To prevent acts of violence or oppression against other people or groups. There are many hypotheticals. . I believe there are bad people in the world / people who's goals dont align. unfortunately words fail and violence is the lowest common denominator
Oke defending yourself the weak and the opressed could be a good reason for using violence but it still should not be your first option unless violence is already being used by another party and you dont have the luxary of thinking things trough
Then I am a conditional pacifist. I'm against war and violence in principle but that must never prevent an entity from defending/attacking to prevent its own demise.
I get told by a lot of people in real life that I am nice, but don't mistake me for being a pushover. When you rub me the wrong way I'll fight back. I never start fights, but I'll be glad to finish them.
I'm disagree with you. As a pacifist I think the civilian population (including women, children and pacifist men) shouldn't be attacked because I don't believe in violence or war, making more misery in the world. Even if they think "bad" things, they're still innocent as long they don't do any actions. It's bad enough soldiers are attacking each others. As long the armies on both of the sides are voluntarily and don't attack civilians, it wouldn't be equal bad and then it would be up to them if they wanted to waste all their energy on this crap!
Even if Russia attacked my country, I would still believe in a diplomatic solution on the problem and that no one needed to be violent. I would even speak against people in my own country if they wanted to use violence against civilians.
Curiousnorway, I can see by your response that you have had the privilege of never having been to war. Women and children can just as easily shoot you or blow up in your face. Everyone is a potential hostile until proven otherwise.
@WrathXXI, children isn't mature like adults, so adults have more responsibility then them. In addition children have rights that's agreed upon in UN. Civilian women and men usually aren't guilty and don't want war. So you can't just attack them for no reason or if they hasn't done something. That's inhumane and injustice.
I am well aware. Potential hostile is not treated the same as a confirmed hostile. You also have to remember that since 2001, the US and other nations haven't been fighting against a uniformed military. It's very much been civilian combatants taking up arms, including women and children. A war against another nation is one thing. A war against groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS/ISIL, etc is a completely different type of war.
@WrathXXI, I guess we can just be agreeing in disagreeing. I would rather die than kill children and innocent civilians just because of people seeing them as a potential threat.
Curiousnorway, you don't shoot at potential threats, which is what I'm assuming you as misunderstanding. You watch them very closely, and if they make a potentially aggressive move, you first warn, then fire. There is an entire list that goes with escalation of force. However, if I see them with a firearm in their hands, I'm going to either order them to drop it or shoot them, depending on the situation. If they have no visible weapons, then they are getting restrained and searched while held at gunpoint, in case they pull anything.
However, if they are a confirmed threat, such as pointing a gun at you or yours, then personally I would open fire, no matter who is holding it. If you are old enough to pick that weapon up and point it at someone, then you are old enough to keep me from seeing my family, and I will do whatever I need to do to see my family at the end of the day.
@WrathXXI, thanks for clearing it up. A 10 year old child with a gun may be forced to do it. So if they're dangerous, using water cannon or pepper spraying them might work and is bad enough. No need to do anything else. Although some children are child soldiers, they should be spared.
Curiousnorway, the problem is that you don't ever have a water cannon and cannot get close enough for pepper spray. Normally military do not carry non-lethal means of neutralizing a person unless it is otherwise planned. Last time I checked, water cannons and pepper spray do not come close to the same effective range of an AK-47.
Except greed, tyranny, abuse, enslavement, resources, starving populations on purpose, and any number of other causes that have caused 95% of the wars through history, unlike religion.
Also, don't go trying to pull the Crusades as a counter, because the first Crusade had to do with Muslims violently invading their way into Turkey, as well as across the northern part of Africa and crossed the strait between the Mediterranean and Atlantic, and started invading into Europe that way. The Church was both a political body and a religious one, so they used religion to motivate men into fighting, because otherwise the many kingdoms would not unite and put away their differences. The other crusades after the first one were due to greed, because the kingdoms and the church saw the plunder they brought back with them and were hungry for more. What this little history lesson demonstrates is that land, retaliation, resources and greed were the causes of the Crusades. Religion was just used as a tool to rally the troops on both sides.
What should the meaning be? I think there should be degrees on pacifism like right and left-sides in the politics since it would describe more accurately. In my home country republicans are considered very right-sided, while democrats are considered just a little bit on the right-side.
Well the actual meaning is to find war and violence to be unjustifiable, and someone who refuses to be violent. I feel like the answer to 'are you a pacifist' is a simple yes or no, as in do you absolutely refuse to be violent in any situation, or are you willing to be violent if the situation arises?
im against war unless you have to defend yourself. i dont believing in going to war to steal other countries natural resources, for imperialism, or over politics.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
43Opinion
If someone threatens our beautiful country or does something to it we shouldn't sit back and let it happen
this is how it works GOD makes the rules end of story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4&t=2swhat anyone else says is meaningless
because my GOD is above the dome
and there is not a single pacifist on this earth
they don't exist
plus im correct no matter what now
No sir... I believe there are good reasons for violence that extend past basic self defense.
Any examples?
What are the reasons?
To prevent acts of violence or oppression against other people or groups. There are many hypotheticals. .
I believe there are bad people in the world / people who's goals dont align. unfortunately words fail and violence is the lowest common denominator
Oke defending yourself the weak and the opressed could be a good reason for using violence but it still should not be your first option unless violence is already being used by another party and you dont have the luxary of thinking things trough
Then I am a conditional pacifist. I'm against war and violence in principle but that must never prevent an entity from defending/attacking to prevent its own demise.
Conflict is a catalyst for progress and development, it is also a part of human nature. So i would not call myself a pacifist.
I get told by a lot of people in real life that I am nice, but don't mistake me for being a pushover. When you rub me the wrong way I'll fight back. I never start fights, but I'll be glad to finish them.
I am against of war but If anyone who wants to destroy my country and my people (currently greeks and kurds) I will happily kill every one of them.
Do that include innocent civilians; women, children and pacifist men?
Yes ıf they support our enemies and we know that.
I'm disagree with you. As a pacifist I think the civilian population (including women, children and pacifist men) shouldn't be attacked because I don't believe in violence or war, making more misery in the world. Even if they think "bad" things, they're still innocent as long they don't do any actions. It's bad enough soldiers are attacking each others. As long the armies on both of the sides are voluntarily and don't attack civilians, it wouldn't be equal bad and then it would be up to them if they wanted to waste all their energy on this crap!
Even if Russia attacked my country, I would still believe in a diplomatic solution on the problem and that no one needed to be violent. I would even speak against people in my own country if they wanted to use violence against civilians.
Curiousnorway, I can see by your response that you have had the privilege of never having been to war. Women and children can just as easily shoot you or blow up in your face. Everyone is a potential hostile until proven otherwise.
@WrathXXI, children isn't mature like adults, so adults have more responsibility then them. In addition children have rights that's agreed upon in UN. Civilian women and men usually aren't guilty and don't want war. So you can't just attack them for no reason or if they hasn't done something. That's inhumane and injustice.
I am well aware. Potential hostile is not treated the same as a confirmed hostile. You also have to remember that since 2001, the US and other nations haven't been fighting against a uniformed military. It's very much been civilian combatants taking up arms, including women and children. A war against another nation is one thing. A war against groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS/ISIL, etc is a completely different type of war.
@WrathXXI, I guess we can just be agreeing in disagreeing. I would rather die than kill children and innocent civilians just because of people seeing them as a potential threat.
Curiousnorway, you don't shoot at potential threats, which is what I'm assuming you as misunderstanding. You watch them very closely, and if they make a potentially aggressive move, you first warn, then fire. There is an entire list that goes with escalation of force. However, if I see them with a firearm in their hands, I'm going to either order them to drop it or shoot them, depending on the situation. If they have no visible weapons, then they are getting restrained and searched while held at gunpoint, in case they pull anything.
However, if they are a confirmed threat, such as pointing a gun at you or yours, then personally I would open fire, no matter who is holding it. If you are old enough to pick that weapon up and point it at someone, then you are old enough to keep me from seeing my family, and I will do whatever I need to do to see my family at the end of the day.
@WrathXXI, thanks for clearing it up. A 10 year old child with a gun may be forced to do it. So if they're dangerous, using water cannon or pepper spraying them might work and is bad enough. No need to do anything else. Although some children are child soldiers, they should be spared.
Curiousnorway, the problem is that you don't ever have a water cannon and cannot get close enough for pepper spray. Normally military do not carry non-lethal means of neutralizing a person unless it is otherwise planned. Last time I checked, water cannons and pepper spray do not come close to the same effective range of an AK-47.
Conditional pacifist because I believe in self defense.
I'm a pacifist but I'm pretty optimistic. :P hehe.. but seriously I don't believe in violence.
None of the options are who I am. I don't have a problem killing people. It's all about survival here on earth.
I am a Panthiest,
Where there is no religions dividing us.. We don't have a reason for war..
Except greed, tyranny, abuse, enslavement, resources, starving populations on purpose, and any number of other causes that have caused 95% of the wars through history, unlike religion.
Also, don't go trying to pull the Crusades as a counter, because the first Crusade had to do with Muslims violently invading their way into Turkey, as well as across the northern part of Africa and crossed the strait between the Mediterranean and Atlantic, and started invading into Europe that way. The Church was both a political body and a religious one, so they used religion to motivate men into fighting, because otherwise the many kingdoms would not unite and put away their differences. The other crusades after the first one were due to greed, because the kingdoms and the church saw the plunder they brought back with them and were hungry for more. What this little history lesson demonstrates is that land, retaliation, resources and greed were the causes of the Crusades. Religion was just used as a tool to rally the troops on both sides.
I would say conditional. I believe that violence has its place but it should never be used as a first resort; only an absolute last resort.
I feel like pacifist should have 1 meaning lol
I'm not a pacifist
What should the meaning be? I think there should be degrees on pacifism like right and left-sides in the politics since it would describe more accurately. In my home country republicans are considered very right-sided, while democrats are considered just a little bit on the right-side.
Well the actual meaning is to find war and violence to be unjustifiable, and someone who refuses to be violent.
I feel like the answer to 'are you a pacifist' is a simple yes or no, as in do you absolutely refuse to be violent in any situation, or are you willing to be violent if the situation arises?
I'm willing to be violent if I have to be
im against war unless you have to defend yourself. i dont believing in going to war to steal other countries natural resources, for imperialism, or over politics.
War is war, you don't choose what you want to be. The main priority is always defeat the enemy with the least resources used.
I really don't believe in pacifism in any form politically or socially. I believe in speaking quietly while carrying a big stick.
Conditional. Turning the other cheek does not stop bullies wether at school or countries.
I chose other because my enemies can gargle my balls in their mouths, they wanna have a fight, great, cause I'll just full them up real good.
War is wrong, but there are times when backed into corner , When your own life is in danger you have to defend yourself...
I accept only defensive wars, when there's an enemy army invading.