do provoke confrontations...but always with the goal of generating some lively discussion among the members.

This time, although I was fully aware that my post might 'ruffle' some feathers, and that it would probably generate some discussion, my inquiry was purely based on curiosity...in other words I really was interested in whether you actually considered yourself a Pacifist...a position I have very strong emotional feelings about.

One can dress the word up anyway one wants (and some have) but the bottom line is that a Pacifist is 'Someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes.' Period.

So I reassert my statement that anybody who recognizes that there are instances where he would use volence is not a Pacifist. End of story.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

So I reassert my statement that anybody who recognizes that there are instances where he would use volence is not a Pacifist. End of story.

Im too much of a wuss to start kicking someones arse ;) , i'll probably get beaten up pretty badly so my method is to avoid confrontation. Except with my younger bro and sis i never had a fight in my life with someone. I just cant be bothered...i mean i am 190 centimetres tall heh heh :cool:

[acushla]

Im too much of a wuss to start kicking someones arse ;) , i'll probably get beaten up pretty badly so my method is to avoid confrontation. Except with my younger bro and sis i never had a fight in my life with someone. I just cant be bothered...i mean i am 190 centimetres tall heh heh :cool:I, on the other hand, am 6'8" and weigh 240lbs. My arm ends at my kneecaps and so, as a result, I roam the city (usually at night) looking for people I can beat up...just because I like to.

Pray I never make it to YOUR town.:silly:

[Matt]

...Pacifist is 'Someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes.' Period.


I'm not really sure the picture you painted in the first post could be described as a dispute. I agree with others that its not as black and white as some might hope. There are always situations you could bring up that would make anyone question their morals and act in a way that you would not be proud of, but it must be done for the sake of survival.

A great example I get from people on vegetarianism would be 'if you were stranded on a desert island, would you eat meat?' .. simple answer is; if it was life or death, of course I would, that doesn't mean I am not a vegetarian. For some reason that answer satisifies people and they can go back to their business. Life isn't black and white, on or off, etc.

I am a passivist ( passivist != pacifist, what are we talking about? ), and in extreame situations such as someone going to kill my child, of course I would defend them with my life no matter the result. I would obviously pay the consequence of my action (why I am passive to begin with, avoid bad situations), but in the scenario you painted I think the personal consequence/shame would be worth the life of my child, etc.

[madjo]

I'm not really sure the picture you painted in the first post could be described as a dispute. I agree with others that its not as black and white as some might hope. There are always situations you could bring up that would make anyone question their morals and act in a way that you would not be proud of, but it must be done for the sake of survival.

A great example I get from people on vegetarianism would be 'if you were stranded on a desert island, would you eat meat?' .. simple answer is; if it was life or death, of course I would, that doesn't mean I am not a vegetarian. For some reason that answer satisifies people and they can go back to their business. Life isn't black and white, on or off, etc.

I am a passivist ( passivist != pacifist, what are we talking about? ), and in extreame situations such as someone going to kill my child, of course I would defend them with my life no matter the result. I would obviously pay the consequence of my action (why I am passive to begin with, avoid bad situations), but in the scenario you painted I think the personal consequence/shame would be worth the life of my child, etc.
I wholeheartedly agree with you Matt..

for the record.. I do try to avoid any confrontations, and I disapprove of the way the world seem to be dealing with nasty stuff (through wars), so in that way I call myself a pacifist or passivist or whatever.
But when someone else directly provokes me, in a way that I can't avoid, then you'll see a bad side of me.

Just FYI, I took that subtitle after the heated debate in the thread about war and the "comics" about the Islam. Where I was being called names... and I took the way out, that I have always chosen... I extracted myself from that debate, and since I was in the process of changing a few things, I took that as an opportunity to show a little something of myself..
but if it objects you that I call myself that way... well, let me say: I'm sorry.. I just never would have guessed that it would cause so much ruckus here. If you want I can remove it.

[BALTY]

but if it objects you that I call myself that way... well, let me say: I'm sorry.. I just never would have guessed that it would cause so much ruckus here. If you want I can remove it.
ONLY A PACIFIST!:silly:
.
.
Seriously Jo, I have my opinions. I'm not so much a pasivist, but try to be. Unlike our 6.8 friend here:ponder: roll eyes... I've always have been on the thin side. But a bit of an underdog with a big fight in him. Pride as a child perhaps... You know... hanging around the big guys, older guys, nieghbors, etc. But raised in a small town though, very Christian town, but you know how boys are. Too much pride in myself, and how and where I grew up! Where did I get that from? I think heritage. Don't know for sure. I remember not liking a few guys in my school growing up. Guys that thought they were too tough for everybody, pushing around the nerds, and the like. You know the ones (bullies).
When no one else stood up for the nerd, I came flying in. Of, course I'd get my asre kicked at times.

One time our class bully was to fight this upper classmate bully. One of those tipical " meet me after school, in the ally around the block" fights. I didn't like either of them!! But damn if I wasn't the only guy to tag along with my classmate just to make sure things went down straight! His own lackies(friends) didn't stand by him! But I did? yes I did. Well, After all!... this was MY classmate bully, and not YOUR bully! So I went with him because my class (age) group's pride was at stake! I never had to join in to fight this older kid's friends (which were all there too - and I didn't really get along with them either).
Those two bullies did fight. But we all shook hands after thathttp://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif. Never there after, did any of us provoke one another!
This isn't some lesson about WAR. I'm not saying wars turn out the same way. When I argue about that I'm mostly provoking thought !
Anyway...
I'm just saying as me personally... I've always had stood up for myself, sometime to a fault. But I sure will stand up for you if you are my friend (or a closer acquaintance hehehe:silly: , than the other guy). That's all it takes for me.
Of course I'm older errr wiser errrr, weaker now!:foureyes:
Let's Rock!

[madjo]

bullies... gah don't get me started on them.. I guess that is where I got my 'pacifism' from... do not notice me, I'm not interesting, I do not wish to fight.. but of course, they always found me...

When no one else stood up for the nerd, I came flying in. Of, course I'd get my asre kicked at times.
I wish I had one of you when I was at school... :)


and they say 'bullying doesn't hurt'... tell that to the victims... oh wait they do... and boy are they wrong :(

[biggman15]

bullies... gah don't get me started on them.. I guess that is where I got my 'pacifism' from... do not notice me, I'm not interesting, I do not wish to fight.. but of course, they always found me...


I wish I had one of you when I was at school... :)


and they say 'bullying doesn't hurt'... tell that to the victims... oh wait they do... and boy are they wrong :(

When I was younger, I Bullied also... Those were the days.... That description "do not notice me, I'm not interesting, I do not wish to fight.." Fit me too... So much so... That when I graduated HighSchool... Most of My class didn't even know who I was... :cross-eye

But the Nice thing about My past is... that I may have been Bullied up until around My 6th Grade year... In the Seventh Grade I out Grew all of the Bullies...

[acushla]

Pacifism (just so we are all on the same page.)

the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable [syn: passivism]

Main Entry: pac·i·fism
Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance
pac·i·fist /-fist/ noun



1.
refusal to use or acknowledge violence as a means for settling disputes.

opposition to war or violence of any kind.

The doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable

These are some of the definitions I found. There were others but they did not support my view so I left them out.:ermm:

The truth is I learnt something…namely that:

Pacifism relates to war as well as to domestic injustices and repressive policies. It can be studied in terms of its coherence as a deontological, or intrinsic, value as well as in terms of the beneficial effects it seeks. Examination of the broad theory draws our attention to a vast range of possible ethical meanings and issues that the committed pacifist or critic must consider. The doctrine of absolute pacifism is first dealt with, before turning to an examination of the more flexible doctrines of conditional pacifism and "pacificism".

My own opinion is that the most detailed site I came across was here: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pacifism.htm

The best place to begin an analysis of pacifism is with the absolutist argument that all forms of violence, war, and/or killing are unconditionally wrong. The proposed ideal is that social intercourse should be completely non-violent and peaceful, and conflicts which may arise should be dealt with through arbitration and compromise rather than with recourse to violent means. Absolutist pacifism asserts that peace is intrinsically a good to be upheld either as a duty or on the consequentialist grounds that it is more conducive to human welfare than any use of violence or force.

The ethical evaluation of these two positions the deontological and the consequentialist provides the traditional framework in which ethicists examine pacifism. But what becomes an immediate concern is the kind of pacifism that is intended. Pacifism for many means an anti-war stance, but pacifism can also be construed as a broader theory incorporating doctrines of non-violence, passive resistance, and moral purity. Although the emphasis on pacifism as an anti-war doctrine is the focus of this article, the other nuances of the theory need to be noted.

What I find unique, compared to every other site visited, is the way that all facets of pacifism are examined,,,and I conclude that the pacifism I refer to can be seen to be quite different to the pacifism as it relates to address the multi-facet characteristics of pacifism as it is understood in context of International dealings and specifically war. However, having now seen that pacifism is indeed broader than I understood,,,I also recognize that my position sides squarely with the ‘Absolutist pacifism’ which recognizes no exceptions. Seen in this light I assert that definitions are not subject to circumstances and therefore when Matt writes (who is this Matt anyway and why does he only seem to appear when I’m talking?):cool: that he believes the world is not black and white, he is taking great liberties with 'definitions'. The vegetarian stranded on a desert island who decides to eat meat ceases to be a vegetarian the moment he bites into the flesh. You cannot be a vegetation and eat meat. It’s that simple. Like being pregnant…you are or you’re not. It does not matter what the circumstances are...a vegetarian DOES NOT EAT MEAT. PERIOD. :apple: There are many examples of ‘black and white’…the colour of your skin…your gender (let’s not go there),,,mathematics (we may not understand the absoluteness of it but that alone does not preclude it’s existence,) In fact, life itself is an absolute…either you’re alive or your dead. It’s that simple. Perhaps the world is black and white if we choose to see it that way.

As usual I’ve written too much…suffice it to say that there has been nothing I have come across that has given me cause to change my mind, What I have learnt though, is that there are other definitions to pacifism that many here are basing their arguments on,,,and that’s fine. I just don’t think it goes to the heart of the issue.:foureyes:

Of course I could have saved myself a lot of trouble had I just taken the time to read jkrzok's post twice...or maybe even three times.

PS madjo...somewhere in this thread I had the impression that you might have felt you declaring yourself a pacifist was somehow a 'problem'

Let me tell you straight up...not a problem here...in fact, the exact opposite...provided some of us with meaningful conversation...something that I for one have found sadly lacking in this forum as of late.

So...Kudos to you. Try to think up another one we can have fun with.:)

[acushla]

ONLY A PACIFIST!:silly:
.
.
Seriously Jo, I have my opinions. I'm not so much a pasivist, but try to be. Unlike our 6.8 friend here...You know BALTY...you should have a serious talk with your mother. I'm begnning to think we're brothers.;) :)

[BALTY]

You know BALTY...you should have a serious talk with your mother. I'm begnning to think we're brothers. :)
What are:shocked: you saying about my mother?:mad:
Thems fightin words!!

.
:silly: ;)

.
.Oh; and MJ! Nothing wrong with saying that, why would there be?
(referring to your sig line)

[madjo]

.Oh; and MJ! Nothing wrong with saying that, why would there be?
(referring to your sig line)
apparently it is.. given that it sprouted a whole thread...

[BALTY]

no.
Why can't it be just interesting?

[Inthewoods]

apparently it is.. given that it sprouted a whole thread...Well, I didn't see a problem with it at all. At least it was there long enough for people to notice.

I had an avatar which expressed my feelings, and it was up for about an hour before I was "advised" to remove it because it was too inflammatory. So much for freedom of expression.

A I said, your sig was not controversial as far as I'm concerned. I've learned on this forum that it's not OK for anyone to express their opinions OR state facts unless they are totally incontrovertible, totally bland, totally neutral, and thus totally without value. So, I keep my mouth shut most of the time when it comes to personal beliefs and politics, and just hum a little tune with my current avatar, and wait for B109.

[rorythedog]

I completely agree. Hence why my lips are sealed on anything even remotely interesting.

[acushla]

I completely agree. Hence why my lips are sealed on anything even remotely interesting.Not me.:)

Surely the key is in how one approaches discussion of these topics...and that the people involved are genuinely interested in a discussion...not simply a platform from which to preach their particular view.

Perhaps a new category should be added...you could call it...oh, I don't know...how about Discussion...whereby it was clearly understood that by entering into that particular thread you were entering into an arena where everybody involved acknowledged the freedom to discuss issues as they saw them.

[rorythedog]

Stop stirrin' it up mate. It's gettin' boring.

[madjo]

Not me.:)

Surely the key is in how one approaches discussion of these topics...and that the people involved are genuinely interested in a discussion...not simply a platform from which to preach their particular view.

Perhaps a new category should be added...you could call it...oh, I don't know...how about Discussion...whereby it was clearly understood that by entering into that particular thread you were entering into an arena where everybody involved acknowledged the freedom to discuss issues as they saw them.
I guess the problem was a difference in translation.. I mean, by pacifism I meant what I said in this thread.. if that doesn't go well with the English translation, well don't blame me :) I still stand by what I said...
And I'm still a proud pragmatic pacifist (by Dutch standards) :P

[WHAT?]

I guess the problem was a difference in translation.. I mean, by pacifism I meant what I said in this thread.. if that doesn't go well with the English translation, well don't blame me :) I still stand by what I said...
And I'm still a proud pragmatic pacifist (by Dutch standards) :P
:cheerful: At least you are living up to your (and our) understanding of Pacifism I see!;)

[acushla]

Stop stirring' it up mate. It's getting' boring.Well, I don't know...if attempting to find a way that would satisfy everybody regarding the discussion of political/philosophical topics is 'stirring it up'...then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

On the other hand...you could be crazy.:calm:

[acushla]

I guess the problem was a difference in translation.. I mean, by pacifism I meant what I said in this thread.. if that doesn't go well with the English translation, well don't blame me :) I still stand by what I said...
And I'm still a proud pragmatic pacifist (by Dutch standards) :PNot necessarily a problem in translation...just which one we are using.

As I stated...all my life I understood 'pacifism' to have one definition. Through you and this thread I now understand that it has at least two meanings which are independent of each other.

I love learning.

[rorythedog]

Not necessarily a problem in translation...just which one we are using.

As I stated...all my life I understood 'pacifism' to have one definition. Through you and this thread I now understand that it has at least two meanings which are independent of each other.

I love learning.

So you've learned the world isn't black & white. Well done. :calm:

[acushla]

So you've learned the world isn't black & white. Well done. :calm:
Through you and this thread I now understand that it has at least two meanings which are independent of each other.

Two meanings...one BLACK and one...

Thank you...thank you very much.

[Solon]

I think I missed the boat on this thread...but I thought of a witty line I could have possibly used

"pacifism?...pacifuck'em!"

yeah well, it was good in my head. I'm not really sure where I fall in the pacifistic categories... when provoked I will retaliate and rip your f**king head off :bandit:. I'll stick up for my mates even if it means I get my ass slaughtered, but I won't go around starting fights on purpose, I try to get on with everybody at first, and if they have a thing against me then sure, I'm going to remember that and watch my back. If called up to fight for my country I will defend it, because I'm patriotic (even though British politics is going down the tube :()...so I dunno.

Interesting thread to read though (and I have nothing against pacifists!..I just thought it was a clever play-on-words :confused:)

[WHAT?]

I like the young French people. Passive stance in the war in Iraq, and would be war in Iran. But damn if they change a law within their country... boy,:normal: watchout!!

[Willow of Oz]

. I'll stick up for my mates even if it means I get my ass slaughtered,

ah, but would you stick up for your mates if they were in the wrong? Mmmmm.

[Solon]

Sure I would, because that's what being a mates about. I wouldn't let me mate lose face infront of someone else, even if they were in the wrong, I'd tell them afterwards that they were in the wrong ;)

[BALTY]

I'm like solon, but it really would depend on the situation.
I'm not going to mug a guy just because my mates are, then tell them later that we were wrong. I'd let them know at the time in some, or alot of cases.
I'm also a devil's advocate too. So I sometimes piss off my friends too, if I really think they are in the wrong!~ So passive?... Not me! But blinde patriotism ? No to that as well.

[BALTY]

I like the young French people. Passive stance in the war in Iraq, and would be war in Iran. But damn if they change a law within their country... boy,:normal: watchout!!
Yeah! That's quite some problem over in France isn't it?
Dem young'ns ain't so passive 'bout dat, is dey?!http://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[acushla]

I'm like solon, but it really would depend on the situation.
I'm not going to mug a guy just because my mates are, then tell them later that we were wrong. I'd let them know at the time in some, or alot of cases.
I'm also a devil's advocate too. So I sometimes piss off my friends too, if I really think they are in the wrong!~ So passive?... Not me! But blinde passiveness? No to that as well.
I think the key here is that if they really are you're mates then it isn't very likely that you would find yourself in a surprise situation where your mates all of a sudden attacked a (racial group).

I trust you would know your mates better than that.

If you know what I mean.

[BALTY]

Also is true to the reverse. My mates wouldn't be putting me in that situation also. But it has happened at an earlier age in my (and possibly many others here). But that's why we part with many so-called-friends in our younger days, and settle in to our true:evolved: friends!