Pacifists: noble idealists or cowardly hypocrites?

[Riboflavin]

Before I go into the meat of the debate, I want to point out that I'm only talking about pacifists who's philosophy is 'using force to solve problems (on a personal level) is wrong'. Specifically, pacifists who's philosophy is basically "don't start fights" or "I'm opposed to waging war" are not what I'm talking about here, only pacifists who decry the use of force in self-defense or to solve other problems between people.

"Violence is never the answer" sounds nice, and even though I don't agree with it I would argue that someone was certainly good who sincerely believed in that and was willing to accept the consequences of living by that philosophy. If I had ever encountered such a person, I would consider them a noble idealist and would respect them for having strong principles and sticking to them despite the bad consequences.

However, I've never encountered such a person in real life. All of the people who would describe themselves as pacifists of this sort do not actually live by the philosophy they espouse. While quite willing to say that other people are wrong for advocating violence (in self-defense for example) with an obvious smugness over their superior philosophy, they are not willing to actually give up violence as a solution to problems, they just won't get their own hands dirty. In all cases that I've seen, these self-described pacifists were quite willing to call in the police, who use violence, to protect themselves. Rather than simply give up a stolen stereo, or try track down the thief and non-violently persuade him to return it, they'd call the cops and let the police get the property back.

Since I am not aware of any pacifists willing to actually give up violence but plenty who are willing to say that they have and hire agents to actually do the dirty work, I conclude that pacifists (of the type I specified) are simply cowardly hypocrites who are merely unwilling to get their hands dirty, and don't wish to live by the philosophy they advocate.

[Padeye]

Pease is a noble cause but trying to accomplish it by passivity is dangerously naive. I've vented in another thread.

[Padeye]

They are a noble legume, but peace is a noble cause.

[Ethilrist]

The fact that you have never met someone you would think of as a noble idealist doesn't mean they don't exist. You're painting a large section of humanity with a fairly broad brush, there.

I have known quite a few violent, dangerous asocial people who owned guns, but used peaceful means to solve problems. Would you call them cowards and hypocrites for not sticking to their guns, literally and figuratively?

I believe in nonviolent solutions to problems. I have managed to avoid violent solutions, and have never been in a fight in my life (aside from getting beaten up in school...). I believe that it is possible to solve a great many issues without resorting to violence. There are some problems that can't be solved without violence, and I don't know whether or not we should solve those problems.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Ethilrist
The fact that you have never met someone you would think of as a noble idealist doesn't mean they don't exist. You're painting a large section of humanity with a fairly broad brush, there.

How large a section of humanity is opposed to all forms of violence and would never use it or allow others to use it on their behalf? I don't imagine the list is very long.

I have known quite a few violent, dangerous asocial people who owned guns, but used peaceful means to solve problems. Would you call them cowards and hypocrites for not sticking to their guns, literally and figuratively?

How violent, dangerous, and asocial were they if they used other means to solve their problems? Because they don't sound so dangerous to me.

Marc

[robertliguori]

Unless said gun nuts claimed that "kinetic energy administered via dense metals solves everything!", they aren't hypocrites. They're just equipped to handle burglars and society.

[Ethilrist]

Mgibson--How violent, dangerous, and asocial were they if they used other means to solve their problems? Because they don't sound so dangerous to me.

That's my point. It's not that there are too many people claiming to be pacifists who use violence to solve their problems, it's that there are too many violent people who find peaceful solutions. How many times have you heard someone talking trash about how they'd mess somebody up if they felt like it, but when it came down to it, they caved in to peace? For every person claiming to be a pacifist who calls the cops when the stereo gets stolen, there are probably dozens of people who would love to take a baseball bat and go looking for their stuff. Instead, they call the cops and wait patiently by the phone for the authorities to handle it.

[Chumpsky]

Is this the official straw man thread?

[Mojo]

What about the Quakers?

[Palo Verde]

In high school during the Cold War, I was a founding member of our school's Student-Teacher Organization to Prevent Nuclear War (STOP Nuclear War).

We had a man come speak to our little group and he thought we should disarm 100%. If we got invaded we (the whole country) should just lie down. Through this display of pacifism the enemy would realize the error of their ways and not invade us.

I remember asking him, "But what if they just run over us all with their tanks?" He replied that pacifism was the final answer and you had to be totally devoted to it. You couldn't just try it, but have an Uzi behind your back in case it doesn't work.

I remember that even my 17 year old idealistic self thought this was pretty lame. It seemed a little naive (even to me) to base your life (and the lives of everyone else in the country) and the theory that if you're really nice to people they will always be nice back.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Ethilrist
The fact that you have never met someone you would think of as a noble idealist doesn't mean they don't exist. You're painting a large section of humanity with a fairly broad brush, there.

So provide me with a counterexample, it shouldn't be hard if I'm unfairly painting a large section of humanity with my brush. I have seen no evidence that noble idealist pacifists of the type I specified exist, and the evidence that I have all points towards pacifists of the sort specified being cowardly hypocrites. While it's not logically impossible for a 'noble idealist' to exist (and I'm sure that some do exist somewhere), it appears that they are vanishingly rare in the real world and that most people who identify as pacifists are, in fact, either cowardly hypocrites or not pacifists in the sense that I specified.

And just how large of a section of humanity are we talking about, really? I listed rather specifically the philosophy that I was objecting to, and it certainly doesn't appear to be a widespread belief from anything I've seen. While there might be a lot of people who would describe themselves as pacifists, not all people who describe themselves as pacifists are the ones I'd call cowardly hypocrites - note that I rather specifically excluded certain people who identify themselves as pacifists from that description.

I have known quite a few violent, dangerous asocial people who owned guns, but used peaceful means to solve problems. Would you call them cowards and hypocrites for not sticking to their guns, literally and figuratively?

Did thes violent, dangerous, asocial, peaceful people say that not using violence to solve problems was immoral? It's not the same situation unless the people who use non-violent solutions also say that it's immoral to use non-violent solutions. Unless someone is a 'violentist', who argues that peaceful solutions to problems are wrong and that everything should be decided by a fight, then there's no hypocrisy in their reaching nonviolent solutions to problems and your violent-yet-peaceful people are not relevant to this discussion.

I believe in nonviolent solutions to problems. I have managed to avoid violent solutions, and have never been in a fight in my life (aside from getting beaten up in school...). I believe that it is possible to solve a great many issues without resorting to violence. There are some problems that can't be solved without violence, and I don't know whether or not we should solve those problems.

Do you say that use of violence is always wrong or not? If you say that it's not always wrong, then you aren't one of the people I was talking about. If you do, then what you've said above is just a cop-out.

Let's just use two simple examples instead of vague principles: You come home and see Fred walking out of your house with your stereo, and he tells you "oh yeah, I just robbed your place. Later!" Do you call the police and tell them what happened, thereby asking them to use violence on your behalf, or do you just try to talk to Fred about it but don't try to involve the police in any way?

You come home, and Fred walks up to you and starts beating you up. The first thing he does is break your leg so you can't just run away. Now, do you fight back (directly using violence), call the police (indirectly using violence), or just lay there and take it (sticking to your principles)?

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Is this the official straw man thread?

It would only be a straw man thread if I was actually making a straw man argument. That would involve me stating something and pretending that someone else had made that statement, which is pretty clearly not the case here.

[photopat]

I believe Pacifism is a noble, admirable ideal. I also believe it has limits. Realistically, there are times when pacifism simply won't work. I'm not sure I'd call it naive, just, idealistic.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Ethilrist
[b]That's my point. It's not that there are too many people claiming to be pacifists who use violence to solve their problems,

This thread is not about 'what should everyone in the world do', it's about whether or not people who profess to believe in a particular type of pacifism actually live by those principles or not. And again, someone who would like to do X but does Y instead isn't a hypocrite, while someone who says X is bad but gets people to do X for him is.

[Ethilrist]

Originally posted by Riboflavin
You come home and see Fred walking out of your house with your stereo, and he tells you "oh yeah, I just robbed your place. Later!" Do you call the police and tell them what happened, thereby asking them to use violence on your behalf, or do you just try to talk to Fred about it but don't try to involve the police in any way?

I would not ask the police to use violence. From what I have seen of police procedures, whether or not violence is used is entirely up to Fred in this situation.

You come home, and Fred walks up to you and starts beating you up. The first thing he does is break your leg so you can't just run away. Now, do you fight back (directly using violence), call the police (indirectly using violence), or just lay there and take it (sticking to your principles)?

In the circumstances you describe, I would probably just lay there and take it, as I doubt Fred would let me call the police (again, still not indirectly using violence).

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Ethilrist
I would not ask the police to use violence.

Either you wouldn't call the police, you'd just soak up the theft and live with it, or you'd ask the police to get your stuff back, which is asking them to use violence on your behalf.

From what I have seen of police procedures, whether or not violence is used is entirely up to Fred in this situation.

No. First, it's up to you - the police won't do anything to Fred unless you ask them to. Then, it's up to the police - they may use Fred's actions as an excuse, but application of any force is at their discretion, not Fred's. If you walked over to Fred's with a gun and told him to give back your stuff or you'd shoot him, would it be entirely up to Fred whether or not violence is used in the situation?

Further, even if Fred complies with the police and no violence actually occurs, it's the threat of violence backed by willingness to use violence that gets you your stuff back. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't you just go over to Fred's yourself and tell him to give it back? Sorry, but asking armed men who are known to use violence on people who do not comply with their directions to get your stuff back is asking people to use violence on your behalf whether you like it or not.

Also, how can you really claim to believe the above, when you wouldn't you use violence to defend yourself against Fred in your answer to the second question? Just declare that it is your procedure to fight back if attacked, then whether or not you use violence is up to Fred just like in your example with the police.

[Kimstu]

autz: I remember asking [a pacifist speaker], "But what if they just run over us all with their tanks?" He replied that pacifism was the final answer and you had to be totally devoted to it. [...] It seemed a little naive (even to me) to base your life (and the lives of everyone else in the country) and the theory that if you're really nice to people they will always be nice back.

I think this guy who spoke to you may have had a somewhat different take on the issue from most "practical pacifists". The most famous, and probably overall most effective (though certainly not perfect) "practical pacifism" technique was probably the "Non-Violent Non-Cooperation" movement of Gandhi. Gandhi's chief principle was that the core of "nonviolent resistance" is resistance: that is, it is crucial to unite in refusing to do what your oppressors want you to do, while also refusing to use violence against them. You will succeed (eventually) not by being "nice" to them, but by making them realize that their violence isn't working in getting you to knuckle under.

This was an extremely key concept for Gandhi; he famously said that "violence is preferable to cowardice." That is, it is bad to use violence against somebody who is harming you, but it is even worse to use non-violence as an excuse for not resisting them. Pacifist or not, you must still refuse to obey evildoers or to help them in harming others, even if they hurt or kill you for it. You have to resist oppression and protect the innocent; that's non-negotiable.

Gandhi was no dummy, and he recognized perfectly well that nonviolent resistance didn't always provide the quickest or easiest solution to conflicts. It requires very strong solidarity among large numbers of people, willingness to make sacrifices and endure setbacks, and the pressure of publicity and popular opinion against the oppressors who are hurting the nonviolent. The advantage of nonviolence, he felt, was that it was better for everybody in the long run.

And I think there are indeed a lot of people who subscribe to those principles who live up to them in practice. They might not meet the requirement of never relying directly or indirectly on violence in any way, though, since our society is so predicated on violence as a form of deterrence (e.g., even if you yourself never call the cops on a malefactor, the cops are still out there and still willing to use violence, which is a deterrent to many potential malefactors).

[Ethilrist]

Originally posted by Riboflavin
First, it's up to you - the police won't do anything to Fred unless you ask them to. Then, it's up to the police - they may use Fred's actions as an excuse, but application of any force is at their discretion, not Fred's...

How do you get from this statement to "calling the cops = doing violence?"

Further, even if Fred complies with the police and no violence actually occurs, it's the threat of violence backed by willingness to use violence that gets you your stuff back.

You don't think the possibility of getting arrested, tried, and imprisoned might have anything to do with Fred's decision?

If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't you just go over to Fred's yourself and tell him to give it back?

In answering the original question, I assumed I had already asked Fred not to take my stuff. Rather than risking either of us or my stereo getting hurt, I wait to contact the police.

Also, how can you really claim to believe the above, when you wouldn't you use violence to defend yourself against Fred in your answer to the second question?

I don't see the conflict here?

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Ethilrist
[b]How do you get from this statement to "calling the cops = doing violence?"

Calling the cops = asking someone to do violence on your behalf. If someone says 'X is evil', then calls on someone to do X for him, I consider that worse than just doing X himself; not only is he being hypocritical by using violence to solve his problems despite saying that it is bad to do so, but he won't even do the dirty work himself and instead gets another person to do it for him.

Most mob bosses would seem qualify as pacifists under the rules you're trying to use; they never personally do violence to anyone, and never come out and tell someone to do violence on their behalf. I hardly think that someone who runs protection rackets and orders hits qualifies as a pacifist, but...

You don't think the possibility of getting arrested, tried, and imprisoned might have anything to do with Fred's decision?

How is he going to get arrested and imprisoned without violence or the credible threat of violence coming into play? You've got someone using violence on your behalf to solve the problem even if he complies only to threats of violence. You can't say that you live by 'violence is never the answer' if you also say 'if someone steals my stuff, I will have armed men recover my property, then take him and put him into a cage, and they will beat or shoot him if he refuses to do what they say'. That's using violence to resolve the problem whether you want to admit it or not.

Do you seriously believe that if the police forswore using any sort of force at all that it would even be possible to arrest petty criminals? "Stop or I'll say stop again!" "Hey, you're the guy who killed Marge! I'm placing you under... hey, come back here or I'll yell at you..."

In answering the original question, I assumed I had already asked Fred not to take my stuff. Rather than risking either of us or my stereo getting hurt, I wait to contact the police.

You mean "rather than stick to my principles and not ask someone to use violence to resolve the problem, I threw them aside once I needed violence to solve a problem and called on armed men to threaten the guy to make him return my stuff".

I don't see the conflict here?

You said that you wouldn't fight back if attacked, yet you also said that if person Y has a procedure where he'll use violence if person X does some activity, then X is to blame when Y uses violence in response to X's activity. I think the conflict is clear.

[CheapBastid]

Orwell on Ghandi

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Ethilrist
How many times have you heard someone talking trash about how they'd mess somebody up if they felt like it, but when it came down to it, they caved in to peace?

I see what you mean.

For every person claiming to be a pacifist who calls the cops when the stereo gets stolen, there are probably dozens of people who would love to take a baseball bat and go looking for their stuff. Instead, they call the cops and wait patiently by the phone for the authorities to handle it.

I don't know if that makes them hypocrites. I admit to having an emotional desire to go a few rounds with the guy who broke into my garage however my rational side dictated that letting the police handle the problem was to my advantage. I'd be a hypocrite if I claimed that calling the police was a bad idea only to call upon them when I was in need.

Marc

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Kimstu
I think this guy who spoke to you may have had a somewhat different take on the issue from most "practical pacifists".

I'm not interested in "practical pacifists", I'm interested in people who say that any use of violence is wrong. I mentioned explicitly what I was talking about in my first post, if someone doesn't meet that standard then they're not the sort of person that I'm calling a cowardly hypocrite. I do count people who practice 'practical pacifism' but tell others to practice 'full pacifism' as cowardly hypocrites, though.

The most famous, and probably overall most effective (though certainly not perfect) "practical pacifism" technique was probably the "Non-Violent Non-Cooperation" movement of Gandhi.

Non-violent non-cooperation is merely a technique and not a philosophy of life like pacifism. NVNC is a way to offer resistance without using violence, but is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion because it doesn't have anything to do with condeming those who use violence to resolve some problems.

Gandhi was no dummy, and he recognized perfectly well that nonviolent resistance didn't always provide the quickest or easiest solution to conflicts.

Ghandi was no dummy, he didn't believe that nonviolent resistance would provide solutions to all conflicts. There are writings of his about how nonviolent noncooperation wouldn't work in some situations (for example, if India was ruled by the Nazis instead of the British at the time).

And I think there are indeed a lot of people who subscribe to those principles who live up to them in practice. They might not meet the requirement of never relying directly or indirectly on violence in any way, though, since our society is so predicated on violence as a form of deterrence (e.g., even if you yourself never call the cops on a malefactor, the cops are still out there and still willing to use violence, which is a deterrent to many potential malefactors).

I'm not concerned about extremely indirect connections like the deterrent effects from cops being around, just the direct stuff. A pacifist who says that people should not use violence to solve problems is hypocritical if he calls on people to do violence on his behalf (for example, calling the police to resolve a dispute or to protect him from an intruder), or directly uses violence (for example, fighting back against an attacker).

[Riboflavin]

Marc, hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, not wanting one thing and doing another. The pacifists I'm calling hypocrites are hypocritical because they claim that violence is bad and that it should never be used to resolve problems BUT are willing to use violence to resolve their problems. Whatever sidetrack Ethilrist is going off on, calling people who WANT to do one thing but do something else 'hypocrites' is simply misuse of the word.

[Justhink]

Pacifism is a result of approaching critical mass on cognitive age.
The idea that pacifism cannot solve everything assumes that there is actually something to solve which can be accomplished through violence. I am of the "do not defend yourself" variety, simply because I aknowledge that there is such a descrepancy between cognitive age between someone with a violent inclination and myself, that I have effectively lived longer then they have; to such a degree that there is no lesson to myself or others that I can possibly extract to add to my cognitive age or that of anothers by defending myself. I find that people are just extremely young and niave who believe that defending themselves will somehow solve a problem of any value. To truly comprehend what's going on around here, people cannot make hypocrites of themselves with regards to the consent issues that abound. If a human cannot apply the pressure logically, with informed consent and unillateral agreement (which clearly an attacker is not unilaterally agreeing that you hve a right to live); then their burden of evidence and proof is only seeking to degrade their purpose to exist. Violating trust is the easiest thing a human being can do - it accomplishes nothing wothwhile, there is no existential work taking place here. I'm a 4th degree black sash from a school of kung fu which does not charge its students but rather selects them on their horoscopes - it's imported from southern shao-lin. Does a person attacking me know this? Does it really matter that they pay a penalty for not knowing this about me? To me, it is not relevant. That person needs to be held accountable for destroying something they would otherwise honor - because the variaton of what they honor and don't honor is ultimately a delusion on their part. A person who doesn't know how to defend themselves possesses just as much a right to not be attacked as those who do.
Eventually, it stops becoming a game; ego variations and glory mining. There is a point when the mind realizes that it is only responsible for itself in the pursuit of truth; and that affecting ones consent is blocking a pathway with which to uncover more of this purpose to live in the first place.

-Justhink

[Primaflora]

I'm not following why using the police automatically equals violence.
I'd hope that the police were not violent in carrying out their duties. If they are, then something is wrong.

In NZ police don't carry guns. Can a pacifist use the NZ police?

[elucidator]

Justhink, if only you could truly appreciate how hard I am resisting the urge to make a "ah, grasshopper..." joke. I am close to hemmorrage, and must type slowly.

I agree with you for the most part, or at least those parts I'm sure I understand. I might simplify it thus: it is entirely legitimate to use violence to protect oneself or the innocent, up to the point of neutralizing the threat, and no further.

To put it crudely, if attacked by a man with a club, it is entirely "clean" to break his arm (the one with the club in it is highly recommended). If I futher break his nose, then I have relinquished any moral superiority, that would be hurt for the sake of hurt. Bad karma.

[Justhink]

To put it crudely, if attacked by a man with a club, it is entirely "clean" to break his arm (the one with the club in it is highly recommended). If I futher break his nose, then I have relinquished any moral superiority, that would be hurt for the sake of hurt. Bad karma.

This doesn't match what I described at all. I would let the guy hit me with the club. It's his loss, not mine. What moral right do I have to stop someone from destroying themselves?

-Justhink

[Justhink]

Let me put it this way: Just because I can stop him, doesn't mean I should stop him. The issue with violence is that might makes right. I cannot find any value from might makes right; for me it disproves my purpose for living. The trust violation 'game' reaches a critical mass eventually; it ceases to become a game as the understanding of it renders the entire process into memory, rather than skill. There is literally nothing I can meaningfully find by humoring such an act with defense - such a response on my part is validating the act of violating trust. Anyone can violate trust; the purpose is to not contradict ones self with all entities of consent within calculation; including ones self.

If I don't want to be hit by a person with a club in my life, the only means I truly know how to achieve this is to commit suicide right now. I'm working on omniscient AI, to grant unillateral desire fulfillment without violating any consent - but that doesn't mean I have achieved certainty along these lines. As such, suicide is my only certainty. If I really didn't want to be attacked by a man with a club, I would commit suicide. If I didn't want to harm a human being who invariably attacks me with a club by defending myself; I would commit suicide. To me, there is no difference between offence and defense when one chooses to live.

By choosing to live, particularly with my expertise and ability for manipulating human bodies against attack consent, I am choosing to allow the possibility for a murder to occur from my own pre-meditation. Most people just don't think that far ahead.

-Justhink

[artemis]

Originally posted by Primaflora
I'm not following why using the police automatically equals violence.
I'd hope that the police were not violent in carrying out their duties. If they are, then something is wrong.

In NZ police don't carry guns. Can a pacifist use the NZ police?

Calling the police automatically equals violence because it's the implicit threat of violence which compels the arrestee to cooperate with the police officers. Attempt to resist or evade law enforcement officers when they go to arrest you, and they WILL use whatever degree of force is required to subdue you and bring you under custody. They aren't simply going to let you walk away if you decide you don't want to be arrested that day. Most people, of course, realize this, and so they don't put up any significant resistance when the police take them into custody. That's why you may not immediately see that violence is indeed what police power is ultimately based on - but the rarer cases where the arrestee DOES resist prove the point. The police are society's enforcers, who have been granted the legal authority by society to use violence on the community's behalf.

And while New Zealand police don't routinely carry firearms, I'm sure they are taught how to physically restrain suspects (including holds which inflict pain), and carry batons (a type of weapon, although generally a non-lethal one) and handcuffs. What police offercers do in the course of arresting a violent drunk, for example, would be legally classified as assault and battery if you or I did it to the drunken person. And I'm sure that the New Zealand police DO have access to firearms, and use them in situations when they really need them - but since fewer New Zealand citizens own guns (especially handguns) and U.S. Citizens, the need for the police to resort to firearms is much less than it is here in the States.

So no, an absolute pacifist can't call the police in New Zealand, either. I suppose they COULD call the cops in a society where all the police do is tell the arrestee "You're under arrest; come with me - that is, if you want to. If you don't, well, there's really nothing I can do to MAKE you come." But I've never seen such a society, and I suspect there's a reason for that.

[Kuli]

Hmm, I agree with most of what Justhink posted.

I am a pacifist. I believe completely that killing and hurting others is wrong and unjustifiable.
I argue with myself sometimes over whether I would defend myself or not if attacked by another person. Most likely, I wouldn't, though. Does this make me a coward? Maybe.
Of course, "defense" in this case implies some sort of physical, violent resistance. I do, however, believe in passive resistance. I don't want to compare myself to Ghandi, but I imagine that I would act much in the same way that he did.

On a personal level, this just won't work. If someone came at me, with a weapon in hand, I probably could do nothing but stand there and be beaten or killed. I don't think that makes me a coward, though. The coward would run away.

And to comment on the whole police thing. If someone stole something from me, I probably wouldn't make a big deal out of it. It's the same with any other crime. I wouldn't call the police.

I'm not sure I worded all that very well. Oh well....

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Justhink
This doesn't match what I described at all. I would let the guy hit me with the club. It's his loss, not mine. What moral right do I have to stop someone from destroying themselves?

-Justhink

Uh, when you've suffered from nerve damage due to repeated blows to the head are you going to claim you've suffered no loss?

Marc

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Kuli

On a personal level, this just won't work. If someone came at me, with a weapon in hand, I probably could do nothing but stand there and be beaten or killed. I don't think that makes me a coward, though. The coward would run away.

For someone to just stand there and let someone attack them for no good reason isn't brave or cowardly it is just stupid. I don't think retreating from a threat makes someone a coward. If possible I'd attempt to retreat from a threat before resorting to violence. I don't consider myself a coward I just don't have any desire to be harmed and I don't have any desire to harm anyone else.

And to comment on the whole police thing. If someone stole something from me, I probably wouldn't make a big deal out of it. It's the same with any other crime. I wouldn't call the police.

Have you ever had someone break into your home or attempt to do so? I don't know if you'd think it wasn't a big deal if it happened to you.

Marc

[Kuli]

MGibson: I know, I don't have much of a good reason for being the way I am. I just am.

[d_redguy]

"A 'pacifist male' is a contradiction in terms. Most self-described 'pacifists' are not pacific; they simply assume false colors. When the wind changes they hoist the Jolly Roger. " - Robert Heinlein

[Lemur866]

But Kuli, imagine the damage you are doing to your attackers soul when you allow him to attack you. He is commiting a terrible crime, and is going to suffer for it. If you allow him to commit this crime you are harming his soul. If you run away you at least prevent this sin of violence from harming him further.

[yojimbo]

There was a documentary on British TV recently abut unexploded bombs in London during WWII. This was a huge problem and the Germans used tactics and technology to make it worse, delay fuses and booby traps on them for example. There was a interview with one of the men who volunteered to work as a sapper and dig out these bombs. He was a conscientious objector and would not kill anyone but he was happy to put his life on the line to try to save others and help the war effort. He said there were many CO's in the UXB group. There was a very high casualty rate for these men. There is no way in hell that these CO's could be called cowards.

I actually admire the bravery to go against what the majority of society felt was the right thing to do. I would imagine it wasn't a barrel of laughs to be a CO during WWII when almost every fit man was in the armed forces.

[Czarcasm]

Why is taking a life for your cause sometimes seen as noble or even patriotic, but giving a life seen as "stupid"? If violence was the problem in the first place, then using violence as a solution to the problem doesn't seem right, in my opinion.

[JoeElliott]

Originally posted by yojimbo
. He was a conscientious objector and would not kill anyone but he was happy to put his life on the line to try to save others and help the war effort. He said there were many CO's in the UXB group. There was a very high casualty rate for these men. There is no way in hell that these CO's could be called cowards.

This type of thing describes what I believe is the correct Christian thought when it comes to violence. As a Christian I believe that this world isn't what my life is all about. There is more to come. This world is not my home. Because of this I have no need to struggle or fight with anyone in this world. Also, because death means nothing to me, because I know I have life in Christ, I would hope that I would do the same as those CO's and sacrifice my life for others.

Joe Elliott
http://members.aol.com/joe4jesus/index.htm

[gex gex]

"A 'pacifist male' is a contradiction in terms. Most self-described 'pacifists' are not pacific; they simply assume false colors. When the wind changes they hoist the Jolly Roger. " - Robert Heinlein

Right now, I'm adding Robert Heinlein to my "Idiots List".

By singling out male, he suggests that a pacifist female is not necessarily a contradiction in terms. Hence, the two sexes are irreconcileably different in that males are inherently violent.

Do I need to go beyond personal experience just to show how incredibly idiotic this is?

[robertliguori]

Heinlein knows scads about women, some about government, and nothing about men. Remember this when taking his advice.

[racekarl]

This maybe isn't totally relevant, but it's an excuse to drag out one of my favorite quotes:

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. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself..
--John Stuart Mill 1868

Violence and people who will use violence are a fact of life. Saying that you disapprove of them is fine and dandy, but refusing to resist them with the only langauge they understand is foolish.

Wishing that something were not true will not make it false.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Primaflora
I'm not following why using the police automatically equals violence.

Calling the cops = asking someone to do violence on your behalf.
How is he going to get arrested and imprisoned without violence or the credible threat of violence coming into play? You've got someone using violence on your behalf to solve the problem even if he complies only to threats of violence. You can't say that you live by 'violence is never the answer' if you also say 'if someone steals my stuff, I will have armed men recover my property, then take him and put him into a cage, and they will beat or shoot him if he refuses to do what they say'. That's using violence to resolve the problem whether you want to admit it or not.

(Yes, it's mostly a rehash of what I wrote before, but you didn't list any specific disagreement with what I wrote so I'm not really sure what you don't follow).

I'd hope that the police were not violent in carrying out their duties. If they are, then something is wrong.

Hope doesn't enter into it. If a mugger says 'your money or your life', he hopes that you just give him your money and no trouble but is still quite willing to use violence. Anyway, let's take a scenario: Some guy cleaned out (robbed) your house last week and told you he'd slit your throat if you called the cops. You do call the cops, and they up to him and tell him that he's under arrest. He says 'sod off, pigs!' and ignores them.

Should the cops A. break out the billy clubs (or other weapons or just lay hands on him) and forcibly arrest him or B. Say 'jolly good show old chap, let us know if you change your mind' and leave him alone?

In NZ police don't carry guns. Can a pacifist use the NZ police?

This debate really has nothing to do with guns, we can completely ignore the existence of firearms and still have the same debate. Violence can be done with billy clubs, knives, machetes hands, feet, swords, spears, and a host of non-firearm means, and NZ police are trained in and use some sort of club and unarmed combat as a matter of course.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Why is taking a life for your cause sometimes seen as noble or even patriotic, but giving a life seen as "stupid"? If violence was the problem in the first place, then using violence as a solution to the problem doesn't seem right, in my opinion.

So, can you take the pacifist challenge? If physically attacked by someone, will you fight back? If someone threatens to kill you, or takes your stuff, or commits some other crime, will you call on the police to do violence on your behalf? If you make a pithy moralistic statement about how violence should not be used to solve problems (like the above) but when push comes to shove use violence to protect yourself, you're exactly the sort of hypocritical 'pacifist' I am talking about.

[photopat]

Originally posted by artemis
So no, an absolute pacifist can't call the police in New Zealand, either. I suppose they COULD call the cops in a society where all the police do is tell the arrestee "You're under arrest; come with me - that is, if you want to. If you don't, well, there's really nothing I can do to MAKE you come." But I've never seen such a society, and I suspect there's a reason for that.

So, what puzzles me is, what would an "absolute pacifist" do when confronted with a crime? To do nothing is irresponsible since it allows a criminal to continue to act the same way toward other people.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Kuli
I am a pacifist. I believe completely that killing and hurting others is wrong and unjustifiable.

I argue with myself sometimes over whether I would defend myself or not if attacked by another person. Most likely, I
wouldn't, though.

And to comment on the whole police thing. If someone stole something from me, I probably wouldn't make a big deal out of it. It's the same with any other crime. I wouldn't call the police.

Well, it looks like we might have one genuine pacifist so far - you believe that all violence is wrong, and are willing to stick with that and not just cop-out and get someone else to do the violence for you. You seem to be the only one who's come along so far, the others are all willing to call on someone else to do violence (and haven't shown a flaw in the logic showing such). If I get more real pacifists then there's another debate on the basics of pacifism, but I'm not and would ask that others not go into the 'but, doesn't that mean you're just a victim' type debate here - I really want to keep this only to the original topic.

[oceans_11]

That's a great quote, racekarl.

I'm wondering if the "pacifists" here would allow a child or loved one to be harmed by choosing not to defend them using some sort of force.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by photopat
So, what puzzles me is, what would an "absolute pacifist" do when confronted with a crime? To do nothing is irresponsible since it allows a criminal to continue to act the same way toward other people.

They'd need to find a nonviolent solution, if they call the cops then they're being hypocritical as keeps getting pointed out. It's the job of pacifists to figure out how to live up to the ideals they criticize others for not living up to.

[Czarcasm]

Originally posted by Riboflavin
So, can you take the pacifist challenge? If physically attacked by someone, will you fight back? If someone threatens to kill you, or takes your stuff, or commits some other crime, will you call on the police to do violence on your behalf? If you make a pithy moralistic statement about how violence should not be used to solve problems (like the above) but when push comes to shove use violence to protect yourself, you're exactly the sort of hypocritical 'pacifist' I am talking about.

If physically attacked by someone, I defend myself without striking back, because I truly believe that there is a difference between defence and offence. If someone threatens to kill me or takes my stuff I report the crime to the proper authorities. Most arrests are made without physical violence, and so the automatic inference that police action automatically equals violence and thus a true pacifist may not use the police is invalid. If "push" comes to "shove" then in my opinion you have countered one wrong action with an equally wrong reaction.
Am I a true pacifist? In my lifetime I have never struck another person.

[Triskadecamus]

When I told the Army I would not use nuclear weapons, or participate in the mission to use them, I was accused of many things, cowardice among them. And no one will ever know if I am a coward, or a pacifist, not even me.

No one ever know, unless the moment actually comes, whether they have courage, or if they have enough of it to withstand the fear they might fear, in unknown events. You may be sure, but that is simply vanity, unless you have crawled on your belly for a mile, as hostile weapon fire exploding mines slaughtered your comrades all around you. Courage is what we expect of others, and desire to have untested in our selves.

And just as courage, love for your fellow man is a perfect state, to be desired, but never assured in our hearts. Would I kill, if given sufficient provocation? I hope I will never know. But I do know that I will not kill millions. That test, I have faced, and my choice was made. I will never face it again, because I will never be given the choice. Was it courage or cowardice that made me choose? You may believe what you will, and I cannot prove it wrong.

And you cannot know what another will do, or why. If you define the unwillingness to kill itself as cowardice, then you have your answer. But your answer is that his motives make him a coward, you must know his heart. There are cowards with guns, and cowards who kill for gain, or even for patriotism. The killing does not change their cowardice. And there are cowards who claim to be pacifists, if they think that will not cause them danger. But you know only the courage of those who have lived the moment of choice, and given themselves to their ideals, whatever those ideals are.

Tris
-------------------------
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." ~ Mahatma Gandhi ~

[Justhink]

I'm wondering if the "pacifists" here would allow a child or loved one to be harmed by choosing not to defend them using some sort of force.

Yes. Stopping to 'help' contradicts logic of consent to this regard. Not only does it corrupt the mind by proving such an act solves consent issues, but it wastes valuable time with regards to placing pressure on the root cause. I truly wish I had never been born. I certainly am a realist in understanding that this 'rape' is permanent. Making the best of the situation from my standpoint is assuring that the discipline required to abstract more truth with which to actually combat this phenomenon is not corrupted... if the process is corrupted, the result will be corrupted. Those children can be 'ressurrected' and re-consented, but the path twards uncovering this degree of truth; the discipline for abstraction itself requires non-corruption in order to even present the option, the possibility of uncovering this stage. If everybody acted like myself, the process would still necessarily move forward for resurrection abstraction; _and_ consent violation would stop in my generation. If people don't act like me, the ability to validate consent will not emerge because people will be too deluded to see what consent even means; how important it is to human beings, logic and rationality, the perception of free-will and the redemption of being rather than not committing suicide at any given second. I personally cannot solve for war.

Tris: That Ghandi quote requires the strength to endure our species suicide should our collective being ultimately be violent of heart. Truth with regards to violence is misdirected from people looking to build a religion - as it always implies murder rather than suicide; the blind ego rather than the truth of being.

The propblem with violent individuals is that they continuously defer the most logical application of these scenarios as validating their stance by inverting the answer which most obviously answers the question.

Violent people by nature consider it ethical to maintain this cloak if our species as a whole is designed for suicide; that is where a double standard and a corruption is being applied here.

It is this gambling on the indentured system of ignorant people which gathers the resource of fame and attention. Ghandi channelled this energy to violate the consent of focus upon his being collectively throughout the species, rather than giving this quality back. He was murdered for this act of consent violation.

-Justhink