No, that was an actual question. And an offer to engage in some healthy introspection and self-examination. Remember, “An unexamined life is not worth living” - Socrates.
Much like how an obese person might make excuses to avoid acknowledging the uncomfortable fact that they just eat too much and exercise too little, a cowardly blowhard might declare he’s a “pacifist” to avoid the uncomfortable acknowledgement that he’s just, well, a coward and a blowhard.
In this thread you’ve demonstrated that you don’t really understand pacifism as an ideology or philosophy. You fancy yourself a pacifist so you claim that you are, without actually understanding what a pacifist is. Furthermore, you have a LOT to say about a subject you clearly don’t know much about. This puts you squarely in the realm of “blowhard”.
Secondly, you give inexplicable and logically inconsistent reasons for not defending or protecting the safety or lives of yourself or others. These don’t fit within the ideology or philosophy of pacifism, but can be explained as simple cowardice. Or to be more charitable – fear.
So c’mon, are you really a pacifist? Or do you just like to talk a big game and are fearful of engaging in a situation where you might get hurt? It’s OK to admit the latter. This is the Dope. Nobody will laugh at you.
This aspect has bothered me in the past-does volunteering to be a victim increase or decrease violence overall? In the sort run, I may save another individual, while in the long run it might encourage others to do the same which might encourage those that do violence that there is no serious opposition.
That depends on people. As far as a particular incident, we cannot really guess how shooting will affect any given shooter, they might possibly find murder distasteful and choose not to do more, especially if they are watching the light leave their victim’s eyes. Or the killing might flip a switch in them, akin to a virgin becoming promiscuous.
We know pretty well that capital punishment (especially the public kind) tends to fuel violence, inasmuch as there is usually a general uptick after an execution. It appears that bloodlust is pretty typical and transfers readily: violence begets more. So the question for the pacifist would be where to we attack the roots of the problem?
Because clearly, killing rogues does not quell roguishness, more seem to arrive to take their place, all on different boats. But the extreme, attention-getting violence – Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc – has underlying causes that have little to do with guns, psychosis or bloodlust. What causes these people to explode and what can we do to not light their fuses?
This is an avenue pacifists should aggressively be exploring, because simply blaming violence on the actors is facile and unproductive. But the troubling issue is what level of violence we can tolerate, because it is simply unrealistic to suggest that it can be eliminated. And what kind of side-effects would our anti-violence policies have (e.g., resentment toward gun control)?
From a pragmatic view, pro-active violence of any kind (short of shooting a deer for dinner) tends to erode tranquility overall and in the long run. Problems need to be addressed at their causes, assaulting the superficial actors does nothing to that end. And war determines not who is right, only who is left (not sure where I heard that).
Well said, For You. Merely protesting violence won’t get you too far. One needs to make an effort to get to the root of the problem, and each problem will probably have a unique solution. When you have a finite amount of time on this Earth, should it be spent trying to protest all the current wars, or should it be spent getting to the underlying problems and preventing future wars? Every pacifist has to decide for her/himself where the balance lies, I think.
For instance-I spend all my weekends working at a food pantry giving out food to people that need it. Should I skip some weekends and go protest at peace rallies?
I’m thinking you’re more of a passivist (as mentioned previously by another poster). Additionally, you may be a pacifist as well. It’s not an either/or thing.
I think it’s too easy to explore and associate this philosophy to an already popular world view. After all, who could object to peace, love and understanding, right?
But take the following scenario:
You and a friend are coming home late. You caught the last bus home and it dropped you off a few blocks from home in a very quiet suburban neighbourhood. There is no people and no cars on the road as you walk down the street to your friend’s house. So it’s unusual that as you walk, you see three young men coming down the sidewalk towards you. As they approach, you get that feeling that something is not quite right and as they get closer you notice there’s a car approaching slowly behind you, walking pace.
Eventually you come face to face with them and to avoid what you realize is going to be some sort of altercation, you step off the sidewalk but it does no good, they are determined to start a fight with you. You have no idea if they are carrying any kind of weapons. There is no-one on the street but you and them. You don’t know who else may be in the car. Your friend is confronted by the guy who is obviously the lead of this group. A fight breaks out and he is faced with two opponents. You are left with one. It’s a split second moment of decision. What do you do? Do you stand with your friend because there is safety in numbers (even if it’s just two of you)? If you stay, do you fight? Do you do a rabbit and run for help?
Since fighting is out of the question for me, I would have to make a judgment between trying to hold one of them down or running for help. I suppose I could try to hold more than one of them down, depending on their size and how close they are to each other.
What answer are you fishing for? Personally, I’d rather you take your “Czarcasm is a gungrabber/anti-gun nut/anti-2nd Amendment” accusations elsewhere-they grow tiresome. Nothing I can say is going to convince you otherwise, so I’m not going to waste any more time with you when it comes to your pet peeves.
It’s a street fight. Unless you’re really large, I doubt you can hold on to more than one at any one time.
Is running for help and leaving your friend with two or more assailants morally defensible? I suppose the larger questions may be, is choosing not to fight and thus further endangering your friend morally defensible? What of loyalty? What of putting his needs ahead of yours in a time of need?
OK, but you made the claim a while back that you were pro second amendment but just against the NRA and I wanted to see how the former sat with your pacifism. Seems you are not really pro second amendment, but that you just accept it as a necessary evil. That’s cool if you are like that, I just think you should be open and honest about it.
He was not being evasive, he answered the question in a way that made sense to him. You did not clarify what “get rid of” means, until you add more detail, it is a bullshit question.
How the hell would I know, and who the hell am I to judge someone based on a You Tube video? I can only be sure of how I would react in such a situation.
