Feelings on pacifism

I am a peaceful person by nature, and a bit of a push over on most everyday topics.... I have a tendency to always want to be a good guy with an edge.... It's my nature. But when confronted with a situation that may turn violent I become very confident , and I believe due to my saber training , have averted more ugly situations then if I did not know how to fight. Clearly I am not a traditional pacifist, I am quick and acute to defend but would prefer not to have to fight. (and I kinda like it) Most in my Pod say I am still a pacifist. I have meditated on it and I keep getting visions of a young boy with long hair and he was throwing rocks at a skinny dog while crying. the dog was injured and yelping and the boy didn't stop throwing rocks and it fades black.


If anyone wants to take a shot at this feel free

while (avoiding getting hit)
if (conflict imminent)
{talk out of it;}
else
while ( fight =! NULL )
{1 = deweapon aggressor, 2 = demobilize aggressor;}

I think pacifism should be a principle but not a law, because "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I don't believe I'm a pacifist. I don't like hitting people but if it came down to it I don't think I would decide against it. That is of course I had exhausted all other options.

I would say that, as far as I'm aware, I would obey Adder's pseudo code.

People throw around the term pacifist quite a lot.

I think it’s very important to clarify that you can still be a pacifist and defend yourself by any means necessary.

As Malcolm X stated, you have the right to defend yourself by any means necessary in order to protect your family and yourself. It isn’t an act of aggression in its own right; it is the measured response to an act of aggression aimed towards you.

The key word in all of this is ‘Necessary’. If you are attacked by a little old lady with her handbag because she is a little on the ‘special’ side, you may just be wise to move away. And this would be the end of it. If you are attacked by someone who is not corpus mentis i.e. they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and they are brandishing a weapon, then the threat level increases significantly and what you have to contend with is much more deadly. You could even be justified using lethal force if the person was enough of a threat to you. In most one to one situations the teachings of Gandhi do not apply and if you let somebody hit you then they can potentially kill you. Gandhi’s teachings are relevant on the large scale vs regimes and so on.

You would be unwise not to defend yourself against a being that had the desire to hurt you for whatever reason.

The fact that you get a kick out of it just means that you have a warrior’s instinct, you enjoy the adrenaline rush and it is very intoxicating in its own right. Having been a bit of a ‘bruiser’ in younger years I am familiar with this feeling (I will hasten to add that I have never been a bully, but I have dealt with a lot of bullies when I was in school, personally wasn’t bullied but hated seeing it happen).
There is a lot of hurt in the world, but if we don’t stand up for ourselves then as Adder so correctly quoted "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

All the best
K

I'd share my thoughts on Pacifism but I'd hate to get in to an argument over it....

Really though, I do agree that while you can be peaceful, it's not necessary to be so to your own detriment. Hell, sometimes a little lashing can even teach the aggressor a lesson he may not have learned otherwise. As for liking the fighting rush, I can't really comment on that beyond speculation as I'm not you. A little soul searching and some blunt honesty and you'll have the answer to that one all on your own....at least I think you will. There's my 2¢.

I personally don't think that pacifism as in doing completely nothing even when you're beaten can work for anyone, and I agree completely with the given quote. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

You could say I'm a pacifist because I'm opposite to war and violence. But I also believe that sometimes it's necessary to fight back, and it's okay as long as you're in control of the situation - as long as you just defend yourself, not fight for the pleasure of hurting another being. In everyday life I doubt I have ever hit somebody (except for early childhood probably ) because I just prefer talking.

I sometimes have got these horrible dreams when someone attacks me and I start to fight back, loose control, beat the guy really hard and nothing happens to them, but I am exhausted and feel completely empty (and like worst person in the world). And when I was younger I never won wrestling, I was just too scared to hurt others .

Standing up for ourselves or others in a fight is no different from standing up for your beliefs.

I think Gandhi had it right with Satyagraha. Suppose it depends on wether you're willing to give your life for your principles. "There are many causes I would die for, but none I would kil for"
Tseen: I've had the same dream.

What actually means „Pacifism“?
Tseen Keh wrote: I personally don't think that pacifism as in doing completely nothing even when you're beaten can work for anyone, and I agree completely with the given quote. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Standing still while the two thugs stamp on you breaking every bone you have in a dark deserted alley, saying to yourself that you're a pacifist? Or maybe standing quietly on the street until you get beaten in front of the cameras and reporters doing nothing and yelling „I want peace“? Is pacifism passively expressing dissatisfaction with the war and violence or is it a wise way to push ideas in the center of public opinion? Isn't Pacifism just another way to make thing my way?

I do not like violence and war but do we have other option when the war knocks at your own door but to take a weapon and fight? Pack up and leave? Be a Pacifist and die? J, I tried both „staying alive“ options and no I do not like neither. And most of all I don't like the third one.
I dislike the idea that someone kills me while I "peacefully protest", unless of course the whole world doesn't see the recording and decides to respond and I, even if I'm dead, get to my goal. And I'm only speculate now because I was never in this situation before.

To be perfect a pacifist, it is necessary to have Power. It would be nice to just stand and dodge bullets and calmly give a speech to the aggressor that war doesn't lead to anything. But to have the power to do that means also the power to fight back. When should such a powerful person quit trying and simply start using this powers destroy enemies quick and easy. And where is the line? Is it that by doing this a pacifist has ceased to be a pacifist?

I think that pacifist is a very personal definition of acts that ultimately leads to a peaceful resolution of conflicts within the power of diplomacy (a power that is also very personal).

I recall a common reason for learning to fight being, "So I don't have to."

As a Jedi, I think pacifism probably draws the line when you see other conflicts. Granted, when it comes to war, going to war yourself is not helping the situation - when you fight fire with fire, you only get burned.

But, if you have the knowledge of how to fight, and you see someone who is not fighting, but merely being attacked, I think it's safe to say that sometimes it's important to be the one to push back. If someone's being mugged, raped, or beaten then the proper means of pacifism would be to stop the violence by stopping them, wouldn't it?

Of course, there are methods of combat that don't directly harm the other person, too, so maybe that is closer to pacifism than outright punches, jabs, and kicks.

Xiam wrote: But, if you have the knowledge of how to fight, and you see someone who is not fighting, but merely being attacked, I think it's safe to say that sometimes it's important to be the one to push back. If someone's being mugged, raped, or beaten then the proper means of pacifism would be to stop the violence by stopping them, wouldn't it?

Of course, there are methods of combat that don't directly harm the other person, too, so maybe that is closer to pacifism than outright punches, jabs, and kicks.

Yep I agree with this. If the intervention is stop the fight, then its actually intending to reduce the conflict overall compared to letting the assault continue.