**
I see what you mean.
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
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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…
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
**
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.
**
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
MGibson: I know, I don’t have much of a good reason for being the way I am. I just am.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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
:rolleyes: 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?
Heinlein knows scads about women, some about government, and nothing about men. Remember this when taking his advice.