Are you a pacifist?

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

Just like the title says, simple question.

[everywhere and nowhere]

Yes and no. I am against wars, against violence, this is without question for me. But I'd never go as far as to tell people that they shouldn't defend themselves from agression.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

2 minutes ago, everywhere and nowhere said:

Yes and no. I am against wars, against violence, this is without question for me. But I'd never go as far as to tell people that they shouldn't defend themselves from agression.

Would you defend yourself?

[MarRister]

I would say yes I consider myself to be a pacifist more or less, and don't support aggressive conflict in general. If someone was violent towards me or someone I love, and I had my wits about me, of course I'd attempt to defend myself/them, though very likely with little success as I am petite and weak. On the off chance I had control over a violent situation, I would want it to be over as soon as possible, and any violence inflicted to only be done to take away their ability to cause further violence, like disarm and subdue/restrain them.

 

Though I am also a believer that there are many situations in which de-escalation without any violence could be successful. Not every situation obviously, but I would say most it is a possibility over violence. I think a lot of people are really bad at de-escalation though, or let their ego take over, and will get themselves into violent situations of their own making. I would say the protection of ego is never never worth violence. 

[notafigmentofurimagination]

1 hour ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Would you defend yourself?

i would try, personally, not saying i would succeed

[Altair the Heretic]

I consider myself a pacifist. I don't like violence by any means, though I recognize that it is sometimes necessary as a last resort or for self-defense

[a little annihilation]

I consider myself a pacifist, but I do love a good argument

[Epitaph]

I'm a pacifist in the sense that peace has to be tried first, violence being the last and utmost restricted resort.

[Sally]

No, because sometimes wars are necessary -- WWII, for example.   

[Alaska Native Manitou]

Funny, I just made a meme about it.

 

"You can not simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." - Albert Einstein

 

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower.

[ThatBadCat]

I am a pacifist in the sense that I dislike violence and would certainly be happy if there was no such thing as war, but I am also a realist and acknowledge that sometimes violence and war is necessary for the defence of oneself and the things one cares about, and that it is also necessary to be prepared for that event even if you hope it never happens.

[Ceebs]

Not really.

[Kimmie.]

I really don't know. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, everywhere and nowhere said:

Yes and no. I am against wars, against violence, this is without question for me. But I'd never go as far as to tell people that they shouldn't defend themselves from agression.

I feel exactly the same. I'm against war and conflict but if you need to defend yourself, or a country needs to defend itself, then so be it. I mean, if we didn't go to war with Hitler he'd have ruled the world, diplomacy wouldn't have worked with him. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

10 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Would you defend yourself?

In what sense? I would certainly try to fight back if I was directly assaulted.

In the sense of formal military service... I would do more harm than good. A short overview of my illnesses: allergy with strong itching as an immediate reaction to overheating, degenerative disease of knee joint, very low physical fitness since basically always, with exertion asthma and inability to run... If military service was obligatory for women in Poland, I am anyway certain that I would get an "E" category (incapable of military service under all conditions).

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

My personal position has shifted a bit as I've gotten older. Where I'm at now is that I believe in refraining from being the aggressor for as long as an alternative course of action seems viable. That's a substantial departure from my youth, back then I supported being the aggressor so long as the cause was "right".

 

On the other side of the issue I have always supported retaliating again those who cause you harm. That also shifted as I grew older. I used to believe in the lex talionis, but now I've realized that this line of thinking is problematic in practice. Limiting retaliation to "an eye for an eye" oftentimes encourages one  to strike first and puts the focus on equalizing the state of all sides after the harm occurs. I've now moved towards a more nuanced position. In accordance with our values and our own best interests I believe we should either turn the other cheek or repay harms done with interest, because there's no benefit to breaking even. 

[Lord Jade Cross]

Ive always maintanined the idea that you dont draw blood first. Now if the other party insist on it, all bets are off

[Blue eyes white dragon]

Not necessarily. Trying to minimize violence and de escalate and self defense are good but perhaps if it is justified 

[Gloomy]

Depends. War? I’m a peace loving hippie who believes war is murder and dropping nuclear bombs is mass murder. Self-defense against individuals (including against someone who wants to harm me for the “greater good”)? I’m a stone-cold killer.

[Kimmie.]

I have no problem with ME using self defense i think as long as it is DEFENSE. Blocking and stuff like that so I can get away put i don't want to hit back. 

 

And I have no problem with others seeing it in another way.

[The French Unicorn]

9 hours ago, E said:

I'm a pacifist in the sense that peace has to be tried first, violence being the last and utmost restricted resort.

Same.

I won't should violence unless I see no other choice.

[JimmyJazz]

I'm a wee bit confused by the number of people voting yes and then arguing that they believe in violence as a last resort or as a means of self-defence.

 

If you believe in going to war on the basis that your reasoning is just, ethical, reasonable, moral or whatever justification you are using, how are you anti-war? Do you not cease to be a pacifist the moment you make an argument for war? 

[Purple Red Panda]

Ultimately no. There are times when physical violence is the least worst option. I hate war but sometimes it is the only realistic method of resisting evil.

[MarRister]

10 hours ago, JimmyJazz said:

I'm a wee bit confused by the number of people voting yes and then arguing that they believe in violence as a last resort or as a means of self-defence.

 

If you believe in going to war on the basis that your reasoning is just, ethical, reasonable, moral or whatever justification you are using, how are you anti-war? Do you not cease to be a pacifist the moment you make an argument for war? 

I think the thing that is difficult with pacifism, is that sometimes the reality of the world and other people who have very different mindsets around violence can force your hand. I mean sure I could sit and take a beating, but I don't see that as benefiting anyone and I see no reason to try and repress my survival instinct to get away or fight back if need be, and I don't see that in conflict with what I think of as pacifism. 

 

I don't think war is ever truly justified because, at that scale, I think there are many more ways they could be avoided that we just don't do purposely or overlook entirely. WWII might be seen as a justified war, but it was also likely a very preventable war. If other countries actually acted earlier on through political pressure in response to the obvious militarization happening in Germany, and/or if some dignity was given to Germany after WWI things might have turned out differently. This is what I mean by the ego getting in the way - we wanted them to all suffer for WWI even though most were not responsible for that war in any way. We made a whole country and all their people pay dearly for the actions of a minority and then wonder why they come out angry at everything and the world and easily swayed by charismatic leaders promoting absolutely horrific things in order to regain their dignity and respect as a country (obviously misguided version of respect, but it sold). Sending droves of young people to die as fodder for political battles I just can't ever see as justified. 

[what the face]

I think of pacifist as being opposed to war.

There is no justification for war.

Period.

 

Defending yourself ( or your folk ) from anything attacking; 

persons, animals or space aliens is simple survival instinct.

 

 

[Skylord]

Thankfully, I live in a situation where I don’t need to worry too much about whether or not I’d have to hurt someone in self defence, and I believe that war is never the right option, so situationally, I pretty much live pacifist. But in actuality, I don’t consider myself a pacifist because I know I can and will defend myself or anyone else if the need arises.  

[Sally]

3 hours ago, what the face said:

I think of pacifist as being opposed to war.

There is no justification for war.

Period.

 

Defending yourself ( or your folk ) from anything attacking; 

persons, animals or space aliens is simple survival instinct.

 

However, it was both survival instinct AND war when many countries fought Germany and Japan in WWII.  

[ben8884]

No. Do I dislike war and wish there were other ways? Yes. Does that make me a pacifist? No because I will advocate for war when I feel there are no other options.

[The French Unicorn]

On 8/16/2022 at 6:50 PM, JimmyJazz said:

I'm a wee bit confused by the number of people voting yes and then arguing that they believe in violence as a last resort or as a means of self-defence.

 

If you believe in going to war on the basis that your reasoning is just, ethical, reasonable, moral or whatever justification you are using, how are you anti-war? Do you not cease to be a pacifist the moment you make an argument for war? 

Now I'm confused. Do you believe that to be count as a pacific, you should, for instance, not resist if another country attack you or invade you, like, you just let them destroy you ?

[Tetus]

Ideally? Yes. Do I always live up to that ideal? Of course not.

 

I think that any act of violence, including violence done in self defense,  is a failure, and we should treat it as such. That is, we should judge ourselves from the pacifist standard, even if we cannot live up to it.

 

No one lives a perfect life, and yes, I’ve used violence before when I was physically attacked. I regret that - I think it could have been handled better, and so I strive to avoid that in the future.

 

Our ideals should not be constrained by our abilities. Can we live in the world without ever committing an act of violence? Maybe not today. Should we strive to do so, or to work towards a world in which it is possible to do so? Absolutely.