What do all of you have against pacifists?

for example...

guitboxdude25

On a personal level, I think you have a moral obligation to the people you care about to use violence when it is absolutely necessary. I do not have children, but I can say with absolute certainty that I would do whatever it took to protect them. If the situation ever arose where I was faced with watching my child die and killing someone who was trying to hurt them, I would not hesitate for one second, nor would I feel the least bit remorseful about putting a bullet through the skull of the person who was trying to hurt my kids.

On a more political level, I think much of the violence of World War II was absolutely necessary. If the United States, as well as the rest of the world, had not met Hitler's violence with violence of our own, do you really believe the German army would have somehow been miraculously defeated?

[QUOTE="guitboxdude25"]

for example...

Decessus

On a personal level, I think you have a moral obligation to the people you care about to use violence when it is absolutely necessary. I do not have children, but I can say with absolute certainty that I would do whatever it took to protect them. If the situation ever arose where I was faced with watching my child die and killing someone who was trying to hurt them, I would not hesitate for one second, nor would I feel the least bit remorseful about putting a bullet through the skull of the person who was trying to hurt my kids.

On a more political level, I think much of the violence of World War II was absolutely necessary. If the United States, as well as the rest of the world, had not met Hitler's violence with violence of our own, do you really believe the German army would have somehow been miraculously defeated?

mmkay.but there is other ways to get the assailant to simply leave,turn himself in.get him to put a bullet through his own head.
are you aware of the Norwegian and Danish non-violent resistance to Hitler during World War 2? Was Norway occupied?
i suppose,i would not be pacifistic if i beleive that at the last.very very last worst case scenario,no other option situation.i would have no problem puting a bullet through a bad guys kneecap.though,its very very likely that i could get people safley away from that situation using non violent communication skills.

I got a thrill out of making someone bleed at school last time. I nailed him in the mouth and his braces went through his lips. My heartbeat was fast and I was so excited. Before this incident, I was depressed and angry. After this incident, I was joyful and empowered. Violence does have it's benefits.Messer_Partei

thats wrong...and distubring

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="guitboxdude25"]

for example...

guitboxdude25

On a personal level, I think you have a moral obligation to the people you care about to use violence when it is absolutely necessary. I do not have children, but I can say with absolute certainty that I would do whatever it took to protect them. If the situation ever arose where I was faced with watching my child die and killing someone who was trying to hurt them, I would not hesitate for one second, nor would I feel the least bit remorseful about putting a bullet through the skull of the person who was trying to hurt my kids.

On a more political level, I think much of the violence of World War II was absolutely necessary. If the United States, as well as the rest of the world, had not met Hitler's violence with violence of our own, do you really believe the German army would have somehow been miraculously defeated?

mmkay.but there is other ways to get the assailant to simply leave,turn himself in.get him to put a bullet through his own head.
are you aware of the Norwegian and Danish non-violent resistance to Hitler during World War 2? Was Norway occupied?
i suppose,i would not be pacifistic if i beleive that at the last.very very last worst case scenario,no other option situation.i would have no problem puting a bullet through a bad guys kneecap.though,its very very likely that i could get people safley away from that situation using non violent communication skills.

Here is a hypothetical situation, and you explain to me how you would handle it ( please be honest ) in a purely pacifist manner.

You get home after a long days work. You're pretty tired, it was kind of rough at the office today. You pull out your keys, walk up to your front door, and begin to push the keys into the lock. It's at this point you realize that the door is already open. This is somewhat unusual since it's summer time and the air conditioning is running. You step in cautiously and pull a baseball bat out of the closet. Out of no where you hear the most horrifying scream that you have ever heard. You run towards the scream, and when you finally locate its source you realize its your daughter being brutally raped by someone who had broken in to your house.

What would you do in this situation? What non-violent communication would you use to convince this person to stop?

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"] Well if its him or me, its gonna be him... :|
quiglythegreat

are you aware of the Norwegian and Danish non-violent resistance to Hitler during World War 2? Was Norway occupied?
guitboxdude25

Yes, both Norway and Denmark were occupied by the Nazis.

What would you do in this situation?Decessus

did you read the part after that(or before that)?would i have to:no.violence simply doesnt work.
like quigly said,i have no problem with pushing someone off me and running.guitboxdude25

Pushing is a form of restistance or violence, hence not pacifistic in anyway.

You even said you would resort to violence in the last resort, this isn't Pacifism.

[QUOTE="guitboxdude25"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="guitboxdude25"]

for example...

Decessus

On a personal level, I think you have a moral obligation to the people you care about to use violence when it is absolutely necessary. I do not have children, but I can say with absolute certainty that I would do whatever it took to protect them. If the situation ever arose where I was faced with watching my child die and killing someone who was trying to hurt them, I would not hesitate for one second, nor would I feel the least bit remorseful about putting a bullet through the skull of the person who was trying to hurt my kids.

On a more political level, I think much of the violence of World War II was absolutely necessary. If the United States, as well as the rest of the world, had not met Hitler's violence with violence of our own, do you really believe the German army would have somehow been miraculously defeated?

mmkay.but there is other ways to get the assailant to simply leave,turn himself in.get him to put a bullet through his own head.
are you aware of the Norwegian and Danish non-violent resistance to Hitler during World War 2? Was Norway occupied?
i suppose,i would not be pacifistic if i beleive that at the last.very very last worst case scenario,no other option situation.i would have no problem puting a bullet through a bad guys kneecap.though,its very very likely that i could get people safley away from that situation using non violent communication skills.

Here is a hypothetical situation, and you explain to me how you would handle it ( please be honest ) in a purely pacifist manner.

You get home after a long days work. You're pretty tired, it was kind of rough at the office today. You pull out your keys, walk up to your front door, and begin to push the keys into the lock. It's at this point you realize that the door is already open. This is somewhat unusual since it's summer time and the air conditioning is running. You step in cautiously and pull a baseball bat out of the closet. Out of no where you hear the most horrifying scream that you have ever heard. You run towards the scream, and when you finally locate its source you realize its your daughter being brutally raped by someone who had broken in to your house.

What would you do in this situation? What non-violent communication would you use to convince this person to stop?

most likely,the fact that the guy noticed me busting in will make him get up and try to run away..
and if not
a simple
GET THE **** OFF MY DAUGHTER,YOU **** **** ***** *****.will do
and if not,again like i said,if its the last thing to do,id put splinters up his ass.

most likely,the fact that the guy noticed me busting in will make him get up and try to run away..
and if not
a simple
GET THE **** OFF MY DAUGHTER,YOU **** **** ***** *****.will do
and if not,again like i said,if its the last thing to do,id put splinters up his ass.guitboxdude25

How naive are you?

[QUOTE="guitboxdude25"]

did you read the part after that(or before that)?would i have to:no.violence simply doesnt work.
like quigly said,i have no problem with pushing someone off me and running.Donkey_Puncher

Pushing is a form of restistance or violence, hence not pacifistic in anyway.

You even said you would resort to violence in the last resort, this isn't Pacifism.

whatever
i still believe pacifistic actions,and pasifism itself,is the best way to solve a problem.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="guitboxdude25"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="guitboxdude25"]

for example...

guitboxdude25

On a personal level, I think you have a moral obligation to the people you care about to use violence when it is absolutely necessary. I do not have children, but I can say with absolute certainty that I would do whatever it took to protect them. If the situation ever arose where I was faced with watching my child die and killing someone who was trying to hurt them, I would not hesitate for one second, nor would I feel the least bit remorseful about putting a bullet through the skull of the person who was trying to hurt my kids.

On a more political level, I think much of the violence of World War II was absolutely necessary. If the United States, as well as the rest of the world, had not met Hitler's violence with violence of our own, do you really believe the German army would have somehow been miraculously defeated?

mmkay.but there is other ways to get the assailant to simply leave,turn himself in.get him to put a bullet through his own head.
are you aware of the Norwegian and Danish non-violent resistance to Hitler during World War 2? Was Norway occupied?
i suppose,i would not be pacifistic if i beleive that at the last.very very last worst case scenario,no other option situation.i would have no problem puting a bullet through a bad guys kneecap.though,its very very likely that i could get people safley away from that situation using non violent communication skills.

Here is a hypothetical situation, and you explain to me how you would handle it ( please be honest ) in a purely pacifist manner.

You get home after a long days work. You're pretty tired, it was kind of rough at the office today. You pull out your keys, walk up to your front door, and begin to push the keys into the lock. It's at this point you realize that the door is already open. This is somewhat unusual since it's summer time and the air conditioning is running. You step in cautiously and pull a baseball bat out of the closet. Out of no where you hear the most horrifying scream that you have ever heard. You run towards the scream, and when you finally locate its source you realize its your daughter being brutally raped by someone who had broken in to your house.

What would you do in this situation? What non-violent communication would you use to convince this person to stop?

most likely,the fact that the guy noticed me busting in will make him get up and try to run away..
and if not
a simple
GET THE **** OFF MY DAUGHTER,YOU **** **** ***** *****.will do
and if not,again like i said,if its the last thing to do,id put splinters up his ass.

By yelling out to the person raping your daughter, you are giving up the element of surprise. Would you be willing to risk that on the chance that the assailant has a gun and will simply shoot you the moment he realizes you're there?

[QUOTE="guitboxdude25"]

most likely,the fact that the guy noticed me busting in will make him get up and try to run away..
and if not
a simple
GET THE **** OFF MY DAUGHTER,YOU **** **** ***** *****.will do
and if not,again like i said,if its the last thing to do,id put splinters up his ass.Donkey_Puncher

How naive are you?

im tired of responding to you,you never respond with any integrity.your simply throwing insults out,instead ofdebating in an inteligent,logical way.if you think im wrong,fine.everyone has different opinions.but you,and several other posters on here,are just responding with the same crap,that violence is NEEDED,and anyone who wont use violence,is a wussy,pushover,"naieve",or isnt fit to have a family,and obviously cant have morals.
if you want can agree to continue in a gentlemanly fashion,i will be glad to put my input in,but seriously.screw this.

good day to you,sir.

[QUOTE="guitboxdude25"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="guitboxdude25"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="guitboxdude25"]

for example...

Decessus

On a personal level, I think you have a moral obligation to the people you care about to use violence when it is absolutely necessary. I do not have children, but I can say with absolute certainty that I would do whatever it took to protect them. If the situation ever arose where I was faced with watching my child die and killing someone who was trying to hurt them, I would not hesitate for one second, nor would I feel the least bit remorseful about putting a bullet through the skull of the person who was trying to hurt my kids.

On a more political level, I think much of the violence of World War II was absolutely necessary. If the United States, as well as the rest of the world, had not met Hitler's violence with violence of our own, do you really believe the German army would have somehow been miraculously defeated?

mmkay.but there is other ways to get the assailant to simply leave,turn himself in.get him to put a bullet through his own head.
are you aware of the Norwegian and Danish non-violent resistance to Hitler during World War 2? Was Norway occupied?
i suppose,i would not be pacifistic if i beleive that at the last.very very last worst case scenario,no other option situation.i would have no problem puting a bullet through a bad guys kneecap.though,its very very likely that i could get people safley away from that situation using non violent communication skills.

Here is a hypothetical situation, and you explain to me how you would handle it ( please be honest ) in a purely pacifist manner.

You get home after a long days work. You're pretty tired, it was kind of rough at the office today. You pull out your keys, walk up to your front door, and begin to push the keys into the lock. It's at this point you realize that the door is already open. This is somewhat unusual since it's summer time and the air conditioning is running. You step in cautiously and pull a baseball bat out of the closet. Out of no where you hear the most horrifying scream that you have ever heard. You run towards the scream, and when you finally locate its source you realize its your daughter being brutally raped by someone who had broken in to your house.

What would you do in this situation? What non-violent communication would you use to convince this person to stop?

most likely,the fact that the guy noticed me busting in will make him get up and try to run away..
and if not
a simple
GET THE **** OFF MY DAUGHTER,YOU **** **** ***** *****.will do
and if not,again like i said,if its the last thing to do,id put splinters up his ass.

By yelling out to the person raping your daughter, you are giving up the element of surprise. Would you be willing to risk that on the chance that the assailant has a gun and will simply shoot you the moment he realizes you're there?

i doubt hes raping with his gun in hand.if he is,so be it.a logical person wouldve allready called the cops,and stalled the person long enough.
see,here is how i see this situation:
i go home,heare screaming,i call 911.i go into the room,guys raping my daughter,hes still going even when im in my room.i scream very loudly and intimadatley,he gets up,points a gun at me.i take the bat,and hit the gun,the gun gos accrose the room,i grab it,aim it.now wait for the cops.

im tired of responding to you,you never respond with any integrity.your simply throwing insults out,instead ofdebating in an inteligent,logical way.if you think im wrong,fine.everyone has different opinions.but you,and several other posters on here,are just responding with the same crap,that violence is NEEDED,and anyone who wont use violence,is a wussy,pushover,"naieve",or isnt fit to have a family,and obviously cant have morals.
if you want can agree to continue in a gentlemanly fashion,i will be glad to put my input in,but seriously.screw this.

good day to you,sir.guitboxdude25

I've been debating intelligently the entire time, the only problem is your inability to actualy KNOW what pacifism is. Non-violence, even for self-defense.

I called you naive, not a **** or a wussy. Where else have I offended you or been rude?

i doubt hes raping with his gun in hand.if he is,so be it.a logical person wouldve allready called the cops,and stalled the person long enough.
see,here is how i see this situation:
i go home,heare screaming,i call 911.i go into the room,guys raping my daughter,hes still going even when im in my room.i scream very loudly and intimadatley,he gets up,points a gun at me.i take the bat,and hit the gun,the gun gos accrose the room,i grab it,aim it.now wait for the cops.

guitboxdude25

I can't even respond to this because it's so incredibly ridiculous. This isn't Hollywood dude, this is real life. I realize you may think you have fast reflexes, but I would bet everything I own that you would not be able to swing a bat faster than he can pull the trigger.

It doesn't really matter though because you're missing the point of the entire situation. Which option has the most chance at saving your daughters life?

Option A: Do what you said and maybe everything comes out alright

Option B: The moment you walk in the door and see your daughter getting raped, you take that bat and swing it as hard as you can across the guys head before he realizes you're there?

Your life and your daughter's life are both at stake, would you really risk them both by choosing option A?

Yeah, pacifisim isn't a realistic stance. Just because you don't wanta fight doesn't mean others don't. When someone pushes you push back. Sometimes you have no choice. Sometimes you must strike first and strike hard. Always gofor the throat, no sympathy, finish what they started unless you want to look behind your back for the rest of your life.

Unless your life is in danger there is no reason to anything other than walk away. If I remember correctly You create topics that are no5thing but bogus stories. You're just a spamming troll. IF I remember correctly.

While it's admirable to adhere to pacifism, I believe it is quite an idealistic and naive stance when taken to the most extreme of situations. There are people in this world that revel in making others suffer. To believe that "walking away" or using "communication skills" to diffuse a dire situation is all well and good in theory but is not a guarantee of anything.

If you truly are a pacifist, then best be prepared to lay down your life and the ones you care about for your moral high ground.

what's wrong with pacifism...hmmm......besides the fact thet it's an idealistic joke?........Natural Selection..the weak are picked off by the strong.....a pacifist just puts a target on his back that says "own me"....

Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="guitboxdude25"]

i doubt hes raping with his gun in hand.if he is,so be it.a logical person wouldve allready called the cops,and stalled the person long enough.
see,here is how i see this situation:
i go home,heare screaming,i call 911.i go into the room,guys raping my daughter,hes still going even when im in my room.i scream very loudly and intimadatley,he gets up,points a gun at me.i take the bat,and hit the gun,the gun gos accrose the room,i grab it,aim it.now wait for the cops.

Decessus

I can't even respond to this because it's so incredibly ridiculous. This isn't Hollywood dude, this is real life. I realize you may think you have fast reflexes, but I would bet everything I own that you would not be able to swing a bat faster than he can pull the trigger.

It doesn't really matter though because you're missing the point of the entire situation. Which option has the most chance at saving your daughters life?

Option A: Do what you said and maybe everything comes out alright

Option B: The moment you walk in the door and see your daughter getting raped, you take that bat and swing it as hard as you can across the guys head before he realizes you're there?

Your life and your daughter's life are both at stake, would you really risk them both by choosing option A?

like ive said,time and time again(but you seem to ignore it).maybee,i am not an entire pacifist.i supose,i would have to take some sort of violent action.i still beleive that anything can be dealt with better in a pacifistic way,and if we all tried to pacifistic as possible it would be a much better world.and its not hard to be nonviolent,and make other people be nonviolent

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]

what's wrong with pacifism...hmmm......besides the fact thet it's an idealistic joke?........Natural Selection..the weak are picked off by the strong.....a pacifist just puts a target on his back that says "own me"....

Franken_Berry

pacifism is little more than idealistic hot air when somebody attempts to apply it to the world at large. the only pacifist communities that have worked are very small and exist within a non-pacifist nation--i.e. mennonites and amish communities in the US. these communities are very aware that their beliefs wouldn't last when placed on a political stage or on a level any larger than a small network of families. hence their isolationist lifestyles. pacifism just doesn't work in other contexts. it doesn't take much thought to get figure it out.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] Nope.
Omni-Slash

pacifism is little more than idealistic hot air when somebody attempts to apply it to the world at large. the only pacifist communities that have worked are very small and exist within a non-pacifist nation--i.e. mennonites and amish communities in the US. these communities are very aware that their beliefs wouldn't last when placed on a political stage or on a level any larger than a small network of families. hence their isolationist lifestyles. pacifism just doesn't work in other contexts. it doesn't take much thought to get figure it out.

MakersMark_2023

While it's admirable to adhere to pacifism, I believe it is quite an idealistic and naive stance when taken to the most extreme of situations. There are people in this world that revel in making others suffer. To believe that "walking away" or using "communication skills" to diffuse a dire situation is all well and good in theory but is not a guarantee of anything.

If you truly are a pacifist, then best be prepared to lay down your life and the ones you care about for your moral high ground.

Rekunta

explain how i said was ridiculous
your "theoretical situation" is as good as mine

like ive said,time and time again(but you seem to ignore it).maybee,i am not an entire pacifist.i supose,i would have to take some sort of violent action.i still beleive that anything can be dealt with better in a pacifistic way,and if we all tried to pacifistic as possible it would be a much better world.and its not hard to be nonviolent,and make other people be nonviolent

guitboxdude25

The reason that it's ridiculous is because while I offered a hypothetical situation that is at least somewhat realistic. People are raped everyday, and it's not unreasonable to think that someone could walk in one someone else while they are being raped. Your response to the situation however is not realistic. There is no way you would be able to swing a bat faster than someone can pull the trigger on the gun.

Of course, this again misses the entire point. In the hypothetical situation that I presented, the fact is you don't know what the outcome would be. Yes, you may get lucky and be able to stop the rapist by screaming at him and he gets frightened and runs away. It is also just as likely that you would get yourself killed. So the question isn't really what course of action do you think has the most chance at ensuring the saftey of yourself, and the safety of your daughter? That should be your main concern, and I think the only rational decision that one could make would be to use the bat before the rapist is aware that you're there.

I also wasn't ignoring that you said you are not a complete pacifist, but you also haven't really admitted that there are situations where violence is necessary so that is why I've continued to press the issue.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

While it's admirable to adhere to pacifism, I believe it is quite an idealistic and naive stance when taken to the most extreme of situations. There are people in this world that revel in making others suffer. To believe that "walking away" or using "communication skills" to diffuse a dire situation is all well and good in theory but is not a guarantee of anything.

If you truly are a pacifist, then best be prepared to lay down your life and the ones you care about for your moral high ground.

quiglythegreat

There will always be people in this world who will unnecessarily resort to violence in order to achieve their goals. By taking a pacifist approach, you are enabling these people to achieve those ends though the use of violence. In the end, such a stand will increase the level of violence, not reduce it.

[QUOTE="MakersMark_2023"]

pacifism is little more than idealistic hot air when somebody attempts to apply it to the world at large. the only pacifist communities that have worked are very small and exist within a non-pacifist nation--i.e. mennonites and amish communities in the US. these communities are very aware that their beliefs wouldn't last when placed on a political stage or on a level any larger than a small network of families. hence their isolationist lifestyles. pacifism just doesn't work in other contexts. it doesn't take much thought to get figure it out.

quiglythegreat

true. but they are also aware that the odds of that happening are astronomically small given the political complexities of life on a global level. pacifism is far too personal a mission for it to operate on the macro level. that's not to say that for this reason, non-pacifism is excused. so they avoid the world-at-large, which is steeped in sin andcrappy behavior and incapable of shifting its gears toward the right path, part of whichwould be apacifist policy. thus pacifism has to be built from the ground up by, like you said, people who freely come to it. but every single person would have to come to that decision. not going to happen. so you create small patches of heavenly peace on earth in the small communities which can insulate themselves from evil because that's the best you can do in the mortal coil.

I think I'd be letting down my family if I did what I considered to be wrong. I actually do have one, but I'll assume you mean wife and children and such.
quiglythegreat

I think I'd be letting down my family if I did what I considered to be wrong. I actually do have one, but I'll assume you mean wife and children and such.
quiglythegreat

I can assure you if any family member is attacked and you stand there and do nothing....they won't forgive you. And you would have let them down....

And then get dropped by a bullet...what's that gonna prove? :roll:magicmo

He can stop a bullet?:?

Pacifists believe that violence is the answer to obsolutely nothing; that it is unnecessary, and can be completely avoided in the world. Unfortunately, while there are differening viewpoints, whether its religous, Economical, Political, there will allways be conflict. Where there is conflict, one has to win, one has to lose, or that conflict will continue to exist. Many conflicts, i'll use WWII for example, pacifism in Europe wasn't really an option. Luminouslight

Really, just look where it got the French.. :o. I know that was completely below the belt. 8)

Look at all these posters with American flags / references in their sigs. Hilarious.

Kind of types who see honour and big-manitude in having a gun.

Express all your right-wing patriotic USA BS all u want over the internet... but I'd keep it to yourself if you ever go into the rest of the world where people like me reside : D

Look at it this way - US military folk talk kit and guns in their spare time. UK military folk talk ability and physicality...

[QUOTE="magicmo"]And then get dropped by a bullet...what's that gonna prove? :roll:Godly_Cure

He can stop a bullet?:?

Negative, but the gunman wouldn't have time to fire in the first place.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Rekunta"]

While it's admirable to adhere to pacifism, I believe it is quite an idealistic and naive stance when taken to the most extreme of situations. There are people in this world that revel in making others suffer. To believe that "walking away" or using "communication skills" to diffuse a dire situation is all well and good in theory but is not a guarantee of anything.

If you truly are a pacifist, then best be prepared to lay down your life and the ones you care about for your moral high ground.

Decessus

There will always be people in this world who will unnecessarily resort to violence in order to achieve their goals. By taking a pacifist approach, you are enabling these people to achieve those ends though the use of violence. In the end, such a stand will increase the level of violence, not reduce it.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]I think I'd be letting down my family if I did what I considered to be wrong. I actually do have one, but I'll assume you mean wife and children and such.
LJS9502_basic

I can assure you if any family member is attacked and you stand there and do nothing....they won't forgive you. And you would have let them down....