PsychicTaco115 said:
Recently, I read in this forum that pacifism was "pathetic, pretentious, cowardice" and as someone who staunchly believes in this topic, I felt I had to say something .-.
I hate harming people. I don't know why but I always imagine that person as a kid, that they have a family too that would feel their pain. I can't "dehumanize" another human because they ARE human.
Violence begets violence and all that sort of thing. It reminds me of Elizabeth from Burial at Sea: Episode 2 when she says
"It's like a wheel of blood spinning round and round."
I don't want to raise my hands to hurt because doing that kind of thing is like a drug; adrenaline rushes and shit are hard to get without an equal stimulus and it can potentially become an addiction if not handled correctly.
So yeah.... That's how I feel about it
How do you?
It's not one of those things where there is one answer. Pacifism is not ALWAYS cowardly, but it usually is, especially today and in the first world. It call comes down to people's desire to follow the path of least resistance, nobody wants to go through the trouble or risk of being made to fight in a war, or see their loved ones fight in a war. That has been the way it is since time immemorial, making declarations of pacifism becomes a way of hiding one's laziness and cowardience behind the illusion of taking some kind of moral high ground. In many cases such self-declared pacifists will defend themselves or their loved ones using violence if personally threatened, meaning it's not so much an absolute principle as an excuse. You might say fight off a rapist, defend yourself against a mugger, or defend your home, but when it comes to say needing to go to war for your country or see someone else do it, well then your a "pacifist". Such attitudes of course tend to be very easy in the first world where things are stable enough where your average person tends to face little, or no, physical danger unless they actively go out looking for it. It's pretty much a dodge to avoid having to do the hard thing, and to avoid acknowledging the right thing as being the right thing when it's inconvenient. Pacifism isn't cowardly if say your in an inherently violent area, out in the second or third world, where your continually victimized by violence and under common threat. If your say putting your principles before your own comfort and safety while a bunch of thugs rape you or whatever, then it has meaning. Of course part of this equasion is also the presumed ability to defend yourself. If say an armed man tries to victimize you, and your scads weaker than him, you being a pacifist is probably just a weak plea over your state of being victimized, it's a lack of ability, and hope for a better world, not an actual conviction on your part. In comparison if your say some kind of monk who sits around 12 hours a day practicing kung-fu, and splits the rest of the time between farming, sleep, and meditation, but has a vow to never harm anyone, and purely pursue self-mastery, then just sitting there passively while a bunch of dudes waltz in and decapitate you and the rest of your order for political reasons means something, because there was plenty you could have done about that.
That said, despite some things I post I'm generally not all that violent a person. Even doing a job where there was a possibility of violence and where I probably could have gotten into fights regularly, I simply didn't. Other than when I was a kid, I've been in surprisingly few violent altercations. That said I believe violence is necessary at times, and when you do get involved in violence, you need to make sure to do it right.
Someone like Queen Elizabeth is right in a general sense, but largely because of morality interfering with reality and necessity. When you go to war if you don't totally break an opponent the people you leave behind to recover are not going to think kindly of you, and given the opportunity are going to seek revenge. What's more time doesn't tend to heal most such wounds, and indeed a culture left to it's own devices will actually spin history to make it's enemies even worse to it's people than they actually were, and of course gloss over or downplay their own sins. What this means is that if your going to go to war, there is only one way to fight, and that is "Total War". War is to be avoided, but when diplomacy fails you strike to destroy an entire culture, the civilians are the target as the civilians are the ones with the ideas, traditions, and way of life that defines a culture. The military is simply what you get through in order to demolish the people and their works. Ideally when your done there will be some survivors, but a tiny handful, and with their entire culture, settlements, and accomplishments, erased those terrified people will be absorbed gradually into other civilizations, even if some individuals wind up holding a grudge, there will not be a people able to act on it on a large scale or bring another major war upon their destroyers. This is what prevents Elizabeth's "wheel of blood" as the loser isn't in any position to eventually seek revenge when fortunes shift. This is why in so many posts about politics and conflicts I talk casually about eliminating hundreds of millions of people who have literally done nothing but be born into a certain lifestyle, since those people re the ones with the ideas that will cause problems as their history continues. If I'm going to fight a war (or support one) I want to be damn sure to finish it, and not have to wind up fighting these same people a hundred years later because all we did was take out the military and cause some collateral damage. As far as their history is going to read, my side is going to be the bloody devil anyway. Sort of like when I talk about "The Middle East" when people down there casually refer to the USA as "the great satan" in discussion (even when televised) and leaders refuse to call us anyone thing in meetings, it doesn't matter how many fighters we kill, even if he's not pointing a guy at us the people that we allow to go around doing that and defining things that way will ensure the conflict never ends, and someone will always be willing to pick up a gun or make an
IED.
While many people won't like these examples, consider also that when "World War I" ended Germany was pretty much allowed to survive, and it had a serious bug up it's butt over that war, which had a lot to do with why "World War II" started. When the USSR collapsed after being our great enemy for decades, instead of stepping on their necks and putting it down, we decided to show mercy. Time has passed, they have recovered, and strong leaders have appeared again, and they are trying to re-build their empire. A big part of their motivation seems to be to "avenge trivialization at the hands of the west" and get payback for their collapse. Had we decided to finish Russia we wouldn't be facing the rising threat of Putin now, and if this does balloon into a major war (even if it doesn't go fully global) there's your wheel of blood... we let "The Cold War" end without truly resolving everything as both cultures/civilizations continued to exist. Modern ethics painted this as a good thing, but it leads to more conflict. In purely pragmatic terms, even if you did something horrifying like round up the survivors of a civilization into death camps, it's a good thing in the big picture if it means even more people won't die when the war picks up again later. Simply put, if your going to fight,
do it right, and get it over with. Don't drag it out for centuries and let generation upon generation re-fight the same wars or live in periods of build up where they merely wait for them to resume.
It should also be noted that while a Utopia is impossible, it's one of the reasons why I believe the only way to end major wars will be to unify everything into one global society/culture. A terrifying thought to some, but personally I think the alternatives are worse. There will still be crimes, and major incidents of course (no way around that) but nobody would be whacking each other with armies over resources and territory, or fighting because one culture finds another religiously offensive. I'd be willing to see billions die, if it meant tens of billions in the future get to live without the spectre of conflict.
At the end of the day when it comes to the first world a pacifist is generally someone who doesn't personally want to face reality, get their hands dirty, or take the personal or family-related risks. It's easy to have a "peace at any price" attitude when even if you see your own culture spanked in the news it doesn't generally trickle down to affect you. It all comes down to trying to seem like your standing for something when your being lazy, complacent, and
cowardly.
That's my thoughts at any rate, I doubt many people here will agree with me though.
. but we dont know how else it would of played out.
