Pacifism

[Duder]

Greetings, All -

Submitted for discussion - the signature line of one of our beloved and respected fellow Tweb posters:

"Pacifism is untenable, because the right of the pacifist to speak out is preserved by the very violence they decry."

I see two flaws in this statement. First, it is not absolutely essential that you "speak out" if you are a pacifist. I would call one who speaks out an activist. Some activists are pacifists, and some pacifists are activists. But not all pacifists are activists.

The essential attribute of the pacifist is that he strives to avoid doing violence. It is quite possible to be a pacifist who does not make a big display of his pacifism, but who quiety lives a non-violent life without making a fuss about it.

Secondly, whether a pacifist is quiet or vocal, he does not require the services of the violent to enable him. He simply refrains from doing violence. If there are no violent people who stand ready to defend the pacifist, then the pacifist may suffer harm or death. No one said pacifism was safe. You can die for your pacifism. But if you do, your pacifism stands intact. You did no violence.

Jesus did not teach that it is okay to turn the other cheek because violent people give you that right.

[Darth Executor]

The essential attribute of the pacifist is that he strives to avoid doing violence.

Minor nitpick. The essential attribute of the pacifist is that he does not do or condone violence. I "strive to avoid doing violence" and I'm not a pacifist.

Jesus did not teach that it is okay to turn the other cheek because violent people give you that right.

Did I ever mention that I hate it when people butcher scripture for rhetorical effect?

[Soundsurfr]

Greetings, All -


Submitted for discussion - the signature line of one of our beloved and respected fellow Tweb posters:

"Pacifism is untenable, because the right of the pacifist to speak out is preserved by the very violence they decry."

I see two flaws in this statement. First, it is not absolutely essential that you "speak out" if you are a pacifist. I would call one who speaks out an activist. Some activists are pacifists, and some pacifists are activists. But not all pacifists are activists.

The essential attribute of the pacifist is that he strives to avoid doing violence. It is quite possible to be a pacifist who does not make a big display of his pacifism, but who quiety lives a non-violent life without making a fuss about it.

Secondly, whether a pacifist is quiet or vocal, he does not require the services of the violent to enable him. He simply refrains from doing violence. If there are no violent people who stand ready to defend the pacifist, then the pacifist may suffer harm or death. No one said pacifism was safe. You can die for your pacifism. But if you do, your pacifism stands intact. You did no violence.

Jesus did not teach that it is okay to turn the other cheek because violent people give you that right.

Third, there are pacifists both living and dead who do specifically rejected the "enablement" of the violent and prevaled nonetheless. (Mandela, Ghandi...)

[NeilUnreal]

I'm reminded of the progression of understanding of the calligraphy in the movie Hero:

Stage 1 - The swordsman and the sword are one; the swordsman can kill with a blade of grass.

Stage 2 - The swordsman no longer needs a sword; the swordsman can kill with a word.

Stage 3 - The swordsman no longer needs to kill.

-Neil

[Ishmael]

Did I ever mention that I hate it when people butcher scripture for rhetorical effect?

Show us, please, how he butchered that well-known passage, JPJr.?

[NeilUnreal]

There's also the famous story about a monk confronted by a soldier.

When the monk did not appear frightened, the soldier said: "Don't you know who I am? I could kill you and not give it a second thought!"

To which the monk replied: "Don't you know who I am? I could let you kill me and not give it a second thought."

Which one has the greater power over the other?

--Neil

[themuzicman]

There's also the famous story about a monk confronted by a soldier.

When the monk did not appear frightened, the soldier said: "Don't you know who I am? I could kill you and not give it a second thought!"

To which the monk replied: "Don't you know who I am? I could let you kill me and not give it a second thought."

Which one has the greater power over the other?

--Neil

Well, after he was dead, he would certainly stop thinking

[Ishmael]

Well, after he was dead, he would certainly stop thinking

A Christian, who allegedly believes in an afterlife, saying the most obvious thing.

[themuzicman]

Greetings, All -

Submitted for discussion - the signature line of one of our beloved and respected fellow Tweb posters:

"Pacifism is untenable, because the right of the pacifist to speak out is preserved by the very violence they decry."

I see two flaws in this statement. First, it is not absolutely essential that you "speak out" if you are a pacifist. I would call one who speaks out an activist. Some activists are pacifists, and some pacifists are activists. But not all pacifists are activists.

The essential attribute of the pacifist is that he strives to avoid doing violence. It is quite possible to be a pacifist who does not make a big display of his pacifism, but who quiety lives a non-violent life without making a fuss about it.

Secondly, whether a pacifist is quiet or vocal, he does not require the services of the violent to enable him. He simply refrains from doing violence. If there are no violent people who stand ready to defend the pacifist, then the pacifist may suffer harm or death. No one said pacifism was safe. You can die for your pacifism. But if you do, your pacifism stands intact. You did no violence.

Jesus did not teach that it is okay to turn the other cheek because violent people give you that right.

The point, here, is that governments are established and held stable by the point of the sword, and the freedom to exersize our rights of life, liberty, and free speech and such are frequently born from the shedding of blood, such as in the American Revolution.

Without governments the the establishment of freedom, man lives in the state of nature, in which life (according to Hobbes) is violent, brutish, and short, and presumably shorter for the pacifist.

Thus, the freedom to express one's self, and even the foundational right to life of the pacifist is ultimately preserved by the sword and the threat of the sword, which they so adamantly abhor.

Michael

[Duder]

Minor nitpick. The essential attribute of the pacifist is that he does not do or condone violence. I "strive to avoid doing violence" and I'm not a pacifist.

Minor nitpick with that:

It is true that by definition, pacifism is the avoidance of violent behavior. But is it possible to slip-up and do a violent thing, but remain a pacifist if you recognize the behavior as a mistake, and resolve not to do it again?

An answer in the negative would imply that if a Republican suffers a moment's weakness and casts his ballot for a Democrat, then his career as a Republican would be done for good.

One does not need to be a perfect pacifist in order to be a pacifist. Pacifism is an ideal that a person may approach more or less closely but which he probably cannot fully live up to. He may, after all, swat at a fly that buzzes around his face.

Did I ever mention that I hate it when people butcher scripture for rhetorical effect?

I admit I referenced the saying for rhetorical effect. But if I butchered it, I am ready to repent. The signature line makes the claim that the right to be a pacifist is granted by violent people. I made the counterclaim that Jesus taught no such thing on the Mount when he talked about non-violence.

Where's my butchery?

[nomad]

I think that this leaves out one other possibility: divine intervention. Sure, it may not come when *you* want it to, but it has been done in the past... were the israelites freed violently from the Egyptians? Yes, but not by their own effort, they kept peace.

I'm not a pacifist, but unless you only include options under the would-be pacifist's control, this isn't a complete list.

[Darth Executor]

Show us, please, how he butchered that well-known passage, JPJr.?

I will discuss this with Duder since he asked nicely. I will not discuss it with a fundy, regardless of religious affiliation. Now tottle off little boy.

[Darth Executor]

It is true that by definition, pacifism is the avoidance of violent behavior. But is it possible to slip-up and do a violent thing, but remain a pacifist if you recognize the behavior as a mistake, and resolve not to do it again?

Unless the person is mentally unstable, I don't see how they can "slip", especially since violent reactions are very easy to control. The only way I can see somebody slipping is if they know deep inside that pacifism is wrong.

An answer in the negative would imply that if a Republican suffers a moment's weakness and casts his ballot for a Democrat, then his career as a Republican would be done for good.

Only if he is an extremist. Politics aren't black and white.

One does not need to be a perfect pacifist in order to be a pacifist.

Duder, you either commit/support violence or you don't. The moment you "slip", you are no longer a pacifist. Of course, you could always revert to pacifism.

I admit I referenced the saying for rhetorical effect. But if I butchered it, I am ready to repent.

A slap to the face is done to humiliate somebody, not to hurt them, so bringing it up in a discussion about pacifism is wrong. Jesus was telling people not to react to individuals who try to humiliate them (be it by violence or any other means). However, Jesus got smacked in John 18:22 and He did not turn the other cheek. He talked right back, because there was more at stake than just his pride.

The signature line makes the claim that the right to be a pacifist is granted by violent people.

The signature line is deeply rooted in the American ideal of freedom and makes me barf on many levels. My issue was not with your indignation at the presence of the signature, but with a couple of side issues.

I made the counterclaim that Jesus taught no such thing on the Mount when he talked about non-violence.

Jesus talked about peacemakers, not non-violence. Allow me to present you with a scenario:

A great barbarian general brings an army of twenty thousand men to the gates of a city that holds six hundred thousand men, women and children.

A) The ruler of the city is a pacifist. He refuses to fight and locks up the city. The barbarians lay siege, and after several weeks break down the gates, plunder the city and burn it to the ground. All the men and older women are slaughtered, and the children and younger women are taken into slavery. The barbarians head on to the next city to plunder.

B) The ruler of the city is a great tactician. He locks up the gates and the barbarians lay siege. At night, through a secret way out of the city known only by him he takes his army out of the city, surrounds the barbarian camp and rains flaming arrows on it, then orders his men to charge. The tactician slaughters the enemy army, general included. After the brief siege the city life goes back to normal.

Which city ruler is the greater peacemaker, the one from A or the one from B?

[Ishmael]

I will discuss this with Duder since he asked nicely. I will not discuss it with a fundy, regardless of religious affiliation. Now tottle off little boy.

I can understand not wanting to discuss this with an agnostic who actually knows something about the text, Jr.

[Darth Executor]

I'm reminded of the progression of understanding of the calligraphy in the movie Hero:

Stage 1 - The swordsman and the sword are one; the swordsman can kill with a blade of grass.

Stage 2 - The swordsman no longer needs a sword; the swordsman can kill with a word.

Stage 3 - The swordsman no longer needs to kill.

-Neil

I thought there were 10 stages. You butchered them regardless.