# Pacifists: noble idealists or cowardly hypocrites? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2002, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615 "2002-12-18T18:48:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/61 "2002-12-21T05:16:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > \*\*I just love being compared to a Mafia boss. If you want to claim that restraining the person threatening violence is the same as hitting the person threatening violence then this conversation is at a standstill. \*\* Restraining someone against their will is a violent act. I’m not quite sure how anyone can claim otherwise. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Are you trying to claim that when I stop my child from running out into the streets by holding his hand firmly I am resorting to violence? \*\* No, of course not. I could make a flying tackle to save somone’s life and nobody in their right mind would call it an act of violence. On the other hand if I’m trying to walk away and you grab my wrist to keep me in place then you are being violent. I’d certainly feel threatened and would rightly fear for my safety. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Let me tell you this right now-If I was being threatened and yelled for the police, and their first reaction were to bring out the batons and mace, I would protest. \*\* That sounds reasonable. There’s still the threat of violence when the police place you under arrest. If you do not comply you know that they will likely take violent means to bring you under your control. For example an officer may grab two of his pals and all three of them may wrestle you to the ground to cuff you. That is a violent act. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I do not resort to violence. Ever. I do not wish for others to resort to violence on my behalf. \*\* So you can’t call the police for help without being a hypocrite. They will resort to violence or the threat of violence to resolve certain situations. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/62 "2002-12-21T05:18:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Justhink \* > \*\*These people are only conquering violence. There is nothing to protect here. When societies make existential work a priority, the act of violence will be relegated to sheer purposelessness. \*\* Can you repeat what you said in English? It just sounds like a bunch of new age gobbledee gook. Marc ---
**Author:** ![LokiTheDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@LokiTheDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LokiTheDog)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/63 "2002-12-21T11:14:42Z")
Thanks Marc, I can’t believe I got all the way to the end of this thread before somebody called **Justhink** out for his absurd crap. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Justhink \* > \*\* I truly wish I had never been born. I certainly am a realist in understanding that this ‘rape’ is permanent. > > … > 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… > \*\* blah, blah, blah I’m confused, is he/she self-loathing or self-righteous? **Justhink**. are you saying that if someone began beating the dogshit out of you, you would not put forth any effort to defend yourself? Don’t you think that you might reach a pain threshhold or neural damage level that would prevent you from trying to achieve this existential work of yours? After reading your posts I am very curious about this, and would be perfectly willing to perform such an experiment for you if you would like to put your ‘philosophies’ to the test. From the sound of your posts, I think you’ve already taken quite a few blows to the head in your lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/64 "2002-12-21T11:33:40Z")
It has occured to me that referring to some people as hypocrites might be all that correct. If a pacifist doesn’t think calling the police is an act of violence, or the threat of violence, that doesn’t make him a hypocrite. I do believe that the pacifist in question is in error and needs to examine how the police go about policing. I think it takes a bit of mental gymnastics to believe that the police don’t at least use the threat of force to get others to comply. If, on the other hand, the pacifist is fully aware of how the police enforce the law and they still call them in times of need they are indeed hypocrites. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/65 "2002-12-21T16:45:07Z")
Will someone give me a definition of violence here, because some of you seem to think that it means any form of physical contact what so ever. When I say that I am against physical violence, I mean _exactly_ that. I am not against protective restraint that does nothing more that restrict the movements of another. I don’t think that calling the police is an act of violence-I think that hitting, stabbing or shooting someone is an act of violence. If you want to go down the silly road that claims that any action that somewhere down the line _might_ somehow cause one person to do physical violence to another is in and of itself an act of violence, then I guess that it is impossible to actually be a pacifist. By this definition, the mere act of stopping my child from crossing a busy intersection by grasping his hand and not letting go is “violence”. I refute this definition. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/66 "2002-12-21T17:28:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > \*\*When I say that I am against physical violence, I mean _exactly_ that. I am not against protective restraint that does nothing more that restrict the movements of another. \*\* Protective to who? If the police force someone into cuffs to protect themselves they are engaging in an act of violence. If the police force someone into cuffs to protect the public they are engaging in an act of violence. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I don’t think that calling the police is an act of violence-I think that hitting, stabbing or shooting someone is an act of violence. \*\* Calling the police in and of itself isn’t an act of violence. However if you call the police to apprehend a criminal you are giving tacit approval. You may not be willing to engage in violent behavior but calling the police shows that you’re willing to allow others to engage in such behavior on your behalf. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/67 "2002-12-21T23:31:39Z")
If it is your contention that any sort of restraint or coercion can be defined as violence, then I see no need to continue this conversation. Your definition of “violence” is too broad as to be useful in a meaningful way. ---
**Author:** ![verybdog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/49beb7/32.png) [@verybdog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/verybdog)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/68 "2002-12-21T23:38:03Z")
If pacifists are cowardly hypocrites, so be it. It’s still 100 times better than blood thirsting warmongers. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2002, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/69 "2002-12-22T06:23:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > \*\*If it is your contention that any sort of restraint or coercion can be defined as violence, then I see no need to continue this conversation. Your definition of “violence” is too broad as to be useful in a meaningful way. \*\* Yes, it is my contention that any sort of restraint is violence. Restraining someone for any reason is a violent act. Of course it may not constitute an attack depending on the situation. For example if I tackle you out of the path of a speeding car that would be a violent action but it certainly would not be an attack. Coercion is when someone uses the threat of being attacked to get what they want. A police officer is armed with a club, a firearm, chemical spray, and the ability to bring many more people who are even better armed then him to assist him. An officer uses coercion every time he performs his job. The threat of violence is always visible. You can’t be a pacifist and then turn around and allow others to do violence on your behalf without being a pacifist. Or can a pacifist allow others to threaten violence just so long as they don’t actually resort to it? No, not without being a hypocrite. Marc ---
**Author:** ![RobertTB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@RobertTB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobertTB)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2002, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/70 "2002-12-22T06:30:16Z")
What about the ‘conciencous objectors’ who serve as medics in various armies? I think we can agree that they are by no means cowards, but are they ‘pacifists’? ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2002, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/71 "2002-12-22T22:16:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LokiTheDog \* > \*\*Thanks Marc, I can’t believe I got all the way to the end of this thread before somebody called **Justhink** out for his absurd crap. > > blah, blah, blah > > I’m confused, is he/she self-loathing or self-righteous? > > **Justhink**. are you saying that if someone began beating the dogshit out of you, you would not put forth any effort to defend yourself? Don’t you think that you might reach a pain threshhold or neural damage level that would prevent you from trying to achieve this existential work of yours? After reading your posts I am very curious about this, and would be perfectly willing to perform such an experiment for you if you would like to put your ‘philosophies’ to the test. Attempting to defend ones self against violence has as much of a point as getting frustrated at mentally handicapped people for not being able to learn calculaus, but thinking that they actually DO understand it. These people are cognitively young. If someone crosses that line of treating people like robots and enslaving them simply because they can affect them this way, the logic becomes circular and proves suicide as a more efficient means of filling the goals of such a being. I define violence as coersion. -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2002, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/72 "2002-12-22T22:25:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobertTB \* > \*\*What about the ‘conciencous objectors’ who serve as medics in various armies? I think we can agree that they are by no means cowards, but are they ‘pacifists’? \*\* These people aren’t pacifists. Pacifists understand that the only reason that people are violent is because there is tecnology for them to fall back upon which protects them from the pain which they are causing. Being a medic is allowing people of war to inflict pain upon others without feeling it. If painlesss suicide machines exist, these people would have killed themselves using the same system long before they seek to do it to others. The only reason everyone isn’t a pacifist is because the equal technology is being with held for killing another painlessly (to yourself) and killing yourself painlessly. This is the slavery which assures that pacifism cannot exist. A pacifist is by definition much more ‘bad-ass’ than any violent being; it’s just that violent being are too retarded to understand this because they cannot abstract evidence without being hypocritical. As for the comment that I would never strike back: I’m well aware that I can be programmed to become violent should someone desire such a thing of me. To avoid this, suicide would be the most logical preventive measure. If I’m ever captured for a brainwashing program, it’s my own fault for not committing suicide earlier and fulfilling a life without hypocrisy. This really boils down to the inequality of technology distribution rather than an inherent system of hypocrisy. -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/73 "2002-12-23T01:47:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > I just love being compared to a Mafia boss. If you think that the comparison is unfair, then point out where the analogy fails. A mafia boss doesn’t use violence himself, just has other people threaten it on his behalf. He also hopes that people comply with his wishes when his agents threaten violence against them, and doesn’t want his agent’s first response to be a club or spray. > [@](#): > > If you want to claim that restraining the person threatening violence is the same as hitting the person threatening violence then this conversation is at a standstill. Restraining an unwilling person is certainly use of force against them, and I fail to see how it cannot be called violence, it’s certainly physical force being used against them (which you’ve said you object to). > [@](#): > > Are you trying to claim that when I stop my child from running out into the streets by holding his hand firmly I am resorting to violence? If you try to stop me from walking down the sidewalk by grabbing me, you’re resorting to violence. It may be justified violence, but it’s still use of physical force against someone. > [@](#): > > Let me tell you this right now-If I was being threatened and yelled for the police, and their first reaction were to bring out the batons and mace, I would protest. Their **first reaction**? Even ignoring the issue of whether grabbing someone is use of force, shouldn’t you object if their **any reaction** is the use of force? I think you’re quite aware that police procedures in the real world are not ‘try to restrain the guy without hitting him, then leave if he resists’. > [@](#): > > I do not resort to violence. Ever. I do not wish for others to resort to violence on my behalf. Then why would you call the police when you know that their procedure is to resort to violence on your behalf? > [@](#): > > When I say that I am against physical violence, I mean _exactly_ that. I am not against protective restraint that does nothing more that restrict the movements of another. So, if I walk up to you and put you in a straightjacket for a while, that’s OK? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/74 "2002-12-23T01:51:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*It has occured to me that referring to some people as hypocrites might be all that correct. If a pacifist doesn’t think calling the police is an act of violence, or the threat of violence, that doesn’t make him a hypocrite. It most certainly does, because basic police procedures are not secret information and it defies belief that someone could grow up in the US could actually reach adulthood without knowing how police respond to people refusing to follow their directions. Being willfully ignorant of rather obvious facts, or invoking contorted logic to somehow argue that having armed men threaten to use violence for you is not having someone use violence on your behalf, doesn’t remove the taint of hypocrisy from your actions. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/75 "2002-12-23T01:55:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by XPav \* > Ambrose’s Citizen Soldiers also describes cases like this – where people who didn’t want to kill were medics, and many of those folk were very brace. (Incidentally, a non-insignificant portion of these people wanted to kill people after a few battles). > > Its very possible for pacifists to be brave, it just depends on the person. \*\* Did you read the original post? You and several others keep posting nonsequitors about people who might or might not be the sort of pacifists which my criticism is directed against, and fail to address the hypocricy issue. And I’m quite willing to say that someone who claims to be unwilling to use force but who is happy to call on others to use force on his behalf is a coward. ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615/76 "2002-12-23T03:07:06Z")
> [@](#): > > If you try to stop me from walking down the sidewalk by grabbing me, you’re resorting to violence. It may be justified violence, but it’s still use of physical force against someone. Don’t confuse the existence of energy transfer with the existence of informed consent energy transfer. If someone tells me in advance that they have a tendaency to walk into streets when cars pass by becuase they’re kinda flaky and that they’d appreciate restraint when the situation looks grim for them… that is an informed consent. The deficiency of violent individuals is that they can only process consent in very superficial means, to the degree where it is not informed within a larger existent system. I may be able to gather informed consent with a collection of business collegues to do price fixing to accumulate wealth, however, their informed consent is small in scope with regards to the entire population of the earth. Solving a consent issue for everybody, by abstracing a collapse of this resource (rather than maintaining it through clear uninformed coersion) will assure that existence will become more meaningful than suicide. Violent people are detatched from this capacity of logic… they cannot see very far with regards to consent. They have no pressure to appreciate what solving for consent means with regards to having a purpose to live in the first place, with which to even have the capability to violate consent in the first place. They are hypocritically creating their own system of validation by exploiting existential consent loopholes without devoting all of their resource towards collapsing this corruption. -Justhink [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists-noble-idealists-or-cowardly-hypocrites/143615.md?page=3)