The fatal flaw of Pacifism

[undergroundpanther]

The False Choice of Pacifism

Pacifism is generally considered to be a morally unassailable position to take with respect to human violence. The worst that is said of it, generally, is that it is a difficult position to maintain in practice. It is almost never branded as flagrantly immoral, which I believe it is. While it can seem noble enough when the stakes are low, pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world's thugs. It should be enough to note that a single sociopath, armed with nothing more than a knife, could exterminate a city full of pacifists j There is no doubt that such sociopaths exist, and they are generally better armed. Fearing that the above reflections on torture may offer a potent argument for pacifism, I would like to briefly state why I believe we must accept the fact that violence (or its threat) is often an ethical necessity.

p185
For ethics to matter to us, the happiness and suffering of others must matter to us.


p186
To treat others ethically is to act out of concern for their happiness and suffering. It is, as Kant observed, to treat them as ends in themselves rather than as a means to some further end. Many ethical injunctions converge here-Kant's categorical imperative, Jesus' golden rule-but the basic facts are these: we experience happiness and suffering ourselves; we encounter others in the world and recognize that they experience happiness and suffering as well; we soon discover that "love" is largely a matter of wishing that others experience happiness rather than suffering ...

Read more...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sam_Harris/West_Of_Eden_TEOF.html

[99Pancakes]

1. Boy!

I'd like to beat the crap out of whoever wrote that!!

:sarcasm:

[undergroundpanther]

7. LOL

[bluedawg12]

2. Is there a metaphysical right or wrong? An absolute?

I mean, isn't ethics in the eye of the beholder?

Aren't ethics part of society's values and mores?

If I say the highest value is to spare ones own life and to survive, and it is immoral not to avoid death at all costs because ones own life is the only and highest knowable good, who is to say that is wrong?

If it is correct, then being passive, or pacific, even to the point of ones own death is immoral. No?

Wonder what brought this up tonight?

funny, I was thinking about the human shields that went to Baghdad before shock and awe, just today. I wondered if any had indeed stayed and given how things worked out and all the death that has followed, would the human sacrifice of my theoretical human shield scenario been worth it?

Is dying for something, some idea, ever worth it?

Is it immoral?

Even the lowly earth worm does anything it can to survive, it's a natural instinct.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. I disagree

Because if that is all that pacifism was, Gandhi wouldn't have won.

Pacifism can work when the conditions are correct. One of those conditions is that the opponents must have some moral or ethical beliefs themselves. If they do, then the action of standing up for oneself, combined with the refusal to stoop to behavior that the pacifist finds repugnant, may effectively make the opponents disgusted with themselves.

Pacifism wouldn't work, and doesn't work, when the opponent considers the pacifist inferior, or is psychotic or sadistic. It would only then work to reinforce the opponents' beliefs. That's why it wouldn't work against freepers.

[undergroundpanther]

9. EXACTOMUNDO

Pacifism can work when the conditions are correct. One of those conditions is that the opponents must have some moral or ethical beliefs themselves. If they do, then the action of standing up for oneself, combined with the refusal to stoop to behavior that the pacifist finds repugnant, may effectively make the opponents disgusted with themselves.

Pacifism wouldn't work, and doesn't work, when the opponent considers the pacifist inferior, or is psychotic or sadistic. It would only then work to reinforce the opponents' beliefs. That's why it wouldn't work against freepers.

Oh and BTW Ghandi was Not a big moral hero..
He disregarded 25% of Indias people,the Dalits,(Untouchables)
Ghandi sold out the dalits human rights with The Poona Pact. He was not as good and noble as most people are led to believe who don't know about the Dalits..

Then British Prime Minister MacDonald Ramsay granted the communal award on August 16, 1932 , when Dalits were given a separate electorate. Accordingly, the depressed classes were given seats which were to be filled by election from special constituencies in which they alone could vote, though they were entitled to vote also in the general constituencies.


In reaction to this, Mahatma Gandhi said, “I can understand the claims advanced by other minorities, but the claims advanced on behalf of the untouchables, that to me is the unkindest cut of all.”

“It will create a division in Hinduism,” Gandhi maintained, “which I can not possibly look forward to with any satisfaction whatsoever. I do not mind untouchables, if they so desire, being converted to Islam and Christianity.”


Gandhi went on a fast-unto-death and compelled Dr. Ambedkar to accept reservation through the Poona Pact in 1932 instead of a separate electorate. This means that Dalits should live in slavery instead of asking for others’ support.

http://www.dalitnetwork.org/Documents/Udit%20Raj%2010-20-05.html

[400Years]

26. Gandhi did not really win because of pacifism, the british empire was

in decay and contracting at the time

[EstimatedProphet]

28. But that's part of why pacifism was effective.

[400Years]

33. The empire would have rolled right over them if

it had been in the expansion phase.

I love Gandhi but there is a big myth surrounding the efficacy of pacifism and most of it is supported by claims about Gandhi.

[EstimatedProphet]

35. I agree

My point was that pacifism has a place. Had Gandhi tried it not long after England moved into India, he would never have made it to be a national leader. He would have been shot as a subversive.
Pacifism can work, but it demands that the opponent have a conscience.

[400Years]

56. That's right "it demands that the opponent have a conscience"

You are so right about that.

[DanCa]

4. Question what do you call a person who believes in self deffense only

I am not a totaly pacifist but I do think violence is wrong. but if and when I have to deffend myself so be it.

[undergroundpanther]

6. There are absolutes

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Economist and Philosopher

If someone cares about domination of others lives forthem selff more than others rights to live andpursueehappinesss in ways that don't hurt others,than they are a tyrant not to be tolerated. They harm others,even if they are not directly affecting me.

I say this because protecting others well being fosters my well being being protected from the tyrannicalpeople anddtheirr systems who abuse freedom and trust,seeking dominance and control over others,that tyrantspursuee at any cost to the dominated and to any ruin totheirr lives and well being.

I hate tyrants and I do not want them around.

Tyrants are a threat to life,integrity,justice,sanity, any hope of a peaceful coexistencee in a diverse world,freedom,love and empathy,happiness, human rights and human dignity and all those higher SECULAR ideals that make societies tolerable to live within..like you see in the bill of rights.

[DanCa]

8. Okay I see what your saying now.

Thanks for the post youve given me a lot to think about .

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. I like your quote from John Stuart Mill

I'd add the proviso "resonsible adult" member of a civilised community, though - I think that one should exercise power over children or the mentally handicapped for their own good.

[undergroundpanther]

38. Up to a point

Making them behave for your own convienence,because you are upset,frustrated, or because you feel emarassed is not a good enough reason IMO.

[newspeak]

59. but who props up a dictator?

maybe we should look at our foreign policies and see who really props up these sociopaths. Because if we would have allowed some people in other countries to choose their leaders, their wouldn't be so many despotic dictators. When you have corporations (especially huge multi-corporations) influencing the governments of other countries, then there definitely is a problem. I am always weary of a "self-righteous", we're better than them kind of attitude. That's what gets people in trouble. They become the monsters, they are allegedly fighting, and most of the time, they don't even know it!!!!

[Beam Me Up]

5. "being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves."

...knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world's most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world's only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people's votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don't live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn't be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a "loyal resistance"Ñlike the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire's hands, it would be doomed from the start.

Forming a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand, might mean forsaking some middle class comfort, and it would doubtless require a lot of work. It would mean educating ourselves and others about the nature of the truly apocalyptic beast we face. It would mean organizing at the most basic neighborhood level, face to face. (We cannot put our trust in the empire's technology.) It would mean reaching across turf lines and transcending single-issue politics, forming coalitions and sharing data and names and strategies, and applying energy at every level of government, local to global. It would also probably mean civil disobedience, at a time when the Bush regime is starting to classify that action as "terrorism." In the end, it may mean organizing a progressive confederacy to govern ourselves, just as our revolutionary founders formed the Continental Congress. It would mean being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.

It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.

Paranoid Shift

[Lexingtonian]

10. you'd be surprised at the pleasure of the world's thugs

and sociopaths, whose response to hard pacifists tends to be rather different than the weak of heart and mind imagine in their fear.

The standard intellectual mistake in assessing pacifism is the idea that successful pacificists are passive or not willing to act to minimize the effect of violent actions, i.e. closing gates and locking doors or physical restraint. This is not true. Successful pacifism tends to involve activity and activism substantially exceeding that of the perpetrators of violence. It also involves discovering the fullness of unresolved problems that have led the violent faction to its behavior, then resolving them fully- thereby preventing repetition.

The Quaker experience with violence is that garden variety sociopaths can be readily shamed and -remarkably enough- almost invariably respect or fear adamant and relentless psychological opposition they cannot break from people who treat them as human. In a sense the sociopath's actions are a crude search to find someone more innerwardly real than themselves (a sense they lack) who can prove it.

http://www.quakerinfo.com/quak_pce.shtml

Living Out the Peace Testimony
Friends have held that we should not participate in the wars of humans, or preparations for them. Thus, we have historically refused to be soldiers, refused to pay levies solely for war purposes, refused to work making weapons, and in every other way sought to separate ourselves from warmaking. At various times, Friends have suffered imprisonment, loss of income, and even death for their faithfulness to this testimony.

However, the peace testimony is not just about negatives. It requires us to live as peacemakers - with families, colleagues and neighbors as well as internationally. Over the centuries, Friends have been involved in a variety of efforts such as relief for war victims, seeking to foster understanding among diplomats of hostile nations, mediation, and training people in how to respond nonviolently in conflict situations.

The early Quakers were a very hard and hardy people. After six or eight years of prosecutions by English aristocrats and Puritans and clergy, they gave the reinstated King this letter when he fretted about them as a force in England-
http://www.qhpress.org/quakerpages/qwhp/dec1660.htm

Here's a dry account of the story of William Penn's sword (there are better ones)-
http://www.qhpress.org/quakerpages/qwhp/pennswor.htm

That's what happens when people grow to understand that losing your life is not the most important problem you face.

The Holocaust problem is a famous one. But to look at it closely, it does not refute the principle. The protest of the women in Berlin worked. The fullness of notorious Nazi manipulations and deceptions were implemented for a reason- if their power had been truly absolute and unaffectable by some mass behavior, they would never have bothered with these tricks. Unfortunately, a few surviving traumatized Jews who became opinionmakers came to believe that organized or systematic individual violence was the behavior that would have defeated the Nazi design. This is manifestly ridiculous given who had the machine guns, but it was believed for many bad and wrong and magical reasons.

Likewise, the South African ANC movement imagined for a very long time that mass violence would achieve the breakdown of apartheid. When nonviolent resistance- economic boycotts of white businesses and such- was finally organized and begun on a massive scale in the black townships, apartheid fell within months.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Passive means of resistance against the Nazis could have worked

if implemented earlier.

For example, if the German people had en masse refused to adhere to the announced boycott of Jewish businesses, a trial balloon for the Holocaust, would the Nazis not have had to change their plans?

To take the Nazi example further, a pacifist would have been perfectly willing to help Jews and other persecuted people escape and to thwart the Nazis in other ways (perhaps by "losing" documents or warning potential victims).

U.S. military, conscientious objectors have acted as medics (going unarmed into battle zones to provide first aid to the wounded) and volunteered for medical experiments.

[The Traveler]

13. By the time Hitler takes power

conditions in Germany are so bad that passive resistance may not have worked at all. The average man was desperate, which is not conducive to acts intended to make that average man contemplate the plight of others or event be open to simple reason.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. But at the early stages of Hitler's rule, it would have been even more

difficult to foment violent resistance than to organize passive resistance.

[The Traveler]

43. A very good point

But either would have been tough ... because few knew what Hitler really was, and therefore what to resist. I offer this thought in the context of "it can happen anywhere".

[newspeak]

58. Hitler had to have the financial backing

to bully through his agenda--and he got it from industrialists in Europe and the US. Hitler was created to further an agenda for the elite. He was nothing without their aid. Why? Because of the economic conditions of the world at the time and just like today, an industrial elite who make profits off of chaos, fear and death. Hitler was quoted as saying if it was not for the Jews he would have had to find another scapegoat. You need fear and enemies to control the masses, and I believe he used the Jews for wholesale stealing. If you were arrested, your property was taken from you. During the Civil War, Quakers were murdered for refusing to join in the fight. The Quakers have been in the forefront for social justice throughout their history. Prominent women Quakers were fighting against slavery and were for women's suffrage. They helped make it happen with peaceful civil disobedience, and it took more courage not to use violence.

[The Straight Story]

73. I guess the question is - how was hitler stopped?

In the end, it was not being pacifistic.

[undergroundpanther]

77. He was cornered like a rat

as his Reich was blown to bits around him and he killed himself and murdered his wife Eva Braun.
Rather than face a world that ceased to care about his well being because of the atrocities he did,Hitler like a true bully escaped accountability and loss of control(in his own mind) through death.
Bush's similarities to hitler is scary. and I fear he will be hiding in a bunker with a gun on his last days as Our country suffers.B And this scenario could occur because no one wanted to believe the real danger needed a violent swift response devoid of pity.Nobody wanted to understand the dangers of bullies and obedience and the lessons why one should never by stand.

[undergroundpanther]

17. If those thugs have an ideology

Than they can be worked with.

But if they do not care they cannot be reasoned into caring.

If they don't care I feel you are under no obligation to care about them.Sociopaths thrive on misplaced pity.They abuse TRUST.

If you want to throw yourself into their bullets and call that noble maybe it will be to you.I in some cases disagree. And sometimes creative "third way" approaches are brilliant sometimes but too often become temporary interferences that they get wise to,or even worse co opt and use against you..

I, on the other hand am willing to consider what it really takes to STOP THEM.And sometimes sacrificing yourself won't stop anything.Sometimes you have to destroy.And when you claim to be so creative yet you choose to close off options because you are fearful of doing it or you misplace your pity on someone who does not care,you are choosing in some cases to be immoral.Sometimes self sacrifice is immoral.Killing is not torture. Killing is not rape,Torture and rape make suffering so to me it is WRONG always. Killing however is not always wrong.Sometimes it is moral. I prefer need to leave all the options on the table(except torture and abuse because they are wrong) I want my ethical compass to be clear and not clogged up with preferences and fears and whatever that sometimes amount to self deception..in the face of a real danger not just to me,but to others and their chances of a life.I cannot let a tyrant live if that tyrant will never stop seeking to ruin others lives relentlessly because he gets pleasure that way.
You owe nobody your trust ,especially if the people you are up against have no shame and do not care, and will abuse your trust and use your compassion to crush you and the others you failed to protect because of your own beliefs.

I do not believe quakers can cure sociopaths consistently and implant empathy into them because if they did quaker techniques would be used in every correctional facility.If you quakers managed to help a few good for you guys.But I don't think we have the time or the resources or power to reach the people in any meaningful way who are the biggest threat to our civil rights and freedoms with quaker counseling.

[Lexingtonian]

34. Perhaps.

I think you're thinking out loud in this post, and I have a feeling you're still struggling with appearances and images and models you have arrived at more than the realities.

You think your thinking is the toughest, psychologically most penetrating, and most realistic. I believe you are mistaken.

There is emotional submission by psychologically weak people. There is empathy of psychologically strong people. You lump the two too easily. The rejectionism you engage in is the behavior of people of rough parity in psychological strength to the garden variety sociopath. The closer you see yourself matched to him in that area, the greater your fear of him and the greater your need to prevail as a matter of ego preservation, and the more easy to choose to match or exceed him in less than moral means- though by collectively declaring such means legal, a moral fiction is maintained.

Quakers have always been small minorities. Though there is no pride taken in this, the view taken is that mainstream non-Quaker society consists of a more intensive condition of people mistakenly engaged in 'notions', in priorities and theories and misplaced importance of things that distract from the essential, from what every person has known by experience at some point in their lives about the full reality of the world and human life. Quakers order their lives according to the fullness of reality, in their view, and life is either preparation for service in that reality or engagement in a service called to- the many kinds of work, mostly very humble, needed to dispell the most tangible obstacles between the present condition of mankind and self and that state of redemption and unity that can be attained. In this frame what is worth living for is what is worth dying for- which is a higher bar than the brutish set themselves.

Quaker prisons did exist in Pennsylvania. The local people- a majority was always non-Quaker- abolished them because they were based in an idea of rehabilitation, not the desired retribution.

In practice people see both the humanity and inhumanity of the tyrant more clearly as they become closer observers, and they find their blaming one man failing because they recognize how much he is like themselves, how accurately he or she reflects the humanity and inhumanity of the society as a whole that is in a rampage rather than being a demonic, alien, entity. After 2,000+ Americans killed in Iraq, not one parent or sibling has tried to assassinate Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld yet despite their criminality.

[undergroundpanther]

37. Earth to...Quaker???

>I think you're thinking out loud in this post, and I have a feeling >you're still struggling with appearances and images and models you >have arrived at more than the realities.

That is a very arrogant assumption you are making about me.You don't KNOW me.You gonna "read my beads" now oh enlightened one?? lol.
I have experience with quakers and I know quaker history.

>You think your thinking is the toughest, psychologically most >penetrating, and most realistic. I believe you are mistaken.

I think we disagree.I think your thinking is religion.

>There is emotional submission by psychologically weak people. There >is empathy of psychologically strong people. You lump the two too >easily. The rejectionism you engage in is the behavior of people of >rough parity in psychological strength to the garden variety >sociopath. The closer you see yourself matched to him in that area, >the greater your fear of him and the greater your need to prevail as >a matter of ego preservation, and the more easy to choose to match or >exceed him in less than moral means- though by collectively declaring >such means legal, a moral fiction is maintained.

Actually I have been tortured as a kid and as an adult by the"for your own good" types in a QUAKER hospital.I am very wary of what self described "enlightened"people do with power because I know what goes on with that shit personally.My sister was a quaker so I am quite familiar with quaker arguments. I just disagree with your assumptions.

>Quakers have always been small minorities. Though there is no pride >taken in this, the view taken is that mainstream non-Quaker society >consists of a more intensive condition of people mistakenly engaged >in 'notions', in priorities and theories and misplaced importance of >things that distract from the essential, from what every person has >known by experience at some point in their lives about the full >reality of the world and human life.

And do you know,Human life is hard because of the human condition.We each cope the best we can and try to offer help to each other in whatever means we can.
Reality does not care what EITHER of us think about morality.The way the world is it is oblivious to us and our concerns.The only way we can make life better is to work for everyones happiness, including protecting it ,so if some people find their happiness is found in ruining others lives and inflicting traumas than they are incompatible with humanity happiness and they choose it because they are different.This is not anyones fault that some humans are toxic and cannot be trusted.



>Quakers order their lives according to the fullness of reality, in >their view, and life is either preparation for service in that >reality or engagement in a service called to- the many kinds of work, >mostly very humble, needed to dispel the most tangible obstacles >between the present condition of mankind and self and that state of >redemption and unity that can be attained. In this frame what is >worth living for is what is worth dying for- which is a higher bar >than the brutish set themselves.

I don't believe in a god.There is no"redemption" to strive for,no nice daddy seeing if we are naughty or nice up in the sky.I do not believe because if I was to believe in god I'd have to hate god if it is the game playing god of the bible and most religions that created this mess called life and created everything including evil to make life in this world this way. I do not believe torture or "touching evil"is necessary to make people good or to learn lessons or whatever.MY life is worth nothing, but I have chosen to stand by others and their rights to be because I know what people are capable of when they think no one cares.And who do you think the brutish are? People like me? You think quaker beliefs insulate you from brutality??? I don't think so.

>Quaker prisons did exist in Pennsylvania. The local people- a >majority was always non-Quaker- abolished them because they were >based in an idea of rehabilitation, not the desired retribution.

And those prisons made the prisoners want to kill themselves.Boy that is an example of mercy and redemption.
And why haven't quakers rehabbed the pedophiles and taught the prison therapists to do it too? Because they can't be rehabbed because there is a little problem called free will.Which means if someone choses sociopath chooses to abuse and sees no reason to stop it they will not stop unless it "costs" them too much to try to get away with it.. And quaker prisons were not always paragons of mercy like you portray. The isolation of prisoners was and still is sadistic in a "peaceful" way ..because it made them insane.
Both the penitentiary and the modern asylum are American Quaker in origin. The asylum was popularized by Samuel Tuke’s 1813 book on the York Retreat. The jail derived from the Quaker and much earlier monastic practice of putting a person in a solitary cell with a Bible until he became sorry. DeTocqueville wrote Democracy in America ,and his other book concerns our penitentiary system, in which he notes the advent of the stricter, more regimented Auburn system contemporaneous with more ameliorative Quaker reforms in Pennsylvania. And considering that fact ,I do not trust quakers to fix anything really.The power of self deception is not absent from Quakers or any other devout believers.Quakers dominate people too. And because of that problem of choice and free will quakers just do it just in a different "understated"style that looks tidier and nicer to outside observers.

And I can say firsthand solitary confinement hurts.. after I spent 18 months in a quiet room in a QUAKER mental hospital,because staff wanted to'cure' me of Dissociation they thought was Schizophrenia they traumatized me more and made me crazier... I know that silence and solitary confinement can hurt your brain.The bible is a sick book.I know you disagree but frankly the bible is some crazy making bullshit abusive belief system. Solitary and silence is but another kind of torture dude,Death is far more kind,that is why prisoners in quaker jails tried to off themselves..Quakers haven't earned my respect,they are religiously motivated control freaks that just appear nice until they have you in their system..

>In practice people see both the humanity and inhumanity of the tyrant >more clearly as they become closer observers, and they find their >blaming one man failing because they recognize how much he is like >themselves, how accurately he or she reflects the humanity and >inhumanity of the society as a whole that is in a rampage rather than >being a demonic, alien, entity. After 2,000+ Americans killed in >Iraq, not one parent or sibling has tried to assassinate Bush or >Cheney or Rumsfeld yet despite their criminality.

I NEVER raped anyone,abused anyone ,and I am not like a sociopath,.I am capable of killing, yeah.But committing torture and forcing someone to stay in solitary for 18 months ??!!Hell no that is just barbaric and I recoil from such stuff. You so called peaceful enlightened quakers are not as realistic as you like to believe you are..
My sister QUIT quakers after like 7 years because she saw the same flaws in your assumptions,she saw what your practices had done to me she looked into quaker HISTORY and was appalled..And why do you think that was,maybe the same reason there aren't many quakers.

[Lexingtonian]

46. well

I don't actually know of any Quaker hospitals, and there is a saddeningly distinction between the brand name and its various (ab)uses and the people I know who are the real article. Not all who claim the label are wonderful or even insightful people- perhaps the stronger the claim is asserted, the more doubtful the substance, as among religious groups throughout American society. I have my share of arguments with many, and some are sadly not much distinguishable from fundamentalists.

The reason there are not and will never be many Quakers is that true mystical religion is terrifically hard and too much to bear for many people. There are plenty of people like you and your sister who decide your beliefs are better invested fully in the material world as it is. That is a right thing to do under many circumstances.

I don't know what a God has to do with anything here, I didn't mention such a thing because it merely adds distraction and theism is dispensible to me- I have no argument with it and no need. On the whole, you're imputing a whole bunch of religious views on me and the supposition that I have a partisan and uncritical and orthodox view of Quaker history. It's not that easy.

I'm sorry for your pain and that the method used was badly and unwisely applied by people who didn't understand it or your real needs. But I am also sorry that it all apparently blinded you to what was and is good of it. There is, as something of a consequence of your particular fixed ideas, a glaring paradox in your ideas about redemption- you beat a strawman God about its common magical misdefinition, and then you say you do live in ways that are more or less the literal or proper definition of the term. Maybe there's some more sorting out necessary.

[undergroundpanther]

48. ok...

I don't actually know of any Quaker hospitals, and there is a saddening distinction between the brand name and its various (ab)uses and the people I know who are the real article. Not all who claim the label are wonderful or even insightful people- perhaps the stronger the claim is asserted, the more doubtful the substance, as among religious groups throughout American society. I have my share of arguments with many, and some are sadly not much distinguishable from fundamentalists.

The reason there are not and will never be many Quakers is that true mystical religion is terrifically hard and too much to bear for many people.

What makes you think your religion is so "special",alot of religions say their views are'elite'Because you don't know ANYTHING about my spiritual side you make insulting assumptions.And I'll tell you right now it's not as materialistic as you assume.Ever hear of Gnosis?


There are plenty of people like you and your sister who decide your beliefs are better invested fully in the material world as it is. That is a right thing to do under many circumstances.

It is and it isn't. This world for me is PRISON and alot of people live in a state similar to Plato's cave and they prefer their fetters and that is saddest of all.The world is crazy in pain.. and you have no clue how bad it hurts to see and feel and have the things I see. You just do not know.So please do not be so arrogant,because you don't know me.

I don't know what a God has to do with anything here, I didn't mention such a thing because it merely adds distraction and theism is dispensable to me- I have no argument with it and no need.

Cool Theism works for you,Mal-theism works for me.

On the whole, you're imputing a whole bunch of religious views on me and the supposition that I have a partisan and uncritical and orthodox view of Quaker history. It's not that easy.

Well you said alot of stuff defending them as if they were somehow more saintly than the rest.Your replies smacked of elitism..and that is the stink of enlightenment you know.

I'm sorry for your pain and that the method used was badly and unwisely applied by people who didn't understand it or your real needs. But I am also sorry that it all apparently blinded you to what was and is good of it.

Some things are not good.Some parts of reality are not mixed with good like most of reality that is in a mixed state.., some things ARE radical evil.

There is, as something of a consequence of your particular fixed ideas,

Heh fixed Ideas fixed today unfixed tomorrow. This is the web.And you are gonna psychoanalyze me from your armchair. Dude I have heard it all before.


a glaring paradox in your ideas about redemption- you beat a strawman God about its common magical misdefinition, and then you say you do live in ways that are more or less the literal or proper definition of the term. Maybe there's some more sorting out necessary.

Yeah you sort it out. But you will never know my perspective. lets start there.Your opinion about me is already fixed.This is how it appears to me. Prove to me I am wrong,please.Maybe it's your writing style?
To me there is alot about reality that is UNKNOWN.I don't think redemption is a thing gods dole out.It's something within that you fight to hold onto, like a dim memory of otherness.I don't know what happens to my consciousness at death..I'll find out when I die.Most religions are not HONEST enough to even consider they do not have the answers or THE WAY.But religions are experts at pretending they have answers and they think the claims in old books prove gods are "good" or even that they exist,or that it's ok reality has to hurt like this.We all can try to help,try to heal regardless..

And we choose to do that because it was "created" fucked up and some of us find a fucked up state unnatural compared to what they are.I am agnostic on the unknown,and my theism is Malthiest because life suffers and "god" of 'creation'does nothing about it.The whatever it is that is beyond the "lord" tries but is powerless here..Regardless of my hatred of "the creator" ..I think all deliberate torture is wrong,The concept of hell is evil,evolution is disgusting,and there is NO GOOD IN IT.And death is mercy compared to torture.Prayer never stopped a rapist.A gun however will.The lord(system) of this world is evil.

Any god that creates some beings to be his vessels of wrath to torment for eternity is evil.The Christian and monotheist gods have no sense of morality,that is why they harm life through their believers.

I wait for death,I actually look forward to it.I hate this place.
Upon death the consciousness in me stops,and I am gone poof,
or I get a chance to escape this prison,maybe find my true source which is not anything like the spirit of here.
or I will have some other situation to deal with. I just don't know yet. I can hope something out there cares but I'm not gonna hold my breath or fool myself either,there are forces that hold the souls here because they need to exploit them to feel alive(archons)they attack the minute a person is born to dim their brilliance and close their spiritual eyes. All I know is this existence is NOT my home.It's not natural to me at all.It hurts because I can feel and see it.And I am sad for it all.Sad it is what it is and it is so messed up and I cannot change it really all that much.I help when I can.however I can and having a clear discernment is very important for you are responsible for what you choose and do and don't do..

[LWolf]

20. Thank you

:thumbsup:

from this pacifist.

[The Traveler]

12. Ambrose Redmoon defined

1) Courage as being the realization that something else is more important than your fear.

2) A warrior is one who is compelled to place his or her body between evil and innocence.

If you accept these definitions, then many pacifists may be regarded as courageous warriors. I think now of those incredibly effective passive resistance techniques that were deployed so effectively in the sixties.

In my view, pacifism is best regarded as a strategy, rather than a religion or ideology. There are those would would gladly feed the participants of a sit in to their dogs. Simply put, there are opponents one must fight and put down simply because they are so vile and relentless ... and there are others one may resist through the methods of King and Ghandi. Strategy and tactics must be formed in response to the conditions one faces.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wickerwoman]

15. "pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die"

Actually, I think pacifism is ultimately an unwillingness to kill. As others have pointed out more eloquently that I can, pacifism is not the same as passivity (as an extreme example, take the monks who burned themselves to death to protest the Vietnam War.) The mistake of this author is to assume that violence is the only possible action in response to tyrants, sociopaths, et al. I think violence is always a failure of imagination. I can act out of concern for the happiness and suffering of others and to stop others from dying without using violence. And so could anyone else if they had the patience and imagination to come up with an alternative.

[undergroundpanther]

16. By all means be creative

but sometimes all your creativity will not stop someone intent on remaking the world in their own design.You have to destroy them.

A rabid dog is still someones beloved pet a living creature.
But the dog is sick, he may or may not feel tormented but he is dangerous regardless and you can't trust the dog because of the virus that is fucking with his mind.

Some humans under the infection of certain kinds of mental viruses(beliefs and personality problems) are as unreasonable,fixed and focused as rabid dogs.People that are zealots and con men sociopaths wear a mask of sanity to hide what they are doing as long as it is required,or as long as it is believed in to get what they want.They are incapable of introspection..feeling guilt or shame.


And not everyone in a crisis has the time to pick apart the mental defenses and mind games of sociopaths before they destroy a country,kill someone else,hurt an innocent kid. Sadly often as in the case of germany mentioned before ,the masses are too ignorant ,self absorbed,overworked,comfy,traumatized,propagandized or whatever to see the bad things the regime is doing for what it IS..they call the vilagent people warning about the coming dangers conspiracy theorists and paranoids and blow them off until the danger is entrenched and hard to stop without serious consequences. Sadly alot of america is like germany in the early days of the nazis they are insistent on a fantasy that bush and his kind are not as dangerous to our freedom ,our country and human rights as they are.

And if they cling to the fantasy because reality is just too scary than what kind of horrors are you willing to endure to wait until they wake up..what if they decide to not wake up and join instead what they think are the winners like all cowards do?

Too much of America has lost it's human,practical ethical wisdom needed to understand what a threat to freedom IS,and because they no longer want to be vilagent they get lost in theories and ideologies fragile beliefs that break down when the truth hits too close to home and they are forced to pull their heads from the dirt or die...

[wickerwoman]

18. It's a thorny moral point, I agree.

But I don't think the rabid dog analogy holds. After all, what do we do to rabid dogs? We kill them so they don't experience pain or hurt others. But no one (I hope) would suggest simply killing mentally ill people for a condition they can't help. One of my cousins is schizophrenic. When he goes off his meds, he is scary and as you said, unreasonable, fixed, focused and incapable of feeling guilt or shame. When he's back on his meds he feels so much guilt and shame, he is often suicidal. Perhaps the kindest thing would be to kill him or let him kill himself but I sure as hell would never put myself in the position of judge over who deserves life and who doesn't. Properly medicated and taken care of, he is able to hold down a job, has a steady girlfriend and two kids that adore him.

You argue that we don't have time to pick apart their mind games. But we don't need to talk them down from the ledge to remove them from power. All you need is a team of secret service and some heavy sedatives. You can institutionalize them and then sort out their problems. The good news is there are a lot more of us than of them.

As you say, the principle problem actually isn't the behaviour of the sociopath- it's the gullibilty of the masses. If we could convince a critical mass of people that Bush really is dangerously insane, removing him from power would not require violence. (Incidently, I don't think removing Bush from power with violence would work. It would just cause everyone to rally around him.) After all, the great progress that America represents is the possibility for bloodless transfer of power.

As for people losing their wisdom, last time I checked, Bush's numbers are in the toilet. Clinton was never more popular than when they were trying to impeach him. I will never forget the complete disconnect between the media hammering on and on and everyone I talked to being totally sick of the whole thing. I think people are a lot smarter than we (and especially the media) give them credit for.

Anyway, I'd say now is about the worst possible time to abandon pacifism.

[undergroundpanther]

39. Why should

Goodhearted people die to save the life of someone who does not care for the goodhearted who desires and acts to hurt the goodhearted when they are not attaking the attacker?

Some people have no consience and they can't be trusted to act in a way that is non abusive in social situations.It's because people with no consience choose to abuse with the aims of getting away with it..
Why should a bully be permitted to ruin the lives of everyone around him because he is fucked up and dangerous?
Mentally ill people are not always dangerous.They might be strange but strange is not a punch in the face or a gun in your face.
Handicapped people suffer but they are not raping people for jollies..

(Unless the handicapped person or mentally ill person has no consience than they are a sociopath not to be trusted like the other able bodied sociopaths.)

[wickerwoman]

47. Why should a bully be permitted to ruin the lives of everyone around him?

He shouldn't. We agree on this much.

I just don't think it's necessary to kill him to stop him from harming others. Restraint and medication would work just as well and would keep the blood off our hands.

If someone is coming at me with a knife, I have a right to kill them to protect myself. I don't have a right to kill someone just because they're a sociopath and don't care about other people. Unfortunately, that's just the universe we've been given. Watch "Minority Report" again- it's a very smart movie. Even if we are 100% sure that someone will commit a crime, does that give us the right to lock them away (or kill them) before they actually do it? I don't think so. Likewise, you can't just go around killing people for being evil bastards. Either they're in the act of violating you, in which case, fire away, or they aren't, in which case restraint is the answer.

[undergroundpanther]

49. Agreed

He shouldn't. We agree on this much.

I just don't think it's necessary to kill him to stop him from harming others. Restraint and medication would work just as well and would keep the blood off our hands.

If someone is coming at me with a knife, I have a right to kill them to protect myself.

What if someone is torturing or raping others.He is not coming at you,but he is dangerous.

I don't have a right to kill someone just because they're a sociopath and don't care about other people.

It depends on how far they go if they abuse and rape and torture...

Unfortunately, that's just the universe we've been given. Watch "Minority Report" again- it's a very smart movie. Even if we are 100% sure that someone will commit a crime, does that give us the right to lock them away (or kill them) before they actually do it?

Nope.But also we shouldn't pretend a crime of violence and a pattern of violence is not serious and blame the victims.. this happens far too much in our society.People sometimes almost close their eyes and play technicality games to exempt evidence to pretend a sociopath is not committing crimes.

I don't think so. Likewise, you can't just go around killing people for being evil bastards. Either they're in the act of violating you, in which case, fire away, or they aren't, in which case restraint is the answer.

If they violate others I care.Just as if they were violating me.

If it's an asshole problem ,of course restraint and social avoidance works until someone is hurt.

And minority report was a good movie ,but I don't want to see it again because the puke stick scene was just too horrible.Don't wanna see that again Ugh!I'm emetephobic.They ruined a perfectly good movie with that crap.Eeeew.

I wish you could order movies with all the puke scenes taken out.

[LWolf]

21. If I destroy some humans

because they are zealots, I become what I have destroyed. They still "win," even from death.

If violence is not an appropriate response to conflict, it is not an appropriate response to conflict. When I start picking and choosing, ("It's ok against these people, or for this reason,"), I've done exactly what the current thugs have.

[undergroundpanther]

40. Yeah

But would you rape and torture people just because you can get away with it?

I would rather simply kill the sociopaths that choose to torture people.

I am not a sociopaths because I do not want to torture anyone,I want to stop the torturers and stop torture itself by stopping the people who do it.

There is NO moral equivalency here.

Death is preferable to torture.Death does not magnify suffering and trauma the way torture does.Torture is wrong always.Death is not.
Killing is sometimes the most moral option.
I know some people believe killing is ALWAYS wrong. I don't.

I believe torture,rape,pedophilia and violence against people not harming you or others is always wrong.

[LWolf]

52. I believe the same, with one phrase deleted:

I believe torture, rape, pedophilia, and violence against people is always wrong.

I don't think we should begin deciding that torture is ok as a method to gain information from a suspected terrorist, for example. When we start deciding that torture is ok in some circumstances, we lose credibility. We become hypocrites willing to cross the lines of decency for our own gain.

The same goes for violence.

[undeterred]

22. Yeah, lets attack pacifists and pacifism

They're responsible for most of the worlds problems. :sarcasm:

[rman]

23. It worked pretty well for Ghandi

I think pacifism is a strategy to be used when it fits the situation.

[400Years]

27. not really

Decline of an empire worked well for Gandhi.

[rman]

31. Are you saying Ghandi's efforts were all for nothing?

He and the Indian people could just have sat back and watch the Brittish empire decline, and the end result would have been the same?

[400Years]

32. No, his efforts were effective because the empire was declining

If they were in an expansion phase the outcome would have been different.

[rman]

53. So, pacifism -did- in fact work well for Ghandi,

it's just that it wasn't the only factor.

[400Years]

57. no, death of empire worked well for Ghandi.

[rman]

69. But it would not have worked as well without Ghandi's efforts

By your own admission:

"his efforts were effective because the empire was declining"

So, death of the empire was a factor, as was Ghandi's exersize in pacifism.

[Jim__]

24. The author doesn't have much of an understanding of pacifism.

From wikipedia: Pacifism is opposition to war. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from a preference to use non-military means for resolving disputes through to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, in any circumstance.

Pacifism may be based on principle or pragmatism. Principled pacifism is based on beliefs that either war, deliberate lethal force, violence or any force or coercion is morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism does not hold to such an absolute principle but considers there to be better ways of resolving a dispute than war or considers the benefits of a war to be outweighed by the costs.More...

Based on that definition, for many types of pacifism, the author's contention: ... that a single sociopath, armed with nothing more than a knife, could exterminate a city full of pacifists, is just plain wrong.

As for his other contentions, such as: For ethics to matter to us, the happiness and suffering of others must matter to us, I've never seena convincing argument that the way to eliminate people's suffering and bring them happiness is through violence. That typeof reasoning is the current rationale for invading Iraq; we're going to bring peace and democracy to this suffering people. Uhh, make that peace and democracy or death. It seems liek the Iraqi people might have wanted some say in this.

Violence is not the solution.

[loyalsister]

25. Using the word "sociopath" here is inappropriate

It is a pretty unusual for a sociopath to gain the kind of power described.
In fact, we can name the most recent points in history.
Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and unfortunately, our Current president.
If it were as common as claimed the world would have been taken over by them.
My point is that throwing words around loosly is irresponsible in a general technical snse, as I presume you are describing soldiers who has gotten the killing order.
I agree that defending against that does not necessarily violate the selective application form of Pacifism that can exist.
For example, I still believe that the Japanese hold dear the belief in Pacifism despite the fact that they are looking to increased militarism at this point.
I sincerely believe that they regret it, but someone has probably got to help stop us at some point.

[undergroundpanther]

42. Actually

1 in 4 people statistically are sociopaths

Learn about it

http://groups.msn.com/PSYCHOPATH/linkl12.msnw

[loyalsister]

51. I disagree

That is a very loose definition.
A person who has traits of a disorder but not the full diagnosis is more likely to have some restraint in their personality to prevent the kinds of extreme behaviors described.
Such people are being included to bolster the statistics. Not only that, Personality disorders differ.
Violent tendencies are not necessarily a part of it, They CAN be. It will depend on socialization, etc. Thus, my argument.
There are too many variables.
For example, comparatively few of the women will express their sociopathy by becoming serial killers. This is because the are socialized to not be violent.
Case studies are a joke.

The perfect opportunity for violent sociopaths for whom the conditions above were met to acheive position of governing with exceedingly high frequency for the authors argument to work.

[undergroundpanther]

60. Well

I think if more people were aware of the traits they'd avoid them and would not trust them.Some people will hurt you if you trust them and they exploit pity and our own vunerabilities.

http://groups.msn.com/PSYCHOPATH/linkl12.msnw

http://www.bullyonline.org

A sociopath is more likely than not to rise to a higher station in life simply because they will do anything to succeed. The most powerful are frequently sociopathic.

[loyalsister]

61. Your calculations have a flaw

You are neglecting to factor in arrogance. Arrogance is the self destructive flaw that leads sociopathic individuals to tempt fate and gamble repeatedly.
They are often trying to outsmart someone or circumventing some kind of rules. Taking those considerable risks gets them caught more frequently than your nightmares would allow.
You are not using fact based evidence. Andectodes are getting you as close to a reasonable theory as Hamlet.

[undergroundpanther]

62. Yes they are arrogant

But arrogance is sometimes seen as"self esteem" nowadays by people who can't see the differences.
And yes I agree some sociopaths get themselves busted because they are so full of themselves.
Others seem to have a particular thing they get off on ,that "signature" that gives them a rush to see people jump. And if you don't know what it is it may be harder to catch them in our atomized culture where communities are more transient as people move all over chasing jobs.. and people don't know their neighbors well.

[loyalsister]

71. I still maintain that

A person who has just a few of the features of a personality disorder is not necessarily likely to be anywhere near the category to which you are trying to assign them.

[undergroundpanther]

72. But when it does line up

What do ya do?

And sadly alot of people have those personalities.Some worse than others.I think the damage they did/do is what determines danger they are to society.

I think it's best in this mess we got to start to intervene with these sociopath kids when they are little kids when they begin to realize domination gets them power early on.
We owe it to society to try to help them develop a sense of empathy to control themselves with before they get fixed into sociopaths as teens/adults.That is the only thing that seems to help at all.

Also we need to help other people who are not sociopaths .They desperately need to be educated about this problem in some peoples personalities and be made aware of what manipulation and rhetoric is, and get some insight into the dangers of sick interpersonal dynamics,and sick groups so they know better and will not enable or trust these sociopaths or get hooked by their abuses,charisma and con games.

But our culture is woefully not with it in these respects.
And I do not see help coming for this problem in the near future.
Meanwhile sociopaths occupy the white house and other positions of authority and power,and abuse their families.

[loyalsister]

79. Another problem in our culture

is that we allow psychologists to publicize nonevidence based theories on vanity presses to make a few bucks.
It's called pop-psychology.
They are constantly creating a tangled mass of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" phenomenon.
There have been psychologists marketing ideas that are basically groundless to the masses for years creating a rash of self diagnoses of nonexistent "illnesses" and apparently, fear.

There are other reasons for bullying that are discounted here. For example, being the scapegoat in an abusive family.
You are working from assumptions that would stigmatize kids. There are other reasons for bullying. It is much much more complicated than- the kid's a sociopath.
People need to recognize it when they are being conned, but pushing more pop psychology isn't the way to do it.

[undergroundpanther]

82. Hey

I was a scapegoat in an abusive family. And I did not become a bully. Why is that?

I think at some point a kid (or adult) makes a decision no matter how good or bad their life is about their conscience. To either have character or to say fuck character,and identify with the abuser, to fuck others have fun doing it and do it without shame because that's what everyone who gets ahead in life does anyways. The rationales are many but the choice is the same..

And that's what people who by stand,enable bullies or who are bullies don't want to hear.The fact bullying,instigating and being an asshole to people NOT harming you or others is always a CHOICE.


I never made the choice to be a bully maybe it's because my CONSCIENCE would not let me and so I chose to not kill my own conscience to get away with vengeance to compete with assholes who hated me for no reasonable reason..

[loyalsister]

83. Once again

a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. This is an oversimplified analysis of sociopathy that sounds like it might be based on looking around at people who have screwed you over or something.
I know a guy who had a limited reading of psych and found himself in a position of vulnerability. Once that happened, he discovered that yes, there are some mean people in this world who will steal $40 from people who are poor and vulnerable. Who does that? People who are desperate (for whatever reason- kids, drugs, etc) but aren't smart enough to steal in ways that they can get a lot of money are the ones who might steal a small amount of $$ from someone who is vulnerable. A petty thief, in other words. But, since it happened to him, the thief was labeled a "sociopath."
People don't "make decisions" about whether or not to be defective and grow up to be capable of murder. This happens during childhood.
I was also a scapegoat in an abusive family, and went through a phase of bullying in my early adolescence. I had a lot of rage and nothing to do with it. It was terrible. I felt guilty after the incidents not by choice- naturally. It was a very confusing time. I grew out of it. I currently live my life at bottom of of the ladder due to disability and advocate for myself and others.
You can't apply a limited reading of psychology to everything that goes wrong in your personal job experience, etc.

[GumboYaYa]

29. There is a difference between pacifism and nonviolence.

nonviolence means living one's life free from hate and greed as a motivation for actions. Pacifism on the other hand is the objection to violence in any form at any time.

Everyone has a role in the world. One must know one's self and the role that person plays. As a result, one may have to make seemingly contradictory choices. For example, the surgeon who must remove a limb to save a patient has committed violence on the patient. However, understanding the surgeons role and the motivation, it is clear that the surgeon is merely playing a role in society and the motivation is pure.

The same can be said for the miltrary. Military plays a role in society as protectors. There are times when the military properly plays that role. For example, liberating the Jews from Germany was a proper use for the military. The motivation was correct and the goal was to produce a less violent society. The same can not be said of the war in Iraq.

When people fulfill their roles in society, they should do that with the proper motivation, which should be to reduce hatred, greed and fear in the world. When people are motivated by other concerns, the acts are improper.

The role of the pacifist in this sytem is to remind others that there is always another way. Any reasonable person understands that because we are not in a world where everyone is motivated to act by the proper reasons, conflicts will arise. Even in the context of these conflicts, it is necessary to have pacifists to make people remember that there are choices besides violence.

The concept of a city full of pacifists is simply absurd. While it may make for any easy case against pacifism, it is an assumption that is fundamentally dishonest.

[shance]

36. Extreme pacifism could be seen to be the other side of extreme sociopathy

One promotes death and destruction and another allows death and destruction to continue in the name of "non-violence" or pacifism.

I believe it a form of cowardice when innocent people are dying and someone chooses to do nothing but stand by and watch the harm being done.

It allows violence and killing of good, innocent people because it refuses to acknowledge and confront the dark side which is just as prevalent and more dangerous to those who are not as aggressive in nature.

Just as those who are meaner in temperament must learn to be more socially adaptive, those of us more passive in nature must learn to adapt to situations that demand the necesary aggression at times. Its the balance of nature. Either one in the extreme is denial of the two forces of nature.

Many have argued pacifisim stands to allow and tolerate the elimination the gentler, more civilized people on the planet and allows for the aggressive more socially underdeveloped, sociopathic individuals to thrive. Look at the Holocaust. That demanded intervention. Yes perhaps in the early stages of Hitlers day and with less economic upheaval and more acceptance of diversity, the Holocaust could have been prevented with a more pacifistic approach, but who is to say?

[undergroundpanther]

41. Nice post

Provocative!

[NashVegas]

44. People Confuse Pacifism With Passive Resistance

Pacifism: not doing anything. "I'm not fighting in the war because I'm a pacifist." It generally does not include putting on a show for anyone.

Passive resistance: standing up to encourage others to actively resist something. Ghandi and MLK willingly took public beatings as a form of demostration.

[quaker bill]

45. There are all sorts of rationales for violence

Violence is it's own fatal flaw. It always leaves a residue of ill will in those defeated. This in turn provides the condition for further violence.

[Bru]

50. "Pacifism" is obsolete

I'm surprised that throughout all the replies only GumboYaYa and Crisco mentioned somewhat explicitly the difference between PACIFISM and ACTIVE NONVIOLENCE. Pacifism has long been dismissed in the peace community as antiquated, both in name and ideology. I majored in Justice and Peace studies in college and one of the first things I learned was to throw out the word pacifism...I did not use it for the rest of my JP classes.

Pacifism is all about doing nothing, whereas active nonviolence nonviolently engages violent opponents in a conflict. As Gene Sharp, the author of the three-part The Politics of Nonviolent Action, the Bible of nonviolence, says, active nonviolence engages the opponent in a way more directly than violence by removing the source of the opponent's power. Thus it is the most courageous and effective means of socio-political change. So it is completely different than pacifism.

In fact, Gandhi would consider pacifism worse than violence as a response to oppression. Pacifism means doing nothing. "Practical pacifism" is an oxymoron. Gandhi felt that ahimsa, or non-harm, was the best form of political action. In fact, he considered it to be part of Absolute Truth.

We should keep this all in mind when discussing the obsolete "pacifism." And I would HIGHLY recommend reading part of Sharp's tome, especially Part III, "The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action."

[undergroundpanther]

64. nonviolence

works until things get to a certain point of violent,then it comes down to self defense..

[Bru]

68. Nonviolence can work just as effectively as violence

Often times the times in which nonviolence wouldn't work are times in which violence didn't work either.

Violence has some practical applications in certain individual cases of self-defense, but as a larger political tool nonviolence, if carried out skillfully, is superior to violence.

Remember, Saddam Hussein didn't kill thousands of people...he ordered his troops to do so. If they had refused to carry out his orders, he wouldn't have had the capacity to commit such despicable acts.

[undergroundpanther]

75. Then how do you get people

conditioned either by biology or by society to NOT OBEY AUTHORITIES and obey thier inner locus of morality?

Remember the Stanford experament?

The presence or appearance of authority undermines peoples innate human morality way too easy.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/970108prisonexp.html

What do you make of this.

Everyone knows if the army refuses to fight the dictator is powerless yet they obey WHY?

Is it conditioned?
http://www.janebluestein.com/handouts/obedience.html
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay4text.html
http://www.mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap8/chap8c.htm

Or worse..
http://freewill.typepad.com/genetics/leaders_and_followers/
http://www.trismegistos.com/IconicityInLanguage/Articles/Price1.html
http://www.todayshorse.com/Articles/BiologicalBasisofSubmission.htm

Or more dark still

This page looks at the psycholoical manipulations and catch 22's found in mormonism and the psychological stages of manipulation and what it does. It is wriotten by people who were harmned by it.It is a long read but worth it..and if you do study it you will see what the real dangers are that we all face right now by time you get to the end.You might even recognize or reate other kinds of conditioning you have had to face(through diffferent"authoritarian" channels) in the past with a similarity to this.And you might see where nonviolence may help and where it may backfire.

http://www.exmormon.org/pattern/

[GumboYaYa]

80. The Martin Luther King, Jr,/Malcolm X comparison is a great

example of an instance where active non-violence is superior to violent opposition. To me violence is only conceivable in instances of self-defense or to protect/liberate the oppressed, but in the later scenario active non-violence will almost always be more effective if done properly.

When you are the more powerful person/nation in a conflict, resorting to violence should never be necessary.

[USA_1]

54. Pacifism is wrong? Then, Jesus was a liar!

Take the Ten Commandments and the Bible out of the schools and libraries because, evidently, Jesus was a fraud!

[undergroundpanther]

63. Jesus is a fraud

Look at christian history crusades holywars and burning witches.
Thou shalt not kill ,But don't forget to not suffer a witch to live.

[xchrom]

70. technically it's not ''thou shalt not kill''

it's thou shalt not committ murder''

biiiig diff.

[USA_1]

84. Jesus redefined "murder"

He said that to hate another person is an act of murder and the punishment for that will be eternal death.

I John 3:15

[eridani]

55. If you think that non-violent people can never be warriors, then you

--are totally wrong.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=979

On April 23rd, 1930, unarmed crowds gathered in Kissa Khani Bazaar, in what is now Pakistan, in nonviolent protest against the British Raj. When they refused to disperse, British troops began firing on them: “When those in front fell down ... those behind came forward with their breasts bared and exposed themselves to the fire, so much so that some people got as many as 21 bullet wounds in their bodies, and all the people stood their ground without getting into a panic.”

This was the world’s first nonviolent army, called by Abdul Ghaffar (Badshah) Khan, who had joined Gandhi to lead his fellow Muslims in the struggle against British colonialism. His peaceful warriors were revenge- and honor-driven Pathans (or Pashtuns) of Afghanistan, the same tribe that would later dominate the Taliban. Khan won over almost 100,000 of these devout Muslims to a nonviolent movement that played a signal role in India’s freedom struggle.

http://www.progressive.org/0901/pal0202.html

Khan believed in equality for women and was emphatic about female education, Asfandiyar says. "If we achieve success and liberate the motherland, we solemnly promise you that you will get your rights," he pledged to women. "In the Holy Koran, you have an equal share with men. You are today oppressed because we men have ignored the commands of God and the Prophet."

The movement encouraged equal participation of women from the start. "Pathan women participating in nonviolent action campaigns would frequently take their stand facing the police or would lie down in orderly lines holding copies of the Koran," Bondurant writes.

So why is Khan almost unknown? For one thing, he has gotten a raw deal in South Asia itself. Due to his differences with the Pakistani authorities, Khan's name does not appear in official Pakistani history. Hence, he is little known in Pakistan outside the frontier area. Indeed, some of my Pakistani friends are barely aware of him.

In India, Ghaffar Khan has also been handled unfairly. Most often, he is portrayed as an adjunct of Gandhi (hence the term "Frontier Gandhi").

But Ghaffar Khan started forming his project of nonviolence and social reform before he came into contact with Gandhi. And his nonviolence drew its inspiration from the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad, in contrast to Gandhi, whose ideals were largely based on the Hindu holy book the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, and the writings of Thoreau and Tolstoy.

Nonviolence, religious tolerance, women's rights, and social justice--certainly Khan could have done a lot worse than to spread these ideals. And he did it while deriving his inspiration from a religion some vilify as intrinsically intolerant.


http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v04n6p19a.htm

The Pathan nonviolent resistance movement was created by Badshah Khan, who had previously collided with the British when they opposed his efforts to establish a school for the province. Badshah Khan was an early political ally of Gandhi, attracted by the similarity in their spiritual outlook, despite their often conflicting religious backgrounds.

Although his imprisonment by the British quickly turned him into a national hero, Badshah Khan faced a number of difficulties in creating a nonviolent movement. British policy encouraged infighting among the Pathans, creating a situation where they were "too busy cutting one another's throat to think of anything else." Building on the martial traditions of the Pathans, Badshah Khan developed a disciplined nonviolent way for peace. He worked with a nonviolent army, called the Khudai Khidmatgars -- the "Servants of God" -- that had drills, badges, a tricolor flag, officers, and even a bagpipe corps. Volunteer numbers of this army opened schools, helped on work projects, and prevented violence at public meetings. During the Pathan participation in the Great Congress party salt boycott, British troops killed an estimated 200 to 300 nonviolent protestors. At one point, troops fired on a crowd that had expressed a willingness to disperse if they could remove their dead. Despite the deaths, the Khudai Khidmatgars did not panic and a platoon of British-commanded Indian soldiers refused to fire. The courage of the Khudai Khidmatgars caused their ranks to swell to 80,000 volunteers during the salt boycott.

The British tried bizarre means to goad the Pathans into violence, so that their rebellion could be crushed with familiar military tactics. At one point, understanding the Pathan custom of not removing their trousers as long as they are alive, the British soldiers forcibly stripped Khudai Khidmatgars of their clothing. Cows were shot or bayonetted. Villagers were forced inside their homes. One British commander had Khudai Khidmatgars thrown into cesspools after they were stripped and physically humiliated in public. On other occasions they were thrown into icy streams. Fields were destroyed and oil thrown on them. Despite such provocation, the Pathans did not crack. They understood Badshah Khan's observation that "All the horrors the British perpetuated on the Pathans had only one purpose: to provoke them to violence." Badshah Khan's movement finally succeeded, when the British gave the Pathans an elected civil government having parity with the rest of India.

The new Pathan provincial government, elected in 1937, was headed by Badshah Khan's brother, Dr. Khan Saheb. One of the first acts of that government was to remove the six-year ban by which the British had kept Badshah Khan from entering the region. With Indian independence now widely seen as inevitable, Badshah Khan's difficulties now centered on the opportunism of the Muslim League and the Congress Party leaders, who were more concerned with personal power than principle. Alone among prominent Congress leaders, Badshah Khan in 1940 supported Gandhi's refusal to cooperate with the British in the war against Japan. He saw that a departure from the principle of nonviolence would encourage deadly conflicts between Muslims and Hindus. The Congress Party launched the "Quit India" campaign in 1942, after the British had rejected the majority their members' agreement to participate in the war in exchange for independence. During that campaign, only in the Pathan Northwest Frontier Province did the struggle remain nonviolent.

On August 16, 1946, motivated by a desire to control all Muslim cabinet representation in a future Indian government, the Muslim League launched the Day of Direct Action. Where in other parts of India Hindus were beaten or forced to convert to Islam, in the Pathan Northwest Frontier Province, 10,000 Khudai Khidmatgars successfully protected Hindu and Sikh minorities by unarmed patrols.

[undergroundpanther]

65. Some people are

Unwilling to be beaten and tortured,some people have been traumatized.

I did that kind of action in my school Bullies let me have it. I did not hit back.I had my nose broke,attempted rapes, threats and humiliations most people claiming to be so"nonviolent" do not have to endure in America.

And I learned one thing,if the bully does not care they will abuse you indefinitely.

Eventually you have to make them stop.And if they don't care,and no one around you has courage to be something besides an enabler.. what do you do?

You go insane. That is what happened to me.

And I am in pain every fucking day with PSTD.

I feel no special warm fuzzy redemption, no peace or "moral high ground" from being non violent or violent in my responses.I do what I think is best at the time,because that's all I have.I have no regrets.

I did realize after years of facing bully kind of shit you have to somehow make NO mean something to the bully some way. To make it not worth their time to fuck with you anymore.
You can be violent or non violent in your responses as needed.I am not cutting off any of my options myself.Death can happen to a bully in such a way as not to be connected with you.(clever use of traps or weapons or toxins for example)You can curse people to their death if they are"magical" or superstitious by messing with their psychology.
The bullies left me alone in my last year of high school because I was crazy,I had cuts all over my arms and would draw my drawings in art class with my own blood.I dressed goth before there was a goth and people thought I was demonic,they left me alone too.In reality I was suicidal my self identity was in a million pieces I was dissociated,hallucinating and had no safe place to exist.I was pretty fucked up inside .I spend my entire young adult hood in the mental health system being abused there"for my own good". I don't trust humans.I don't particularly like them.I walk with the felines they are closer to me than most humans can ever be trusted to be.

In reality all threatening situations differ so the responses to it must be creative and flexible as possible. But the objective is to STOP THE ABUSE. Not tolerate being abused indefinately..Because eventually we all can be shattered apart.And I can tell you by experience putting shards of your identity and personality back together after trauma is PAINFUL and difficult.I wish I was dead rather than live as I do now alot.
But I guess you don't understand this until it happens.Torture has a way of forever altering the way you see the world.

[eridani]

66. Non-violence is a group, not an individual, tactic

Notice that Badshah Khan's army was actually an army, with drills and discipline and group solidarity. They would have had no success operating each one alone.

[undergroundpanther]

67. And what makes me doubt the effectiveness

Of non violence here is our country is so divided, interpersonally and in our communities we are atomized and so many people are traumatized.. I do not think America has the capacity for that kind of solidarity and trust in our fellow citizens to be there when another faces tragedies long enough to endure non violent stuff and not flip out.Americans are needy of affirmation,acceptance,kindness etc. and so few give it.
Alot of families are unwilling to be there for their own kids, let alone some stranger..We have families where mothers would rather shop than change their babies diapers ,we got parents who would rather get drunk or high than be there,for their teen kids.We got husbands who love porn more than socializing with their wives. Relationships for a good section of americans are really messed up.So how do you think they will help one another endure in the face of traumas that will occur if things heat up?

[shance]

74. Non-violence and 'docility' is a fascists dream and is what they promote

And what they have been promoting here in America.

"An ignorant, comfortable, populace is a docile and vulnerable populace.


There is a place for peace, but not when you are dealing with bullies.

[undergroundpanther]

76. I agree with you Shance

I fear that too many do not want to understand this issue deep enough to do what it takes to solve (as much as possible) the problems of social domination and obedience.

I am not a non violence only advocate person,I am for limited violence used wisely. Violence it must be used with forethought and emotional awareness ,responsibility. The tendency to cruelty and domination for the sake of power should not even be part of a valid social defense strategy if the person considering violence has to become violent.Just do what must be done the minimum to stop the problem,nothing more.

[LWolf]

81. Non-violence is not "docile," as has already been noted. n/t

[SomewhereOutThere424]

78. I believe that there is an intense difference between...

Pacifism and cowardice. The main difference being one is tempted to embattle another, and will not due to abohoring the act. Another will, voluntarily and commitedly, not act under any principle due to a lack of motivation to make a secondary choice.

Pacifism is a mask for cowards, but it is a shield for true pacifists. People who have exercised pacifism in the past have not done so in a run-and-hide manner, but stood their ground. Those who will claim pacifism then immediately flee to safety could not truly be considered that.

EVERYONE has a breaking point, and at one time everyone will commit to something they'll regret. I think pacifism is the ideal that in all ways applicable, you should choose to not be the bilegerant one. Not that pacifism is a cheap excuse to never do what's right.

Is it against pacifism to pick up a sword and never shed blood? I think it all relies on someone's commitment to not causing another harm, than it is one's refusal or inability to never fight. All things are a matter of dominance -- simply, one outweighs the other's dominance with a strong mind and ease of effort, than fighting a fruitless, angry battle and at best, winning the fight but losing your standard for fighting.

When people denounce pacifism it saddens me, not because I stand up for the ideals of pacifism so strongly I think any statement that pacifism is not ideal is offensive: but that there are so many pacifists lacking in the world today, and so many cowards avoiding the good fight because they'd taken a good point in conveniance. If more exercised the effectiveness of pacifism, less would question it.

In my opinion, a pacifist is someone like Conyers who held the downing street memos respectably in the white house basement instead of making a big, immature stink over it, and still effectively getting his message out.

In my opinion, the republicans are the cowards, for sending others to a war they hold so highly while they sit comfortably around.

When there are the democrats who sign the republicans' bills to 'avoid contreversy', that is in my opinion cowardice. But when pious individuals take a respectable battle in an effective, yet moreso peaceful manner than their opponent, I believe that is true pacifism.

"Evil can only triumph when the good do nothing". I think pacifism, to exist as a 'thing', has to be enacted somehow, not the refusal to enact. But I believe when one exercises a truer form of pacifism, action without meaningless violence, they are the ones exercising that 'good' that does something and stops evil. Evil done in the name of good is still evil, and detrimental to the cause.