Woohoo! My first poll ! I voted "Yes, I am a pacifist." because I am one now (the whole story is on the second page of my Peopleaphobic thread, I believe, if anyone is interested).

P.S. I wasn't sure if this should go in Daft or Daily Life so move it if need be.

Edited to Add: Sorry about those random slashes, purely accidental.

Fixed that. =)

I don't think that I'm either.

I had to pick pacifist, because I was raised as one, but I can occasionally condone the use of the military, but only in the interest of the common good of the world, example: blasting Hitler to pieces. For a further discussion on my feelings on the subject, read Rudy Wiebe's Peace Shall Destroy Many, a Canadian novel on the conflicts that the Mennonites went through during WWII. Not the best read ever, but very interesting philosophically. So maybe I should have picked the second option. But then, I hate the wars that go on today and am vehemently opposed to the senseless violence I see around me...

I'd much prefer to see peaceful diplomatic solutions to our problems.

/me kicks stupid politicians and such

Maybe I should have nulled my vote... too late now, though.

I had to pick pacifist, because I severely disagree with any kind of violence, in any respect at all. I think that violence should be our last resort, if it must be any resort at all. If we can reach our goals, and resolve our conflicts through kind, common words, then we have grown as a people. It is far too easy to pick up a weapon and use it against another person. This does not mean that I don't get the urge to occasionally knock some lazy stupid biatch on her arse for messing with me or my friends; but I hold the self-control that allows me to be calm, cool, and collective. I think that one should be able to defend theirself if being attacked, through any means necessary, but any kind of violence again should remain a last resort. If you can disable your enemy/opponant by some lesser means, then you have won the battle of wits and become 'the better man' (or woman in our case ladies).

Although many people think that being a pacifist makes you weak, it is quite the contrary. I work out every day and could quite easily knock some benevolant village idiot on their arse, but choosing not to makes me stronger.


This is part of the reason I started the Hug Cult movement. We need to make a new revolutionary way of thinking in regards to violence. YAY for the 60's ---


MAKe LOVE NOT WAR

i chose to be a pacifist... but it helps that my religion is all for it..

disclaimer: this is not meant to be read as persuasive or as "witness-y." i hate that. i'm just sharing my background on the subject.

Quaker peace testimony:
"We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever; and this is our testimony to the whole world. The spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world."

I find that many people are stoopid. And that the only way to put them in their place is by giving a quick strike at the head with a small stick. Of course, if they retaliate, the most you can do is counter anything they dish at you, and give one final swift blow to the back of the head. Repeat as needed.

I only belive in violence in self defence when all other options have been exhausted. I will not go looking for a fight but when the attacked I'll be on dat arse like white on rice on a paper plate in a snow storm!!! I feel it is the natural order of the wild to defend yourself as needed. But beyond defence, and the preservation of life.. I see no need in violence, it is a waste of time, energy and life. More conflicts could be resolved though dialog if given the chance.

baby! dont lie! i've heard about you taking down that a**



and besides.... geek has a point.



whatever... we all gotta do what we all gotta do.

Ditto. Ravein summed up my feelings right there.

I voted for the non-violent, non-pacifist one.

Although I don't much like the idea of going to war, or violence in general, I do realise it's sometimes necessary to act before the last resort. Put it this way: I'd sooner kick a big ol' rabid dog that i thought was going to gnaw my arse off than try to reason with it or run away. Better to break it's leg or something than to try and fight it off when it's eating me (then again, if I just happened to have a lump of meat handy, I'd be more than willing to come to some sort of agreement). Same goes for war in my opinion. Scare the hell out of them or just hurt them enough to make them back down (think "Shock and Awe), without obliterating them (that's where "Shock and Awe" wen't wrong). However, I'm still not gung ho, and I still oppose the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

PS: Why is this thread not in Issues?

I dont like violence, but that doesnt mean i wont stand up for myself. I will hit someone back if they hit me with intent to hurt me. I dont like violence because i know what its like to be on the receiving end.

Edit: That was more melodramatic than i intended, sorry. I cant think of a better way to write it though, so its staying that way

since this is turning out to be a nice, serious conversation.. I am moving it to issues.

as suprising as it may me to some of you that know me I am actually a pacifist

iolence and do have violent thought i could never truly act upon them or with intent cause someone deliberate pain. i also know that i am incapable of killing someone.

I don't have any specific beliefs regarding pacifism, I just think its smarter to avoid a fight then to dive in head first, fists flying.

Ditto... That and spiffilicious05's post... I agree with both of you. *nods*

I'm pascifist. i cant imagine being anything else. I used to have violent thoughts and such, but that was many years ago. since then ive thought of nothing but how much i care for everyone (yes, even the stupid people who are complete sipsh*ts).

however, recently someoen has been physically messing with a few friends of mine. the term is "hard edge" i beleive. its like a straight edge, except instead of being totally against drugs, its more that they loathe anyone who has anything to do with drugs. i hang out with people who do drugs (not all of them, but most of them). i dont myself, i hate drugs. they destroy is all i can see of them. however, i dont mind my friends doing them, they have their lives, i gave them my opinions on it, they respect that, but they are doing what they want to do. anyways, these hard edge kids have been harassing most of my friends. the other day oen of them started to beat the crap out of on of my friends (i wasnt there unfortunately), then turned around and kicked another for trying to stop him. the two he harmed were both female (as are almost all of my friends). recently they have been seriously harassing them. mmm, lucky for them i havent been there . if i catch them hurting my friends verbally, then im gonna mess with their heads in my witty "i hate you/f--k me" sort of way. and if they are hurting my friends physically, well lets jsut say ninjas flp out.

anyways, i hate violence, even in self defense. ive been beat on a lot and i never so much as said a cross word. but you mess with my friends, the people i love, its all over. its not a willing thing, its reflex. i lose my temper rather easily (im working on that, i hate it, it sucks).

Well we all need to protect ourselves physically sometimes, and hat's when pacifism doesn't suit me.

I sort of subscribe to Ghandi's idea that, even for a pacifist, in a choice between cowardice and violence, the lesser of two evils is violence. Basically, violence would be my second to last resort (last being flight) if someone initiated a fight with me. I would never start a (physical) conflict of my own free will. And no matter what I am completely uncapable of killing. No matter who it is. I mean, I feel guilty squashing mosquitos.

Why is cowardice the lesser of two evils if you come out alive?

Eh? Sorry, but I don't really understand what your asking me. Can you please word it a bit differently?

You said you agree with Ghandi when he said...



Now lets assume you or the person you are dying gets seriously injured. If you flee the worst that is hurt is your ego, but if you fight it could be your life.

So how is killing someone a lesser evil than brusing your ego?

im not pacefist, iv been in several fights before, and come out roughly on top. its not that i enjoy violence particularly, i just like the pounding feeling you get in your chest. a bit primal, i know, but the brain is still quite a primal system

I say better you do it that way than bomb somebody. If we allg ot out our troubles and angers and insecurities through small acts of violence, there would be less war.

Sorry, I worded badly or something I guess. Notice the phrase "sort of". First of all, I said I would never kill anyone, I think, and while I did not specify, I will now. I would only fight until they quit fighting, but if that took until their death, I would flee. Also, I failed to consider that I would be seriously injured or hurt or otherwise disabled, in that case also, I would flee. Sorry again for bad wording.

just more fistfights in the street

the problem with a bomb is that it harms a lot of people, kills even more and damages a lot of lives, and all because of the anger of one person. BUT if the person killed themselves in the bomb attack (a la suicide bomber) then the persons future is kind of erased, agreed? so presumably, the small acts of violence this bomber would have caused will be cancelled out and -probably- much greater than the effect of igniting the bomb. So it would be less harmful, in a way, to set off a small bomb than to live your life and let out stress a little at a time

Noooo, bombs everywhere is bad. Thats why I propose complete technological regression. If people are going to fight, which they invariably will, best it be with sticks and not bombs.

I guess I'm a pacifist. I hate violence in general, and the concept of physically harming someone else seem totally bizarre to me. However (and this is where I get hypocritical) if anyone ever hurt my family, or anyone I cared about, I would hunt them down and kill them. I'd feel no remorse whatsoever.

Sometimes I think that the reason I hate the way society glorifies violence is because I know I'm perfectly capable of being violent if I had to be. My friends joke about "I'm going to kill this guy" and so on, but they don't mean it. I wouldn't say that kind of thing unless I meant it, so that bothers me.

I sound like a psycho now, don't I?

Noooo...but do you eat meat?

Um... no...

Good, so you aren't contradictory and holding a double standard.

Violence does not mean killing. And also due to the fact that people are stoopid, If you think hard enough on your battle stratagy then you can easilly put them in a world of pain. Unless brought to self defence, I'm against the world of pain thing so you have to now how to controll yourself. Basicly what I'm saying is that in many cases, violence is the answer (but listing them would be too tedious). But when we use violence,we must controll it otherwise you are no better than the person you are putting back in line.

That's almost as I feel. Except I believe the list of cases is extremely short. Otherwise, I feel about the same. Except I'm obviously not as good at voicing my opinion as you are (I get frustrated with my dad sometimes, he firmly believes that anyone and everyone who walks into your house and you don't know them and they're not supposed to be there, is to be shot, regardless of if you can tell if they are armed or not, I still love him though, despite my almost exact opposite opinion).

I don't feel like talking about guns right now (totally diferent thread). Im just sayin every now and then some people need to be slapped so that they wise up. And on the offchance that they don't wise up, then they are truly stoopid, for they are inable to adapt to their surroundings.

I would like to say that I am a pacifist. But that is simply not true. While I myself can't bring myself to hurting anyone (unless under proper conditions), and I do not like the idea of killing and bombing and such, I do enjoy the violent movie and video game. So, what can I say....*shrugs*

No, violence does not mean killing, but when debating the lesser of two evils, i see this...

Cowardice-->effect is a bruised ego

Violence-->effect can be a bvruised sholder to death

Which seems a lesser evil?

Sorry If I am nitpicking oon an old tpoint, but this is a fine point to debate.

I don't really consider likeing violent movies and games non-pacifistic, I mean they're just movies and games, none of it's real.

On the point of that cowardice vs. violence thing. I think to an extent violence is a lesser evil. If it gets to the point where someone (you and/or your opponent(s)/ally(ies)) is bleeding, I'd say let your ego take the blow. Um... I guess that's it, if you don't understand what I'm saying. Sorry. I understand my stance clearly witihin, but I can't voice it well yet seeing that I only adopted it recently.

P.S. Oh and the only reason I say violence can be better than cowardice is that, sometimes, it takes violence to deal with violence. Again, if you don't understand what I'm saying, sorry, it's just hard for me to yet put it into words, and it periodically takes slight changes (when I say this change is recent I mean, like, 3 or 4 months ago).

I pride myself on staying uninjured, I don't care if people call me a coward, but if I am hurt, that is bad.


Can you clarify that I don't quite understand what you are saying.

Also, when you are weak, you don't teach people lessons through violence. Hence why I do not teach people lessons through violence.

Basically what I mean is. If it gets to the point where someone/anyone is bleeding, it's gone too far and cowardice is the lesser evil.

Edited to Add: I was just contemplating my pacifism stance thing, and I decided that violence should only be used in cases for the greater good. (EX: Psycho killer who refuses to listen to reason and cannot be caught, then violence is nessecary. Bully at school (or some such place), violence is not required.) So yeah... that's it I think.

yeah... as long as it stays on screen... (sometimes it doesnt but i just cant blame the video game industry.) i like shootin people on screen, but i would never engage in real physical violence in real life. but as stated earlier...
its a primal thing
like roller coasters
and performing on stage
the adrenaline...
so yes... i am agreeing that video games do not = evil.

however,
wow fluffy... you just made me waiver for a second.


yes... you have found violence i can condone... i dont believe in the death penalty... cause the live suffering is so much worse in my opinion, and because killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong is just terrible logic. but, in the chase, and when someone who is guilty feels the fire and rage... they have to be apprehended however necessary...

Good in theory, impossible in practice.