Pacifism

Why are you not a pacifist?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I am. A nuclear armed pacifist.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik–Makhnovist_conflict

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What does pacificsm entail?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Typically, it's defined as an opposition to war, but many pacifists oppose killing or violence in general.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because you would not be alive typing on your computer right now if we were all just pacifists back in the day.

    • 3 weeks ago
      ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

      >.. back in the day.

      ... AND TODAY; EVERY DAY.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        duh but u get the ider

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Can you elaborate?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I basically am, I suppose

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because I am a man.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a pacifist, I don't want to get entangled in other people's fight. They can, however, fight it out amongst themselves, I don't care.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because I LOVE TO CONQUER AND SUBJUGATE OTHERS

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because evil exists

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is evil, but everyone recognizes that there are moral limits on what you can do to fight evil. Pacifism is not the same thing as nonresistance, so most pacifists will say you're allowed to resist evil in various ways; they'll just say that resorting to war/killing is going too far.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >they'll just say that resorting to war/killing is going too far
        Anon this is not heaven

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm well aware of that. What's your point?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You'll have to resort to violence at some point

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There may be cases in which it's necessary to kill to avoid death or avert some similar evil, but you need to do more than that to show that it's justified, because mere necessity typically isn't taken to justify killing in other contexts. If you're stranded at sea, and the only way to avoid starving to death is to kill another person and eat them, most people will agree that it would be unjust to kill them.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would I be? You can't remove conflict from existence, and just because you choose to ignore the foremost way to resolve conflict doesn't mean other people will.
    In reality, pacifism just mean "I don't wanna fight, therefore you fight in my stead while I talk shit at you who are keeping me safe".

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The pacifist will say that those other people should also refuse to fight, and just because you can't stop people from doing bad things, does not mean you're justified in joining them in doing it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shoulda woulda coulda.
        You're basically saying your argument relies on people behaving in a way you can't reasonably expect them to. Which is strictly equivalent to admitting your argument is shit.
        And also you need to prove violence is bad inherently before making the argument that defending myself is a bad thing. Why is violence even bad if the life I attack isn't worth defending?
        There need to be some inherent value to life to make an attack upon it bad. And if such value exist, then I must be justified in defending it against aggression.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >There need to be some inherent value to life to make an attack upon it bad. And if such value exist, then I must be justified in defending it against aggression.
          Sure, if you have a right, you're justified in defending that right. That's plausible. But it doesn't follow from this that you're justified in killing to defend your right to life. That's because you're not allowed to do just anything in defense of your rights. If you steal a dollar from me, you've violated my property rights, but I can't just kill you for stealing a dollar, even if that's the only way I can get it back. So, there are limits to what you can do to defend your rights. A pacifist might accept that you have the right to defend yourself non-lethally by using, say, pepper spray, but they would reject that you can kill to defend yourself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But it doesn't follow from this that you're justified in killing to defend your right to life
            maybe you're not but I am. Just not gonna ask thats all...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well the question is: why think that you are justified? Everyone accepts that you can't just kill people for no reason. So the anti-pacifist needs to be able to give a reason for thinking that a person could be morally permitted to kill in self-defense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They forfeit their right to life the moment they're denying it to others. Once you have, by your actions, signaled that you are not acknowledging a right, I don't need to come up with reasons why you, in particular, should still enjoy it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The rights forfeiture explanation is something of a non-answer, and it won't get you what you want out of a theory of self-defense. Even if you say that an Attacker forfeits their rights, you still need to explain why they forfeit their rights. It can't be just because they're not acknowledging the rights of the Victim. People will typically agree that if you can easily disable an Attacker without killing them, then you ought to prefer that to killing, other things being equal. Yet if that's the case, then the fact that the Attacker has forfeited their rights can't explain why you're allowed to kill them, because there will be cases in which the Attacker has supposedly forfeited their rights and yet everyone agrees you still should not kill them.
            Also, that doesn't explain cases of self-defense where, for example, the Attacker is non-culpable. So, most people agree that you can kill an insane person if they try to kill you. The innocent person will be innocent by reason of insanity, and so they cannot have forfeited their rights. So, it doesn't get what you would want out of self-defense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you still need to explain why they forfeit their rights.
            By denying the right to me in particular, they are also denying the universality of that right, and I am free to treat them by their own moral standards and proceed as if they've waived that right for themselves. I'm not sure why you would call this a "non-answer" when it's perfectly rational.

            >People will typically agree that if you can easily disable an Attacker without killing them, then you ought to prefer that to killing
            Good for "people", then, but I would generally prefer to deal with a threat to my life permanently instead of giving it a second shot. You know those movies where a protagonist knocks the murderous villain down, then simply runs away only to fight them again and again? Always looks stupid to me tbh.

            >The innocent person will be innocent by reason of insanity, and so they cannot have forfeited their rights.
            The forfeiture happens as an implication of their actions, not a formal signing of a legal document or whatnot. We can't look into the mind of any person, sane or insane, and determine their real true motives, but we can judge a person by actions. Too bad if their brain imbalance convinced them I must be killed, but I'll have to defend myself. You could make the same argument against locking insane people up as a danger to society, since after all they can't sanely forfeit their right to freedom.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But it doesn't follow from this that you're justified in killing to defend your right to life.
            Yeah you're going to have to prove that. Why am I not justified in taking any mean necessary to defend a right you acknowledged I have? And where do you put the line?
            Why do I need to let them come at me at their leisure? Why do I need to give them the opportunity to attack me repeatedly?
            The way I see it, if I have a right to live it follows I have a right to do everything necessary to survive, up to preventive war.
            See, this is the issue with pacifism: so long as there's conflict, you're going to be outcompeted by people trying to achieve your same aims PROACTIVELY.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The way I see it, if I have a right to live it follows I have a right to do everything necessary to survive, up to preventive war.
            The problem though is that this principle leads to absurd consequences. Imagine someone kidnaps and says that they'll kill you unless you kill an innocent person for them. According to the principle that you're allowed to do anything that's necessary to survive, it would be okay to kill the innocent person, and yet that's obviously wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and yet that's obviously wrong
            Why? I have a right to survive. Am I supposed to just let myself be killed? See, it's not my principle that causes problems here, it's yours.
            There are a billion scenarios to which you can't answer without infringing someone's right to live, whereas with mine conflict has a very easy solution: violence, justified by self-preservation.
            How far do you push self-preservation? Literally all the way to the point where the chances of getting rekt are higher than those of triumphing. Which is deterrence btw, the chief mechanism used to maintain peace within society and between societies.
            You want peace? You can only find it THROUGH violence. Or force, if you prefer.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why? I have a right to survive. Am I supposed to just let myself be killed?
            Yes, assuming you have no other option, and that's typically what the law would say. Necessity is usually not a legitimate defense in cases of homicide. Sure, you have the right to life, but that doesn't entail the right to preserve your life at all costs. There's nothing special about you, and so there's no reason to think that your right to life would trump that of the other innocent person.
            >You want peace? You can only find it THROUGH violence. Or force, if you prefer.
            That's just false. Many nonviolent resistance movements have been successful.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Many nonviolent resistance movements have been successful.
            Lmao, name one who didn't have violent groups also pushing the same agenda.
            For every Gandhi there have always been a million card carrying Anushilan Samiti members.
            >Yes
            That's not an acceptable result.
            >Necessity is usually not a legitimate defense in cases of homicide
            So what? Excess of self defense is also a crime in most jurisdictions. Appeals to someone's authority win you no points with me.
            States have their own reasons for criminalizing shit, and in regards to violence it's overwhelmingly a matter of monopolizing force rather than any firm moral grounds.
            >There's nothing special about you
            Oh yeah? Name another person through whose point of view I experience life from then.
            Can't think of nobody? I must be prety fricking special then. Certainly more special than some rando, no matter how innocent.
            For that matter, how is, by your own reasoning, the random guy any more special or innocent than me, that I should lay down my life for his?
            Why does he get the right to keep his life at the cost of mine, while I can't avail myself of the same? Answer me.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Lmao, name one who didn't have violent groups also pushing the same agenda.
            >For every Gandhi there have always been a million card carrying Anushilan Samiti members.
            You're appealing to what sociologists call the radical flank effect. Now, it is true that the existence of a radical flank of violent activists can benefit a social movement in certain ways, though they can just as well harm it, but the claim that these radical flanks are always responsible for the ultimate success of nonviolent resistance movements is far too strong. For example, the violent tactics of leftist and Islamist radicals failed to topple the Marcos regime in the Philippines, and he was only deposed following the rise of a peaceful civil resistance movement. If violence really is the way to go, why was that the case?
            >Name another person through whose point of view I experience life from then.
            Everyone can say that though, so that doesn't make you morally special.
            >For that matter, how is, by your own reasoning, the random guy any more special or innocent than me, that I should lay down my life for his?
            Well, neither of you are special. So, if you think you're not obligated to lay down your life for him, he should not be forced to lay down his life for you either. And so, if you're going to be killed, you have no right to make him trade places with you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but the claim that these radical flanks are always responsible for the ultimate success of nonviolent resistance movements is far too strong
            It's also not the claim I made. I said they invariably existed and therefore contributed to the success of a cause, which is absolutely undeniable.
            The issue is that if violence is a factor in the equation, you can't claim the confrontation is pacific, because there will always be the threat of further violence in the mind of those capitolating to your 'pacific' demands. Not to mention all the resources and goodwill expended to fight the violent movements don't just reappear the moment they're defeated. The pacifists that follow typically face a completely exhausted opponent.
            Case in point:
            >Marcos
            Do you honestly think that 20 years of plots and counterplots backed by political violence on both sides did nothing to make the government unpopular and coalize people against him in a single movement? You're on a history board, don't alienate events from their context.
            >Everyone can say that though
            Which is exactly why I believe everyone has a right to self-preservation regardless of the cost to others.
            >he should not be forced to lay down his life for you either
            And never did I say he should. He absolutely ought to fight me for his life. We have a conflict, we solve it with violence.
            There literally is no difference in the scenario between your ideas and mine, insofar as net lives saved. The only difference is that if I'm pacifist I die, while if I'm not I may survive.
            So why the frick would I ever want to be a pacifist? There's literally no upside.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I want to kill my abusers

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The real question is, why would anyone not want to make bad people go away?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't deal with psychos. I put 'em away.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's the gayest ideology. Oh look at me I am mr fancy pants and I think violence is bad. Well, I got news for you, mr fancy pants, violence IS "bad" but it's also neccesary in a world filled with neurotic, violent people. Without violence, you will be killed. You shouldn't love or hate violence.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its really dumb and I simply cannot stand those homosexuals who will do nothing in the face of violence. Like I think its pretty common knowledge.
    >shouldn't start fights/hurt people physically

    But when its pacifism to the extent where my family/friends/myself are getting violated, yeah I will fight back. Its like that one trend that was popular for awhile.
    >le have no enemies
    Stupidest shit have some self respect and fight for yourself and others within reason. And some people clearly DO have enemies that wish you harm. And your just gonna let them have their way without fighting back? Pathetic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Again, pacifism is not the same thing as nonresistance. Pacifists can and do support various nonviolent forms of resistance to violence and oppression.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah said to the extent too, still think its pussy shit. But its a little more understandable.

        Does it get anything down, ehhh , in the whole history. Like on average for every event where pacifism was founnd at how much did it actually achieve? How successful were they?

        >Many nonviolent resistance movements have been successful.
        Lmao, name one who didn't have violent groups also pushing the same agenda.
        For every Gandhi there have always been a million card carrying Anushilan Samiti members.
        >Yes
        That's not an acceptable result.
        >Necessity is usually not a legitimate defense in cases of homicide
        So what? Excess of self defense is also a crime in most jurisdictions. Appeals to someone's authority win you no points with me.
        States have their own reasons for criminalizing shit, and in regards to violence it's overwhelmingly a matter of monopolizing force rather than any firm moral grounds.
        >There's nothing special about you
        Oh yeah? Name another person through whose point of view I experience life from then.
        Can't think of nobody? I must be prety fricking special then. Certainly more special than some rando, no matter how innocent.
        For that matter, how is, by your own reasoning, the random guy any more special or innocent than me, that I should lay down my life for his?
        Why does he get the right to keep his life at the cost of mine, while I can't avail myself of the same? Answer me.

        Makes a good point with violent groups pushing same agenda. And I think that is going to change people minds more then le hippie protest

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Like on average for every event where pacifism was founnd at how much did it actually achieve? How successful were they?
          If you check out the book Why Civil Resistance Works, it argues that nonviolent resistance movements are about twice as likely to achieve their goals compared to violent ones. So, the evidence does seem to suggest that nonviolent movements can be quite successful.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm "pacifist" insofar as I believe violence should be avoided whenever possible by humans. Governments have the right to use violence to enforce justice and ensure stability, but only because God has given them that authority, as Paul says in Romans. God is ultimately the one who decides who enacts righteous violence, and he himself delights in mercy, so we should be merciful.

    If someone attacked me on the street, and I was the only there, I would try to escape them if possible. I don't care if that's "cucked" to modern sensibilities. Jesus fled when they sought to stone him before the time. And he will return on the clouds with righteous vengeance, I won't need to lift a finger

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because peace is fragile and cannot survive if it isn't protected.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *