[EyeBrock]

Yea, and without firepower our democracy would be trampled on.

Carry on in your basement Doc, like I said before, plenty of us are willing to protect our way of life while you sit at home and undermine us.

[The_Doctor]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Yea, and without firepower our democracy would be trampled on.

Carry on in your basement Doc, like I said before, plenty of us are willing to protect our way of life while you sit at home and undermine us.

You never get the symbolism of the picture. Unless you really think forcing Democracy onto nations is a benift of the world.

I am sorry, I am a pacifist. No way I would support any type of war.

[EyeBrock]

Nothing wrong with being a pacifist Doc. Just don't look down your nose at those of us who feel the need to serve our country in the military.

We'll make sure the bad guys don't get you and you can keep on being a pacifist in safety.

Oh, and I get the symbolism. Contrary to popular lefty belief, those of us in the military have a brain. We get your little digs but it's all about freedom to choose. You choose not to fight and we choose to fight to defend our country. That means you can be a pacifist.
Try being a pacifist in Afghanistan. Those nice Taliban destroyed those thousands of year old Buddha’s’ with RPG’s.

[martin14]

[martin14]

The_Doctor The_Doctor:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Yea, and without firepower our democracy would be trampled on.

Carry on in your basement Doc, like I said before, plenty of us are willing to protect our way of life while you sit at home and undermine us.

You never get the symbolism of the picture. Unless you really think forcing Democracy onto nations is a benift of the world.

I am sorry, I am a pacifist. No way I would support any type of war.

What about a war to protect your country ?

Your state ?

Town ?

City block ?

Family ?

got any limits ?

[The_Doctor]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Try being a pacifist in Afghanistan. Those nice Taliban destroyed those thousands of year old Buddha’s’ with RPG’s.

So what? Those Buddhas are historical treasures, but they are not holy. I am sadden that they destroyed history.

[The_Doctor]

martin14 martin14:

The_Doctor The_Doctor:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Yea, and without firepower our democracy would be trampled on.

Carry on in your basement Doc, like I said before, plenty of us are willing to protect our way of life while you sit at home and undermine us.

You never get the symbolism of the picture. Unless you really think forcing Democracy onto nations is a benift of the world.

I am sorry, I am a pacifist. No way I would support any type of war.

What about a war to protect your country ?

Your state ?

Town ?

City block ?

Family ?

got any limits ?

Let me quote you a story:

$1:

A Vietnam veteran was overheard rebuking the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, about his unswerving dedication to non-violence.

"You're a fool," said the veteran - "what if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?!"

Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently "It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it.

"In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma."

[Public_Domain]

[Canadian_Mind]

The_Doctor The_Doctor:

martin14 martin14:

What about a war to protect your country ?

Your state ?

Town ?

City block ?

Family ?

got any limits ?

Let me quote you a story:

$1:

A Vietnam veteran was overheard rebuking the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, about his unswerving dedication to non-violence.

"You're a fool," said the veteran - "what if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?!"

Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently "It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it.

"In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma."

So you're saying if someone came into your house to kill you, you wouldn't defend yourself, your wife, kids, etc?

+1 Darwin Award.

I'd sooner abandon my ethics, morals, and beliefs in the short term for the sake of preserving them, that to let them be erased from history. Regardless of your personal principles, the victor writes the history books, and if you die your principles die with you.

[Khar]

What about the many other stories of men and women dying so others could live? Or those who stepped in and defending a victim who chose to live? How about women who fight back against rapists, or forced restraint of those with dibilitating health problems which may cause them to help others? Is pacifism a morally acceptable set to so broadly attribute when there are very real problems at the small level for general acceptance?

Personally, I feel my own moral health is certainly not worth more than the life of another. If I was placed in a position where potential use of violence may save a life, than I may do so. If the open threat to use violence stops a crime which is occurring, then I would consider the use of that violence justified. In any of these cases a singular person disrupts the pacifist way of thinking by making the meaning of such sacrifice hollow, a reduction in the potential of humanity in the name of sacrificing for another who feels someone else's life is worth less than their own.

This forum frequently has debates about communism, and one of the chief lines which time and again come up is how it fails because humans are involved. While I am not going to dispute or support that, I think that a similar line of thinking applies well to the topic at hand here. A single person can step out of line in a room of pacifists, and the response of others would be considered morally just and acceptable. Even if it does feel good to be able to say something which sounds good and is morally right, I cannot help but feel that it does not do good and right for society as a whole. Preaching peace is fine, working towards it is good as well. However, pacifism goes beyond appeasement and other similar concepts which have had demonstrated failures into the realms of purely theoretical extremism.

People respond to incentives. If someone decides that the incentives of being violent are worth it, then those incentives will drive a person to being violent. I feel that incentives which a lack of definitive pacificism, even to such schools of thought like pseudo-pacifism or conditional pacifism, bring about, are important. Much like I dislike when people who use phrases like "an eye for an eye and the whole world is blind," I dislike which people preach pacifism, especially in it's more encompassing form. To me, it smacks of a need to not make each other responsible for their own actions. It expects people to understand intrinsically where they cross a fuzzy, nebulous moral line to see where they are wrong, and then come up with a way to rectify something. Hard-core theorists seem to frown upon such things as competition, even though such things play a very big role in bettering ourselves as a people. I find that the pitfalls under the surface of something which sound good are not worth bringing about.

In short, I have no problem with urging for peaceful resolutions, or being for such resolutions. However, more extreme forms of pacifism, such as the one described in your story quote, seem like a way to bring harm and empty sacrifice in the name of moral good, and that just doesn't settle well with me.

My opinion anyways.

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I'd sooner abandon my ethics, morals, and beliefs in the short term for the sake of preserving them, that to let them be erased from history. Regardless of your personal principles, the victor writes the history books, and if you die your principles die with you.

You're not preserving your ethics etc by abandoning them, can't be done. If your ethic is no violence ever, you can't preserve it by using violence. That's like fucking for virginity. If your ethic is that it's ethical to defend yourself when attacked, then there's no conflict between your actions and beliefs.

If the victor writes in the history books that he defended pacifism by going to war, people will see him as a fool and take him at his walk rather than his talk.

[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I'd sooner abandon my ethics, morals, and beliefs in the short term for the sake of preserving them, that to let them be erased from history. Regardless of your personal principles, the victor writes the history books, and if you die your principles die with you.

You're not preserving your ethics etc by abandoning them, can't be done. If your ethic is no violence ever, you can't preserve it by using violence. That's like fucking for virginity. If your ethic is that it's ethical to defend yourself when attacked, then there's no conflict between your actions and beliefs.

Of course it can. I'm not saying you cast your ethics away to be ignored, I'm saying you put them aside to do what needs to be done to preserve your ability with which to live by your ethics.

Example, killing another human being in anger is, by my standards, unethical. But if, for whatever reason, another human being is willing to bring harm to myself, my family, my community, or my country which is so grave as to warrant the single available option of doing away with that mans life, you're damn right I am going to kill him. Thus I preserve my ability to live an ethical life, both personally, and in the environment around me (family, house, town, country).

In a world with no consequences, there would be no peace, there would be anarchy. Thus Pacifism undermines itself with the wrongdoing of only one person.

$1:

If the victor writes in the history books that he defended pacifism by going to war, people will see him as a fool and take him at his walk rather than his talk.

Would it be better that he went to war and won, thus providing the environment for future pacifists to think him a fool, or to not have gone to war, thus ensuring the pacifists would never exist?

[BartSimpson]

If The Doctor is a pacifist then good for him and he should not be the target of any disrespect for his views so long as:

1. He never calls the police to potentially commit acts of violence on his behalf.

2. He never expects the military to commit acts of violence on his behalf.

3. He has no problem with his family suffering for his principles.

[The_Doctor]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If The Doctor is a pacifist then good for him and he should not be the target of any disrespect for his views so long as:

1. He never calls the police to potentially commit acts of violence on his behalf.

2. He never expects the military to commit acts of violence on his behalf.

3. He has no problem with his family suffering for his principles.

Then you don't know anything about Buddhism.

We are allowed to call the police.
We are supportive of the military.

I will defend my family, but I will not kill the person.

$1:

Hana Gartner: But while you can concede that sometimes it's necessary, there are those in Tibet who believe there is justification that if you do not stand up, if you just are a pacifist, you empower the person who is oppressing you.

Dalai Lama: Individual case? For example, if mad dog coming, almost certain now bite you. Then if you say, non-violence, non-violence and compassion…

Hana Gartner: You get bitten!

Dalai Lama: That's kind of foolish! You have to take use of self-defence. But without harming, without serious harming another, I think that's the way I feel. If someone try to shoot on you, then there is no possibility to run away, then you have to hit back. Then possibly not on head, but leg or something like that. So that's not serious hit back, but more lenient way, more gentle way.
http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com/200 ... lence.html

$1:

Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching.
Kamcupamasutta, Majjhima-Nikkaya I ~ 28-29

The Buddha was quite clear in his renunciation of violence: "Victory creates hatred. Defeat creates suffering. The wise ones desire neither victory nor defeat... Anger creates anger... He who kills will be killed. He who wins will be defeated... Revenge can only be overcome by abandoning revenge... The wise seek neither victory nor defeat."

After waging many wars, Emperor Asoka was so moved by sayings such as these that he converted to Buddhism and became the model for later Buddhist kings. Buddhism retreated from India, China, Vietnam, and other countries rather than involve its believers in armed struggles to preserve itself. Again, this illustrates the strengths and the weaknesses of Buddhism.
http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com/200 ... lence.html