Pacifism, Pt 2

Post Reply New Topic

Dear All

Do any of you know of any good pacifist weblinks? Such as forums, stores, blogs, organisations/charities, etc? I'm really not looking for an arguement here. I just need some weblinks.

Thanks

Do you want to research pacifism because you are a pacifist?

I am a pacifist, as well. I would suggest Wikipedia as a starting point.

To a large degree I am a pacifist, although the debate in my head rages around the level to which I would go in self defence.

Regarding the defence of a country I am really at odds. For instance I suspect that if a country is invaded and the defence would kill only 1000 people then maybe that defence is justified, however if 1'000'000 are to die in the defence then I think it is better to surrender.

Also the level of threat is to be considered, eg in the present situation in Palestine the threat from Hamas does not justify the response.

As I said I am really at odds on this one

Of course the my ideal solution is a world run on Marxist ideology then there would be no need for armies and war

Pacifism can be suicidal and irrational. Non-violence should always be the first choice but it can be downright irresponsible not to protect yourself and group if there is no other way.

"Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."

-Samurai

I like pacifism in theory. In practice, not so much. If you take a deontological stance, then pacifism is the most moral choice, regardless of the results.

I am also a pacifist, but only until someone begins to hurt others. I don't care about harm done to me, I've been verbally abused, attacked, punched in the back of the head while walking away from an aggressor, and intentionally shot with a pellet gun, never felt a reason to fight back. I don't even kill insects, with the exception of poisonous spiders (Hobo and Black Widow) for my pets' safety.

However, I am an exceptionally well-armed person. I carry a knife wherever I go, own firearms, and I may or may not have a CCW permit. While I would never use any of these to protect myself, save for non-lethal means of stopping them from killing me, I would do whatever it takes to protect the well-being of my friends, family, and others around me.

I've had people tell me that this makes me a faulty pacifist, but really, what kind of person wouldn't do the same? Say if one of those trendy shooting sprees happens in your presence.

What kind of a pacifist walks around with guns and knives?

Yet again, you didn't seem to actually read my post. In short: I don't carry to attack, I carry to protect. Additionally, my primary "weapon" of choice is a Surefire E2D flashlight, a device designed to stun and incapacitate, not to kill. And, once I can afford it, I'm getting the same Taser as what the police use, along with a 357 revolver loaded with rubber rounds. Read: I go for incapacitation, not to kill, and that's only in life-or-death situations (i.e. mall shootings, knife attackers in preschools, etc.).

And I'm guessing you have the mental image of me walking around with a foot-long bowie knife, a shotgun slung across my back, a pistol holstered on each side of my hip, and a rifle shouldered. The pocket knife I have is low riding, so you only see the clip, and the purpose of a CCW permit is in the name, "Concealed Carry Weapon". Meaning, people don't know I have it. I'm not some douche that arrogantly walks around with weapons exposed.

Carrying is carrying, my friend. You think Jesus or Ghandi walked around with guns and knives ... for protection?

Don't kid yourself. You are no pacifist.

I agree, the mere act of carrying a weapon is aggressive.

SM what do you think about self defence on a personal and national scale.

Self-defence =/= Deadly force.

Self-defence = Reasonable Proportionate Force.

With everyone carrying guns all the time and eyeing each other as potential enemies, it's no wonder the gun situation south of the border has gotten as out of hand as it has. What Americans don't seem to realize about guns is that they cause more problems than they solve, no matter what kind of a licence you have. Don't believe me? Ask the 8 year-old kid who blew his own head off with a submachine gun at one of those expos ...

SM do you think that there is a point in self defence where the proportional response requires too much attrition and capitulation is the moral imperative

Not necessarily, I believe some people honestly believe to be for self protection only, the question is from who? And another question would be, how can we know if that's the true reason, which can be scary.

The reason I am not that much supportive of gun ownership is for my distrust of people.

I do.

For example, if a stranger walked up to me and put a gun to my head as three of his friends look on, there's no way I would try to be John McClane or Jackie Chan or whoever. If he wanted my money, I'd give it to him. Sure, I could try to a be tough guy, but do really want to pit my reaction time against a bullet? People have been shot and killed for just a few dollars, a hat, a pair of shoes. No, my way isn't macho, but there are other ways to prove that you're a man.

^ thats not really what I am getting at, your scenario is one where you cannot win. I am talking about a situation where you can win but the loss of life will be too great, eg If a county is invaded, is the loss of life required to defeat the invaders so great that capitulation without fighting is the moral imperative.

I agree that if a mugger holds a gun at me the only instance it would be moral to kill him is if I thought he was going to take my life, otherwise the answer is to hand over the cash.

But when there arises a violent situation in which another person could really use your help, I think it's your obligation as a human being to help. As a human being I'd say you are obliged to defend those smaller and weaker than you.

Examples:

-children
-the elderly
-the handicapped
-the helpless

Not all of these scenarios necessarily involve violence. Heroism is not all about violence or being John McClane, but if I ever catch someone harming a child ...