It's great to try and find peaceful ways to resolve a conflict, but when an attempt at a peaceful resolution fails, you have to be willing to protect yourself and innocents with force. There is nothing noble or admirable in a person who allows innocents to be slaughtered when he or she could end the threat and save the lives of good people.
The whole philosophy seems to be based on the false premise that killing is wrong. Killing is not wrong. Killing is great if the right people, predators, are being killed.
I'm not against finding a way to resolve things peacefully but there are some situations you can't resolve without violence. Call it cruel or horrible, but that is the truth. It's good that if you can keep a cool head in bad situations, but a man has to know when to fight or act. You may despise fighting or may do anything to avoid it, but if you back away from a situation in which you have to violate your pacifistic principles, you're just a coward.
To me, a pacifist is someone who does not enjoy violence, and that's completely fine, but like I said, someone who doesn't fight when he needs to is just pathetic. So basically, violence isn't a good, but in some cases it's the right thing to do.
It's an admirable philosophy and one more people should try to follow when all the conflicts and violence in the world today are clear to see. Not enough people, politicians or world leaders adhere to peaceful and fair solutions to solve everyone's problems. And if you have to resort to violence, non lethal measures should be employed rather than lethal ones.
If someone is a pacifist, then hey good for him or whatever. But there will always be times where violence/conflict is unavoidable or is needed. It'd be very unwise to go all out with pacifism. You're really setting yourself up for something bad. So I'm pretty indifferent.
It's an admirable philosophy and one more people should try to follow when all the conflicts and violence in the world today are clear to see. Not enough people, politicians or world leaders adhere to peaceful and fair solutions to solve everyone's problems. And if you have to resort to violence, non lethal measures should be employed rather than lethal ones.
@theacidskull: Well I agree with the last part of your sentence mate, I'm only a pacifist in so much as I don't like to solve my problems with violence and prefer to exhaust other means first. Going all out pacifist is impractical and inflexible, but taking the best and measured pacifism will work for me and my views. Still, maybe we disagree on the first part though.
@theacidskull: Well I agree with the last part of your sentence mate, I'm only a pacifist in so much as I don't like to solve my problems with violence and prefer to exhaust other means first. Going all out pacifist is impractical and inflexible, but taking the best and measured pacifism will work for me and my views. Still, maybe we disagree on the first part though.
Well, to be fair, I'm more focused on Brawn then Brain :P
Pacifism will get you killed. It's not a bad idea. But if you look at nature and the world itself, it simply can't work. At least not all the time or often. Besides, who wants other people walking over them? I sure as hell don't.
If you said some of the time then your answer is no, pacifism means you are against violence in general, choosing to talk someone down from being angry instead of taking a bat to there face from the get does not make you a pacifist, it just means your not crazy.
Pacifism is good and negotiations and democracy should be the acts of all countries before war. Yet if it comes down to EG WW2 you need to fight. War should only happen if all peace negotiations fail and the aggressive country engages on weaker nations or you.
Log in to comment