Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you explained your motives and justifications earlier:
word in brackets added by me.
i am writing via cell phone. it requires me to edit and input words, sentences and other things that are missing. it is not perfect but people get the gist of
Ghandhi was dealing with a Western democracy that wouldn't indiscriminately murder civilians who were peacefully protesting. The very adoption of pacifism ensured that the Brits would be more or less powerless to do anything but cede to Gandhi's demands.
However, as someone else (I think) pointed out, if Gandhi had been dealing with Imperial Japan, he would have been executed with a swift stroke of a katana.
In other words, pacifism can work in the short term, but if India had become a completely pacifist nation, India would have been forced to become part of Pakistan a long time ago.
Right. Gandhi is always used as an example of how great pacifism is. But most of the time it won't work.
Having a powerful military and strong alliances is what works. Most of the time, the threat of violence is enough.
Yet so many animals are pacifist, little is their signs of war or violence among themselves unless they're used to meat or fighting for females. Lacking pacifism runs the risk of wasting energy and weakening oneself as well.
There are NO animals that are pacifist. All animals defend themselves, their offspring, and their territory, if necessary. Most do not practice organized warfare since they don't become over-populated.
Humans become over-populated because of our success in growing surplus food. Natural territorial instincts evolve into organize large scale warfare.
my pacifistic adherance has no poltical motives to fight a state or empire. i just adhere to it. i dont want to accomplish anything by adhereing to it. i dont see it as an encroach to ones masculinity.i am not always a bleeding heart . it suits me. i dont see it as self deprecating. i like it. i dont become angry. i dont want to fight. i feel that my masculinity could be better utilized rescuing people ordoing something to help. i used to fight. now i dont. i like pacifism. also, i think it is morally wrong to harm another person.
You can afford to be a pacifist, because you are protected. Assuming you live in one of the advanced nations, there are huge arsenals waiting to defend you from outside invaders, if necessary. And police forces to defend you against internal enemies. And the national military will also fight internal enemies if needed.
If not for all that, you would be ready to fight, or give up and be killed.
Violence is a last resort. Very often, the threat of violence is enough.
Talking things over is a very limited way of resolving conflicts. Therefore, the threat of violence is most often used in maintaining peace.
I was once asked whether i thought might was right. I had to think about that one but concluded that it does no good being Right unless you have some Might to make it stick.
I was once asked whether i thought might was right. I had to think about that one but concluded that it does no good being Right unless you have some Might to make it stick.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But who gets to decide what's the Right?
