Pacifism

[Twilight Hue]

Forgetting morality for a moment, it is entirely practical to not shoot prisoners. Firstly, it is a war crime, with serious penalties. Secondly, when the enemy knows that you are not taking prisoners they tend to fight a lot harder.

Then there came surrendering Waffan SS. Gunned on sight.


As Aseop Fables states in terms of the moral of the story, " No gratitude from the wicked".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Pacifism can create instant (dual) karma

All that we do is 'karma' (any action). What is 'dual' karma?

 

[MonkeyFire]

How long is"prolong"? I should go pacifist halfway through
fending off an attacker?

Passive is for the dead.

And btw, loving " everything" is loving nothing.

We here understand that " love" is in what you do. Not in
how you feel (self indulgence) or talks. (Words are cheap)

I'll be really honest with you. I consider pacifism to be immoral, because it disarms good in the battle against evil.

I encourage pacifism, but like any extreme, too much or too little is completely destructive.

I think a good balance between pacifism and war is in the best interest to maintain equilibrium.

All that we do is 'karma' (any action). What is 'dual' karma?

Non-violence is necessary to not be a sadist, or a murderer. War is real just for the sake of the existence of its own nature, but if you changed nature, the human race, and all which is, would remain the same.

 

[Audie]

Non-violence is necessary to not be a sadist, or a murderer. War is real just for the sake of the existence of its own nature, but if you changed nature, the human race, and all which is, would remain the same.

Nonsense

 

[MonkeyFire]

Nonsense

With out violence we can be alright, but with only violence there is not avoiding ultimate sin.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I don't go looking for fights, but I'm not a pacifist (a person who views all wars as unjustifiable). Some battles are justified, especially those fought in defense of oneself, one's family, and one's country. In Judaism, the Torah teaches us that we may defend ourselves when our lives are threatened -- even to the point of killing.

I also believe that a response to aggression should be measured and kept as minimal as possible. I don't consider that to be pacifism but rather self-restraint.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is the balance. Not just pacifism, not just fights.

 

[Audie]

With out violence we can be alright, but with only violence there is not avoiding ultimate sin.

It would nice if there were no violence.
Fine words won't stop it..

I've even subjected to violence, far beyond
anything you are at all likely to have experienced.

What is your pacifism going to do for you
if you were ever so unfortunate? You think you
would be alright acting peaceful?

As for your twaddle about " ultimate sin" you
are talking nonsense.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Non-violence is necessary to not be a sadist, or a murderer.

If someone enters your home, and points a gun at your children, and you do nothing to stop them from shooting, you are complicit in the blood of your children.

 

[MonkeyFire]

That is the balance. Not just pacifism, not just fights.

Would you have neither, or both?

It would nice if there were no violence.
Fine words won't stop it..

I've even subjected to violence, far beyond
anything you are at all likely to have experienced.

What is your pacifism going to do for you
if you were ever so unfortunate? You think you
would be alright acting peaceful?

As for your twaddle about " ultimate sin" you
are talking nonsense.

Pacifism is about pleasure, and fair karma. If I had to fight for immediate danger it is okay. That is the hippie I am willing to be, but it would be done without harm. My thing is not to end war, but to fix it, and transcend it.

If someone enters your home, and points a gun at your children, and you do nothing to stop them from shooting, you are complicit in the blood of your children.

I see, but I never said I would not defend my family. It is more like I live a non-violent life style the rest of the time, and let cops clean up.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I don't go looking for fights, but I'm not a pacifist (a person who views all wars as unjustifiable). Some battles are justified, especially those fought in defense of oneself, one's family, and one's country. In Judaism, the Torah teaches us that we may defend ourselves when our lives are threatened -- even to the point of killing.

I also believe that a response to aggression should be measured and kept as minimal as possible. I don't consider that to be pacifism but rather self-restraint.

War can be justifiable, but not under God unless God wants to end suffering and still tempt evil spirits at war without hurting them, to prove His Holiness, and create the solider spirit without danger.

 

[Audie]

I don't go looking for fights, but I'm not a pacifist (a person who views all wars as unjustifiable). Some battles are justified, especially those fought in defense of oneself, one's family, and one's country. In Judaism, the Torah teaches us that we may defend ourselves when our lives are threatened -- even to the point of killing.

I also believe that a response to aggression should be measured and kept as minimal as possible. I don't consider that to be pacifism but rather self-restraint.

Proportionale is the word.

And if someone were to try to rape me, nothing less than killing
them would be poeprtionate

 

[Aupmanyav]

Would you have neither, or both?

Pacifism is about pleasure, and fair karma. If I had to fight for immediate danger it is okay. That is the hippie I am willing to be, but it would be done without harm. My thing is not to end war, but to fix it, and transcend it.

I see, but I never said I would not defend my family. It is more like I live a non-violent life style the rest of the time, and let cops clean up.

I would prefer a balance. Killing an enemy who is attacking one's country is "fair karma". Krishna said that performing one's duty will never be counted as a sin.
Now, there cannot be a war in which the enemy is not harmed. War can be fixed only in one way - defeat the enemy, whether it is in the material world or in the psychological world. It is unfortunate but unavoidable. I think you too are a votary of balance.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

War can be justifiable, but not under God unless God wants to end suffering and still tempt evil spirits at war without hurting them, to prove His Holiness, and create the solider spirit without danger.

I don't think that any war should be fought "under God" because extremists who initiate holy wars with what they believe to be God's blessing against those whom they see as heretics are delusional fanatics. For example, it was an Islamist extremist group of delusional fanatics who were responsible for the destruction of NYC's Twin Towers, yet there were people who chose to denounce every Muslim on the face of the earth for that act. Others, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (whom many have viewed as being instigators of Christian extremism in this country) seized the opportunity to blame America's homosexuals for the destruction of NYC's Twin Towers. How are those who used this terrible event to justify and direct their hatred against an entire people any different from the extremists who perpetrate unjustifiable death and destruction against an entire people?

I think that aggression initiated in God's name has more to do with a desire to wipe out the heretic, to "burn the witch," rather than serve as self-defense. There is no reason why the so-called godly cannot live in peace alongside the so-called heretical, unless they choose not to do so because the ways of the heretic offends them.

Proportionale is the word.

And if someone were to try to rape me, nothing less than killing
them would be poeprtionate

If someone tries to rape you, you know that they are not going to stop until they have completed the act. They may not have initially planned to kill you, but they could easily wind up killing you. I agree that nothing less than killing a person who violently violates your body like that would be an appropriate act of self-defense.

 

[Audie]

I don't think that any war should be fought "under God" because extremists who initiate holy wars with what they believe to be God's blessing against those whom they see as heretics are delusional fanatics. For example, it was an Islamist extremist group of delusional fanatics who were responsible for the destruction of NYC's Twin Towers, yet there were people who chose to denounce every Muslim on the face of the earth for that act. Others, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (whom many have viewed as being instigators of Christian extremism in this country) seized the opportunity to blame America's homosexuals for the destruction of NYC's Twin Towers. How are those who used this terrible event to justify and direct their hatred against an entire people any different from the extremists who perpetrate unjustifiable death and destruction against an entire people?

I think that aggression initiated in God's name has more to do with a desire to wipe out the heretic, to "burn the witch," rather than serve as self-defense. There is no reason why the so-called godly cannot live in peace alongside the so-called heretical, unless they choose not to do so because the ways of the heretic offends them.



If someone tries to rape you, you know that they are not going to stop until they have completed the act. They may not have initially planned to kill you, but they could easily wind up killing you. I agree that nothing less than killing a person who violently violates your body like that would be an appropriate act of self-defense.

Having been raped by a sadist, yeah.

Kind of a miracle I survived at all.

The " I'm so enlightened and must certainly
terrif" conceit of some "pacifists" is grossly
unreacistic. And certainly untested.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Having been raped by a sadist, yeah.

Kind of a miracle I survived at all.

The " I'm so enlightened and must certainly
terrif" conceit of some "pacifists" is grossly
unreacistic. And certainly untested.

I am so sorry for what you went through, Audie.

I can't help but feel some contempt for those who, having had the luxury of living their lives in a bubble of safety (thanks to the sacrifices of others), choose to judge those who have not had that luxury.

If a person claims to be a pacifist, then let him pacify himself. He should not judge others who fight to defend their own lives.

In fact, I believe that we should aid others in defending their lives if we possibly can, rather than stand by and do nothing because it runs contrary to pacifism.

 

[Audie]

I am so sorry for what you went through, Audie.

I can't help but feel some contempt for those who, having had the luxury of living their lives in a bubble of safety (thanks to the sacrifices of others), choose to judge those who have not had that luxury.

If a person claims to be a pacifist, then let him pacify himself. He should not judge others who fight to defend their own lives.

In fact, I believe that we should aid others in defending their lives if we possibly can, rather than stand by and do nothing because it runs contrary to pacifism.

Thanks.

Heart emoji.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I'll be really honest with you. I consider pacifism to be immoral, because it disarms good in the battle against evil.

That isn’t true. A pacifist makes evil no more, like turning a light on in a demon.

 

[Audie]

That isn’t true. A pacifist makes evil no more, like turning a light on in a demon.

Mostly the pacifist makes jibberish

 

[metis]

If someone enters your home, and points a gun at your children, and you do nothing to stop them from shooting, you are complicit in the blood of your children.

Many studies have shown that keeping a loaded gun in one's house is more dangerous than not having one.