I'm a pacifist and I'm Okay,

I sleep all night and I work all day.

I wear high heels and a garter belt....



I know, it's not all that cool to be a Dem pacifist any more. Especially with the pro-gun contingent here in the party. But I am. And I am proudly. I am against the war in Iraq and I am against violence in any form. I no longer own a gun and try to dissuade others in my circle from owning them.

I don't like violence and am willing to die to prove it.

Peace.

It's always admirable to die for what one believes in. I on the other hand would rather not die at all if it can be helped.

If no life is more sacred than the other then there is not difference as to who dies is there?

Speak softly and carry a big stick!

I on the other hand would rather not die at all if it can be helped.
Hate to tell ya this but you will die. But death can be helped to come faster or slower, meaner or kinder.


If no life is more sacred than the other then there is not difference as to who dies is there?
Since we all die, and one life is no more sacred than another, there is no difference.

The question is: Is life just a joke? The answer is: No.

So what's the next question?

Then again, nobody might laugh at you before you die.

I died, therefore I existed.

I don't own a gun either. If I ever get a burgler, I will make a gift of whatever they want. (Of course I don't have anything worth stealing)

I'm a red blooded American knock-your-dick-in-the-dirt if you fuck with me or my happy little gay family.

And I'm willing to remove anyone from this plane of existence to prove it.

Those are parameters. Mostly I vastly prefer peace, but would not EVER die or sacrifice for an idea.

The last one alive is the one who wins and peace can be as destructive an idea as its opposite.

Having now made myself look totally psycho, I utterly abhor violence and will go to great lengths to avoid it (except in sporting events), mostly because violence is not a solution to anything. Neither is peace or any other poorly understood social dynamic mumbo-jumbo.

Wow.

I'm sorry.

Me? I haven't thrown a punch since I was fourteen. I broke a guy's jaw. I used to hunt. I don't anymore. Things changed for me since my adolescence. I think considering and living through the Viet Nam war is/was the major impeetus for that change.

But I utterly disagree that pacifism should be anything more than a value.

Here's a moral proposition for you:

Your wife or partner or kiddo is threatened and the only way to stop it is to harm the guy before he harms someone less helpless? Do you

a. attempt to maim
b. attempt to permanently incapacitate
c. attempt to talk him out of it
d. tell your spouse or loved one to no resist

It's a violent world, especially outside the developed world. You know, oh vietname dude, there isn't time to play games when someone's life is really being threatened. Pacifism assumes everyone has the same level of moral development, that everyone who looks human is human.

There are some people who don't response to a lack of resistance with anything but glee and more violence. If you believe your life is worth that little that a sociopath could snuff it out in the name of peace, then you have the wrong idea about what peace means.

Believe it or not though, I am UTTERLY and without mercy against the death penalty.

"Your wife or partner or kiddo is threatened and the only way to stop it is to harm the guy before he harms someone less helpless? Do you a. ..."

Other than those who have lived through an incident, who knows what one would do in any given situation (bad fiction and horrible movies aside...)

However we do know that during the First World War, many Quakers, led to the philosophy of pacifism by their religious convictions, endured dramatic numbers prison beatings, getting hanged by their thumbs and wrists for hours at a time, 142 life sentences, and 17 executions.

And that illustrates to me that there are indeed, many people who posses the courage of their own convictions. I doubt the numbers of the courageous are very high in the here and now, but they do appear to exist...

Courage is also on the face of standing up to adversity. I don't like the way "pacifists" tend to offer up more than courage of conviction: they go all the way to superiority of conviction.

To each our own. I promise I'll never beat up a pacifist, and I'm sure on the other side of that coin we have common ground.

I didn't define courage, simply illustrated one (of many) aspects of it. That aside...

I'm afraid I don't understand what either "obsession" or "superiority" have to do with convictions (unless of course one is merely inferring why a person may or may not do with their own convictions).

I really can't see Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, or Tolstoy (each a most consummate pacifist) as obsessed or superior.

not people who faced real adversity and displayed courage either way.

One man's smugness is another man's conviction, I daresay. I imagine it simply depends on where one sits...

However, maybe it would have been both more effective and more efficient to have responded with the allegation of smugness directly to the poster in question, rather than some passive-aggressive, side-swipe to another poster altogether... :shrug:

:P

to send a javelin through my shriveled black heart.

He called me inefficient. You were correct about that performance. It was inefficient. A showy waste of power and intellect. :arch-sardonic-evil-sui-smilie:

But you also said I was passive aggressive? No - now that was just dickish of you, madame, and wrong in the absolute sense of that word, not the vernacular.

I am only ever aggressive. Passive? Isn't that from the same root as pacifist? got the wrong guy. That was directed at you, no side swiping or alternate audience intended.

Not saying one "is" passive-aggressive, the implication being that one "acts" in a passive-aggressive manner-- precise and relevant difference, you see.

I don't know if the words share a common entomology. Seems irrelevant at best-- but you appear to have a much greater grasp on both intellect and context than I who am merely I.

And for even more irrelevant, nonsensical non-sequiters: Pie is good in some rooms if the reception is good and there is plenty of cast-iron on the back porch.

Sorry-- I don't speak afternoon-drunk very well :shrug:

:hi:

I think I could like you. Very good observation on performance vs. performer; noted.

You lost me on the liquor (jibe?). Cocktails and typing: never the twain should meet, and I practice both, just never at the same time.

Is afternoon-drunk a condemnation of performance or performer? :think: I may need a stiff whiskey to answer that, but not until the work week hath ended.

If the guy doing the pushing knows the other isn't ever going to push back, he will never stop pushing. It is only the real true *threat* of serious retaliation that will stop the pushing, and we should hope the threat never has to be exercised. In most social dynamics, it doesn't, and it suffices to keep the class order in balance. Without engaged and serious masses willing to take a stand, there is no balance.

It does work as exampled with Ghandi and MLK.

I'm just trying to dumb it down a bit, and I also don't want to spend hours writing short essays on this. It is integral to the entire "liberalistic" system that the ruling class be checked by a threat of force from the masses (workers/proletariat). Governments exist to enforce social contracts and facilitate the struggle between the classes in non-violent manner. If the government becomes an in-effective agent for a specific class, then a social contract will likely be breached and violence is the only overriding force that may intervene (which is permissible outside of a breached contract). Normally, violence is never needed so long as the ruling class realizes it is more cost-effective to appease the masses than to wage war against them. This is only true though in societies that are willing to enter a conflict to secure or attain their rights, and if this element is missing, it is almost never cost-effective for the ruling class to appease the masses.

that while flawed, where fairly open democracies with a free press. No I'm not saying blacks were treated well by the US, or Indians by the British. However, these were nations where unending violence against their own citizens was not a valid option. You don't tend to see successful non-violent protests in countries where that isn't the case. I doubt Hitler, Kim Jong, or the current Chinese government would be much moved by such actions, unless you could literally get enough people willing to die that it would seriously devastate their economies (so a very large percentage of the overall population). And that is highly unlikely (self-preservation runs deep in our genes).


Pacifism in the sense of refusing all violence no matter what is an ideology doomed to failure, and very much a survival detriment. Pacifism in the sense that you refuse to initiate any violence, but will act in self-defense, is a perfectly valid philosophy. For instance, Tibets non-violence stance lead to being dominated by a foreign power. Switzerlands non-violence, pro-self defense, stance has left them free and independent despite being in a (until recently) very hostile and warlike part of the world. I'd rather be Switzerland than Tibet any day.

Nailed it.

But you aren't alone, most of America has no clue about what Peace really means.

In fact if you tell folks you are here to make peace, they immediately think: "War". Totally physco, eh?

Peace can never be destructive. True peace, that is. But since most folks haven't a clue what it means to have peace, or even be free, the terms have become useless to the physcos.

The only way to get to peace is to be peaceful. Being peaceful does not mean shrinking away from confrontation, it means handling confrontation as peacefully as possible so that the ends are constructive, not destructive.

yadda yadda snore.

Oh and by definition if you don't agree with "peace" then you must be for war.

Yes, my eyes click when they roll. :eyes:

If you are against war, then yes, you are for peace. If you are for war, then yes, you are not for peace.

I guess they're are some sickos who can be for both, and yes, it makes this country all screwed up, duh!

I'm not finished with you, yet.

no, your ideas of peace and war and violence are misplaced and antiquated.

For instance, some anti-violent people could just refuse to sell food to someone they didn't like. No violence involved. Just starvation.

Some doctors can refuse to help patients with AIDS or who are atheists. No violence. Death by disease.

You know, you really have a facile view of all of this and that VIEW is what I disagree with.

I am against war. I am also against social violence which is something as evidenced by the benign malice I'm sensing here is not something you guys are against. Don't be for peace unless you know how to teach it.

Are NOT the same as peace seeking actions.

You are going down a road that will lead you nowhere, and you know it.

I agreed with you to start with, and you, with malice, have turned the whole thing around and round. Sad, really.

And then you lecture me about teaching peace or being for peace. You, Sir, or Madam, have a problem. I wish you peace.

peace. At least we agree on that in context if not in principle or practice.

My opinion about people who babble about peace is that they've found something new to be a witch-doctor high priest about.

:P

Yes, I actually choose not to agree, which doesn't necessarily make me ignorant. Snide remarks and asides are just snide, not non-confrontational.

Here's the funny part: most people who come here to announce that they are for peace will go to war in a heartbeat with people who announce that they don't buy into loose definitions of peace. The opposite of your non-definition is not war.

Fighting, so that in the end we have peace and not endless war, is allowed, imo.

Maybe you need to define your terms as you see them, because the way you present them, as you said, seems physcotic. I was only agreeing with you.

I wish there was a smiley for d'oh.

Of you in high heels and a garter belt

You chose to post one of someone that's also a homicidal maniac.

:wtf:

And probably the best known guy in high heels and a garter belt. Other than John Cleese.

Although he's not exactly known for being a pacifist

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Pacifism is just another ism that doesn't work unless everyone else wants to be one too.

:)

Totalitarianism is an ism that preys off many of the other isms, pacifism included.

Totalitarians love pacifists.

Oh, and don't forget nihlism...being that it doesn't matter what the hell anyone else is doing. :)

Its assuming humans, as a whole, are evolved enough to live like this. On the other hand, it can be asserted that humans are only this highly evolved due to our violent and homicidal nature.

Humans will only live in harmony when they can find an enemy they hate more than themselves. Pray for aliens.

That's the only tool we have.

That something you do while getting your ass kicked. At the end of the day, you still are getting your ass kicked.

Hey, I'm sitting here in my cube at work, being a pacifist. It's easy! And the self-indulgent reward I get for sitting here in my pacifism is awesome, quite the self esteme boost, please believe.

I respect your position even though I don't find it sustainable.

eta: I'm not a pacifist and I'm OK.

Pacifism is a great hobby. If you practice it enjoy. Just remember that real life can interfere with hobbies.
Don't recall where from.

Heh.

...as absolutely the last resort. I'll never be a complete pacifist, as I believe too strongly in a right to self-defense, up to and including lethal force. Defending others, too, is a worthy choice. Defending mere property? Not so much.

I don't applaud any use of violence. It's always bad news, though every once in a while it beats the alternative.

...about pacifism, give me a call. I'll come running.

:-)

While he is always seen as some kind of religious figure, he was above all a pragmatist.
In front of the British Empire, who ruthlessly massacred thousand of Indians during the campaign for independence, he felt that non-violence (which he called "truth force") was much more powerful that any kind of violent uprising that would have been squelched with a bloodbath in a matter of seconds.

Instead of attacking British people or soldiers, he attacked the essence of British rule: the laws against Indians making their own salt, the economic oppression via buying British made Indian cotton clothes, the basic authority of the Viceroy.

It worked, just like his campaign against oppression of Indian indentured laborers had worked in South Africa. Unfortunately, once Independence was won in India in 1947, those who still believed in power and war came to rule the country (Nehru) and Gandhi resigned in mourning from the Congress Party.

Gandhi made some mistakes like everyone of course, but he was always ready to talk with anyone "without preconditions" as he believed in the basic good nature of human beings. During the campaign the Gurkha regiment that had been ordered by the British to shoot into the peaceful crowd, dropped their weapons and refused to shoot.

Gandhi's is an interesting story, well worth reading about...

...of physical violence from stranger and friend alike and probably will again.

I believe that most violence is something I will survive be it physical, verbal, or mental. I also believe there's a point at which I'll probably strike back I just don't know the where or the when of it...and neither do the attackers.

Peace.

:-)

Suspenders and a bra are the path to zen.

How violently the acolytes of the High Church of Redemptive Violence become when you deny their central myth? To be expected, I suppose.

than the high-horse of pacifists who feel the need to declare their superiority.

Where did that come from?

Superiority? Where the hell did you get that?

never forget there is no path to peace, peace is the path.

that knife butters both sides of the sandwich my friend.

Oh wait, I'm addressing a higher life form. My bad. :blush:

Neanderthals NEVER fought as much or fucked up as much as you so called "modern" humans. If I recall it was you modern humans who gassed the jews, who claimed that jews weren't as evolved.

Nice direction you're headed there.

or dismissive of your views.

By proclaiming my own views does not by any means dismiss yours.

really?

but I was referring to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4485030&mesg_id=4485862

peace brother

there is a smugness and self-righteousness that their choice is the only acceptable choice. It's the argument that those of us unwilling to call ourselves pacifists are, somehow, pro-war, pro-violence, or both (which can be easily seen by the person who just called me a neanderthal). That post also suggested that "peace is the path" and I agree but I prefer the TR version of that where I walk softly and carry a big stick because REALITY says there's going to be some jackass hiding in the bushes along that path willing to stick a knife in me to achieve their means to an end.

So when it comes down to me and the dude hiding in the bushes with nefarious goals, I'd never look to bash him in the head just in case, but if he jumped out ready to poke holes in me, he'd better consider the consequences. You on the other hand, are just going to lie there and bleed in the name of your "ism."

Moreover, though, it's the fact that self-declared pacifists are willing to just lay down and take it to prove a point. I don't really care that you're unwilling to defend yourself but by you're also unwilling to take up the sword (as it were) to defend others who need it, so you're essentially rolling out the red carpet for tyranny (see: Tibet). As I said up-thread, totalitarians, authoritarians, and those who would seek to gain power by denying others their rights LOVE pacifists. You're the part of the equation they don't have to worry about because, when push comes to shove (literally) you're going to roll over for them. You're willing to selfishly put your "ism" above all other things, even if that means losing everything, not just for yourself, but for others as well.

I am a man of peace. I would never seek violence as an answer when there are other options. Sometimes however, reality declares that the only options are violence or the loss of liberty and possibly life.

about these bumper sticker philosophers. Sage advice that like religious philosophy often confuses the symbol with the referent, confuses values and moral guidelines as a set of unchangeable rules for every life situation.

Simpletons? Not really, but not really practical people either.

I'm a pacifist 99% of the time. I just recognize the fact that some things are more important than my "ism."

Here in the US, with a few exceptions, pacifism is pretty easy as most people are rarely if ever subjected to violence.

But that said, I agree with the poster upthread with regard to an imminent threat of violence to my family. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, I think it's safe to assume he/she is not there for a social call. And it may be philosophically wrong to value one life more than another, but I **do** place more value on the lives of my loved ones than I do on the life of a thug bent on harming them. And if somebody has to die and I am forced to choose, the choice is easy.

Bake

Thank god I didn't say I was gay.

There are at least two in this very forum, and I am one of them.

Let's take this up a level. We have been pacifists. We have believed that good things follow on nonviolence and for most people who have never had to put that principle into practice it's a nice place to be.

But the rest of us have an opinion too. When the opinion is expressed, like yours, it is not an attack on your point of view. It's just sharing a different one and a different rationale for it.

However, pacifists, generalized to this thread only, seem to be a bit judgmental of non-pacifists. Even your use of the term "negative" implies that you are under attack.

I don't know, I guess I'm just another gay neanderthal. . . .

Where has anyone been "judgmental" of others of differing opinions than yours or mine?

Discussion does not mean an attack and as far as this thread goes I have seen little "attacks" except yours.

people who disagree with you are referred to as neanderthals?

That was not an observation, but an attack. We really ARE on the same side, difficult as that may be to determine from this thread.

We just have different means of getting there.

or any other derogatory term. I'm glad you feel the way you do.

I am about as non confrontational as can be.

However, if I'm going to be honest with myself, I have to admit I have no idea what I would do in certain threatening situations.


"I don't like violence and am willing to die to prove it."

You have my utmost respect.