The unfortunate reality is there will always be assholes and war so I think someone has to defend others and yes they are brave. The only case I'd be for war is in defense and that's not the case these days.
I'm not sure pacifists are strong and brave, I mean you aren't risking your life (unless you are up against those who want to kill you for your peaceful ways). I would definitely sacrifice my own life if it meant saving others though. Especially for children.
If we're talking in a practical sense, then most of the time I don't really care or have an opinion on how people deal with conflict, you do you. If someone comes up and spits on me though, I'm punching them in the face, I don't see most people doing anything else.
It's not about strength or weakness. Pacifists tend to be idealist and they fundamentally ignore reality and human nature. So what they lack is understanding. Of course, I'm talking about absolute pacifists because these are the ones generally associated to the single term "pacifist"
I think I count as a pacifist. I think the only time that violence is the best answer is as self defence.
I have a few mates who are actually ex military and they agree with me. In fact they are the best people I know who are able to diffuse a situation without hurting anyone.
Everyone has a reason for their actions and everyone wants something. So its far better to negotiate.
But Im not too keen on labels like pacifist, because everyone has their own definitions
Strong and brave in character. Also good swimmers because it goes against the current. I am somewhere between 'absolute' and 'conditional'. I think, that NOT pulling a trigger requires more bravery (think about the possible individual results or consequences) than shouting with the crowd. But I'd have no problem to (try to) knock down an individual that begins aggression against me as an individual.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
It depends. I'd say the ideal brand of pacifism is selective pacifism. You just have to acknowledge some situation have to be solved violently, but you also need to acknowledge that violence isn't the only solution. We all can't be Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Tersesa, but that is no excuse for us to be like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin either. Yes, I know those are exteme example but they help drive home the point.
If everyone in the world were Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa, then nobody would be Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. Then it would be world peace. : ) No war starters equals no war.
Neither the pacifism part doesn't define if there weak or brave. But if you need to hurt others to prove that your brave that is weak. Fight people weaker then yourself to prove you are stronger isn't brave. Same with not going to war doesn't show your brave you don't have anything at stake.
I think that pacifists, especially absolute pacifists, are extremely brave to be able to see an imminent threat to their safety and choose their principles over their well-being.
Depends on the context. For example, if you risk jail and persecution to avoid fighting in an unjust war and/or committing war crimes, you are very brave. If you refuse to defend your country, tribe, or family when being attacked, that is cowardly.
Weak and cowardly... personally, I feel people with this belief are also delusional... we live in an imperfect world... sometimes it's scary. Defend yourself
Pacifists with moral objections to violence are rare now. We mostly have cowards who need safe spaces from words, but have no problem with violence if they outnumber the people they hate.
And yes that's correct. Don't fit in with anybody. I am a totally weirdo maybe that's what people around me saying that but hey I only do what my heart tells me. My friends call me "a rebel". Haha
You can only be a pacifist if you have the power to destroy. If you can't use the force to have the upper hand you're not a pacifist, you just have no choice. Weak people being pacifist are either cowards or expect someone else to protect them.
Some are just cowards and some are conscience objectors. Watch the movie "Hacksaw Ridge" and it might change your view on pacifism/conscience objectors.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
70Opinion
The unfortunate reality is there will always be assholes and war so I think someone has to defend others and yes they are brave. The only case I'd be for war is in defense and that's not the case these days.
I'm not sure pacifists are strong and brave, I mean you aren't risking your life (unless you are up against those who want to kill you for your peaceful ways). I would definitely sacrifice my own life if it meant saving others though. Especially for children.
If we're talking in a practical sense, then most of the time I don't really care or have an opinion on how people deal with conflict, you do you. If someone comes up and spits on me though, I'm punching them in the face, I don't see most people doing anything else.
It's not about strength or weakness. Pacifists tend to be idealist and they fundamentally ignore reality and human nature. So what they lack is understanding.
Of course, I'm talking about absolute pacifists because these are the ones generally associated to the single term "pacifist"
I think I count as a pacifist.
I think the only time that violence is the best answer is as self defence.
I have a few mates who are actually ex military and they agree with me. In fact they are the best people I know who are able to diffuse a situation without hurting anyone.
Everyone has a reason for their actions and everyone wants something. So its far better to negotiate.
But Im not too keen on labels like pacifist, because everyone has their own definitions
Strong and brave in character. Also good swimmers because it goes against the current. I am somewhere between 'absolute' and 'conditional'. I think, that NOT pulling a trigger requires more bravery (think about the possible individual results or consequences) than shouting with the crowd. But I'd have no problem to (try to) knock down an individual that begins aggression against me as an individual.
It depends. I'd say the ideal brand of pacifism is selective pacifism. You just have to acknowledge some situation have to be solved violently, but you also need to acknowledge that violence isn't the only solution. We all can't be Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Tersesa, but that is no excuse for us to be like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin either. Yes, I know those are exteme example but they help drive home the point.
If everyone in the world were Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa, then nobody would be Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. Then it would be world peace. : ) No war starters equals no war.
Neither the pacifism part doesn't define if there weak or brave. But if you need to hurt others to prove that your brave that is weak. Fight people weaker then yourself to prove you are stronger isn't brave. Same with not going to war doesn't show your brave you don't have anything at stake.
I think that pacifists, especially absolute pacifists, are extremely brave to be able to see an imminent threat to their safety and choose their principles over their well-being.
Depends on the context. For example, if you risk jail and persecution to avoid fighting in an unjust war and/or committing war crimes, you are very brave. If you refuse to defend your country, tribe, or family when being attacked, that is cowardly.
One of the bravest soldiers in WWII was a pacifist, Desmond Doss. He was the subject of the movie, "Hacksaw Ridge".
I don't have a problem with people who won't kill another in any circumstance as long as they are willing to die.
It all depends on the person. You can have the exact same views as someone and still have wildly different motivations
If there's bad people to be fought against then pacifists are weak. Most wars seem kind of pointless today though.
A pacifist who is willing to stand peacefully in the face of violence is clearly a brave individual.
Cowards abandon their principles for personal safety.
Weak and cowardly... personally, I feel people with this belief are also delusional... we live in an imperfect world... sometimes it's scary. Defend yourself
Pacifists with moral objections to violence are rare now. We mostly have cowards who need safe spaces from words, but have no problem with violence if they outnumber the people they hate.
Standing up and speaking out for what you believe is far from being a coward. Saying "yes" when you really mean "no" is cowardly and weak.
Best comment here today you've got, my friend!
@Mikey_Ramone
Thanks 👍
I admire people who stand up for what they believe in, even if it makes them stand alone against society. It's a courageous act , not cowardly
You're very welcome!
And yes that's correct. Don't fit in with anybody. I am a totally weirdo maybe that's what people around me saying that but hey I only do what my heart tells me. My friends call me "a rebel". Haha
@Mikey_Ramone
Haha I'm a rebel at heart too 😂
That's cute! XD
You can only be a pacifist if you have the power to destroy.
If you can't use the force to have the upper hand you're not a pacifist, you just have no choice.
Weak people being pacifist are either cowards or expect someone else to protect them.
Mediation is best.. why fight when you can argue?
Who has bigger guns is no way to solve an argument about... xyz
Some people are just pacifists because they're chickenshit, others genuinely oppose conflicts.
Some are just cowards and some are conscience objectors. Watch the movie "Hacksaw Ridge" and it might change your view on pacifism/conscience objectors.