Pacifism

[Audie]

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

"Studies.'

It's for sure more dangerous for the intruder.
They'd way rather guns wreck disassembled and locked away

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But no matter what you say you must have suffered to have fought, and to prolong fighting is evil. War is transgression, and pacifism can give you karma. Fighting should be an absolute final option. Culture is more important, because it is love. There is nothing like being a passive believer, because we respect and love all things, even a fighter, and to each his own.

Why would pacifism be passive?

 

[Ella S.]

I respect pacifists who commit entirely to ahimsa, to the point they even try to avoid saying anything bad about others or making them uncomfortable unless it's absolutely necessary.

Pacifism is simply not what's most important to me and it would only get in the way of me taking more efficient means to achieve the goals I want to reach. For me, acting in accordance with pacifism would be a form of vicious cowardice, shirking from rationally dominant strategies.

For others with different goals, though, pacifism can require extreme courage. It's hard for me to not respect someone that has the fortitude to allow harm to come to them out of a devotion to a higher cause. So I don't believe that pacifism is inherently cowardly. It just doesn't align with what I want from my life, so it isn't a tool that I find use for.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Nah! An eye for an eye.

Makes the whole world blind

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Would you be a pacifist believer? We believe in ahimsa, inner peace, and equanimity as one thing called pacifism. I see pacifism as a religious quality, and a human nature. If you think about it as long as you fight you can’t be in Heaven, because if you did it would be the most sadistic thing, then pacifism is basically impossible to human perception. You have to be hard core hippie to cultivate enough equanimity to make a man faint. With pacifism we easily destroy and inflame good and bad emotions. Be fair to haters to create non-violence or there is no negative energy, and believe in passive temperance. IMO everyone should be passive for two reasons; first, to be happy, and secondly to be healthy emotionally.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

What if others are suffering as a result unjust attacks or abuse? Is fighting then unnecessary?

This is where it gets hard, I think. For one can, through practice, find manners to overcome that which is done to oneself, but to passively witness it being done to another; that, is nearly unbearable (and feels instinctively wrong too).

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Why not cite one? Merely claiming their existence,
& that they support your agenda...that's suspicious.

You don't address having a loaded gun that's
securely stored in a home lacking suicidal
residents. Come on, guy...give us something
more than unsupported propaganda, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you be a pacifist believer? We believe in ahimsa, inner peace, and equanimity as one thing called pacifism. I see pacifism as a religious quality, and a human nature. If you think about it as long as you fight you can’t be in Heaven, because if you did it would be the most sadistic thing, then pacifism is basically impossible to human perception. You have to be hard core hippie to cultivate enough equanimity to make a man faint. With pacifism we easily destroy and inflame good and bad emotions. Be fair to haters to create non-violence or there is no negative energy, and believe in passive temperance. IMO everyone should be passive for two reasons; first, to be happy, and secondly to be healthy emotionally.

Non-aggressionism is better than pacifism.
It's peace as the default, but defense when necessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is where it gets hard, I think. For one can, through practice, find manners to overcome that which is done to oneself, but to passively witness it being done to another; that, is nearly unbearable (and feels instinctively wrong too).

Humbly,
Hermit

I think it's usually possible to choose one's battles, though.

I say this as someone who's never been through a war, but in general, I don't think there's any shortage of suffering that can be relieved without resorting to violence.

IMO, it should feel just as unbearable to know that people are getting hurt or killed in, say, car crashes or drug overdoses as they are in situations where you'd have to kill an attacker to stop a victim's suffering. You could spend uncountably many lifetimes relieving and preventing suffering before running out of situations where you don't need violence to address the suffering.

 

[metis]

I respect pacifists who commit entirely to ahimsa, to the point they even try to avoid saying anything bad about others or making them uncomfortable unless it's absolutely necessary.

Pacifism is simply not what's most important to me and it would only get in the way of me taking more efficient means to achieve the goals I want to reach. For me, acting in accordance with pacifism would be a form of vicious cowardice, shirking from rationally dominant strategies.

For others with different goals, though, pacifism can require extreme courage. It's hard for me to not respect someone that has the fortitude to allow harm to come to them out of a devotion to a higher cause. So I don't believe that pacifism is inherently cowardly. It just doesn't align with what I want from my life, so it isn't a tool that I find use for.

I adhere to Gandhi's approach to ahimsa, however in his and my case pacifism doesn't apply. Instead, it's better to deal with it head on when possible.

 

[Ella S.]

I adhere to Gandhi's approach to ahimsa, however in his and my case pacifism doesn't apply. Instead, it's better to deal with it head on when possible.

I just told one of my associates that I was thinking about that Gandhi quote, "There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for." I would go a step further and say that I live for a cause, because both dying and killing for a cause are taking an easy way out by comparison. She mentioned a quote from Wilhelm Stekel, "The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that is wants to live humbly for one."

I think that summarizes my approach to pacifism nicely. I'll kill for or die for my cause if it's absolutely necessary, but I know that these dramatic actions don't do as much as the more mundane, long-term approaches.

 

[Audie]

I just told one of my associates that I was thinking about that Gandhi quote, "There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause I would kill for." I would go a step further and say that I live for a cause, because both dying and killing for a cause are taking an easy way out by comparison. She mentioned a quote from Wilhelm Stekel, "The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that is wants to live humbly for one."

I think that summarizes my approach to pacifism nicely. I'll kill for or die for my cause if it's absolutely necessary, but I know that these dramatic actions don't do as much as the more mundane, long-term approaches.

Depends on what a 'cause" is.

 

[Nakosis]

Would you be a pacifist believer? We believe in ahimsa, inner peace, and equanimity as one thing called pacifism. I see pacifism as a religious quality, and a human nature. If you think about it as long as you fight you can’t be in Heaven, because if you did it would be the most sadistic thing, then pacifism is basically impossible to human perception. You have to be hard core hippie to cultivate enough equanimity to make a man faint. With pacifism we easily destroy and inflame good and bad emotions. Be fair to haters to create non-violence or there is no negative energy, and believe in passive temperance. IMO everyone should be passive for two reasons; first, to be happy, and secondly to be healthy emotionally.

I find anger and hate to be useful emotions at times. The trick is to use them when needed and quickly let go of them when they are not.

Speak softly and carry a big stick - Theodore Roosevelt

 

[MonkeyFire]

I find anger and hate to be useful emotions at times. The trick is to use them when needed and quickly let go of them when they are not.

Speak softly and carry a big stick - Theodore Roosevelt

The key to hate and sorrow are to temper (help, and fix) them, and let them temper others

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I consider my a pacifist, but only to other humans.

I'm an omnivore and play violent video games. I try not to harm anyone though, including myself. Some people take this position to an extreme, like Jains, but I'm just anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and I don't, and would never, own a gun. That's my pacifism.

 

[Audie]

The key to hate and sorrow are to temper (help, and fix) them, and let them temper others

In English....?

 

[Audie]

I find anger and hate to be useful emotions at times. The trick is to use them when needed and quickly let go of them when they are not.

Speak softly and carry a big stick - Theodore Roosevelt

Those emotions developed because they proved
advantageous.

The "I would never" people ( virtue signalers)
probably are speaking truth, though.

They never would be any use to themselves or to
anyone else.

It's super easy to never have a weapon.

What would be hard is the consequences of
bring totally unprepared to protect one's self,or far
worse, a woman or child who depends on you.

Again " I would never" would be true because
you'd never be able

Here is a truth that every woman and child
knows by instinct: a man who would not
kill to protect is no man at all. Useless,
contemptible.

 

[Audie]

Why not cite one? Merely claiming their existence,
& that they support your agenda...that's suspicious.

You don't address having a loaded gun that's
securely stored in a home lacking suicidal
residents. Come on, guy...give us something
more than unsupported propaganda, eh.

Cant

 

[Revoltingest]

Cant

Supporting claims must be
against some people's religion.

 

[Audie]

Supporting claims must be
against some people's religion.

Of course. That's why I left out the apostrophe