Even if your child was attacked?

you're pretty spot on chrispminis.
I really odnt believe at all that anyone can come up with a real argument in favor of pacifism.

like obama? it wont change anything so why would anyone emulate it?

Pacifism is something that I aspire to, but violence should never be ruled out as a matter of practicality.

to correct an earlier post Malcolm X was def. not a pacifist

of course not. I was saying that MLK would have been nothing without the very un-pacifist malcom X and black panther party

Pacifism can not work in a closed society, or in one that does not care if your dead.

I think that this maybe isn't such a great question. When you talk about wheter pacifism is succesful or not you have to talk about a particular goal and a particular group. The vast majority of us on this site are pacifist - in that we acheive our everyday aims through non-violent and constitutional means and not through resorting to violence. The fact also is that If a loved one of anyone on this site was killed they would most likely not resort to violence but would pursue justice through peaceful and legal means. You might pretend to yourself that you would kill the person but you're just kidding yourself.

If you are talking in terms of nations, countries that are peaceful tend to have good relations with their neighbours and simply don't get attacked. If they do there's sure to be a number of larger, more beligerent countries that step in on their behalf. I don't see Liechtenstein being over-run anytime soon.

Pacifism is the banal normal state of affairs for almost everyone in modern society...that's why people turn to playing war games where they imagine they are sending armies to conquer europe as an escape.

no mick, dont confuse non-violence and pacifism.
pacifism is a complete refusal of any kind of violence for any reason at all

I agree, I'm not sure I like the question.

Pacifism has worked for different people groups in various times. For the early church it was their refusal to fight back against a ruthless Roman Empire that drew people towards the religion. Christians were mocked, spit on, burned alive as torches and butchered by animals, yet refused to fight back. Is that pacifism or simply non-violence?

But it was pacifism for a cause, in this case the cause of Christ. Would these same people have remained pacifists, or would I, if they were mocked, tortured, and burned for funny hats or ugly beards? Probably not.

I think MLK realized that to draw-out the mercy of the common white people toward racial equality, the best option was to simply not fight back. Malcolm X's strategy just didn't work, and I for one think it's still a hurdle some white people have to get over, to rid themselves of racism. No one likes a minority or "different" kind of people raising up to fight the dominant one.

Now, if we're talking nation-building than perhaps that convo belongs in a poli-sci class.

The question just needs defining. Pacifism definately can and does work in relationships between individuals, I feel like that much is obvious. Would you rather date/marry/befriend someone that punches you in the nose everytime you say something that hurts their feelings or would you rather date/marry/befriend someone that would show patience and grace and mercy to you, even though they are hurt?

Pacifism works on the personal level and it is for this reason that it *can* also work on bigger scales. The liklihood of that happening is admittedly low but if one is actually convinced of the merits of pacifism then it is hard to turn one's back on it, on the personal scale.

My own pacifism actually reminds me of Sicarius' anarchism. On the personal level, we can do what we want and it's all good. But I think that once we get preachy and start actively prosletyzing (sp?) to people, we begin to go down a bad road. This is no way devalues the personal meaning of the conviction, though.

Pacifism and non-violence, even in the very extreme case of the murder of a close one, is a lofty goal to aspire to and it is the goal I have chosen... not for th sake of any loved one, of course, but for the sake of my own soul.

if only christians would still get the fuck beat out of them and not do anything about it.
but now gods plan is written in code so only bush can read it
it calls for an army of god and calls for bush to lead it

the christian example? yes that is pacifism.
not punching your lover in the face... not so much.
maybe you would never punch your lover in the face, but I'm not sure you would feel the same about someone who hurt them
I would never punch my girlfriend in the face or do anything at all to hurt her, but that does not make me a pacifist.
love does not imply pacifism

MLK was an integral part of the civil rights movement, and I dont think it would have happened without him.
I also dont think it would have happened without malcom X.
or maybe it would have who knows.
the important thing is that it didnt.
would ghandi have succeeded if the militant groups had not also been present? who knows, what matters is they were there.

heres a new question.

can anyone name an exclusively pacifist movement in the last 300 years that succeeded in its goals

Arguments for pacificism have to be viewed the the context of what the alternative is (usually war or at the very least violence). For example say the government wanted to build a great big airport through my village and two of my options are, peaceful protest or armed conflict. I'm realistic to know that the outcome may be the same i.e. the airport gets built but that doesn't mean that pacifism is still the best option. Hopefully with the pasifist method, less people will get hurt and the debate wouldn't be sidetracked and the high ground given to my opponents.

The same could be said of many of today's conflicts - if HAMAS were pasifists they may not be able to achieve their objectives (but could they anyway) and a lot fewer people would have died.

I really doubt that.
besides what ifs dont do any good. I could say if hamas were pacifists they would only get slautered quicker.

what ifs do nothing.

non-violence is great as a tactic when it works, just never as a strategy.
you can be non-violent your whole life and not be a pacifist.

pacifists just deny that there can ever be any conceivable reaosn to use any kind of violence.
they dont ever admit that it may be necessary in certain situations


I'd also like to remind everyone that I can give them a free book on the subject, its called how nonviolence protects the state by peter gelderloos

A free book? How would I get my hands on this?

I agree that I doubt that pacifism would be a reasonable and good strategy for a movement UNLESS the aims of the movement were on a higher, moral level. The fact that successful movements of people have almost always been violent on some level doesn't make it right or ok; it means that they are all tainted and flawed. That's life but it doesn't make it right or even admirable. This is why belief in such extroverted movements is, to my mind, a big waste and bound to be a let down. It's far superior to improve oneself than to try to influence the world.

If Hamas (or any movement) were pacifists, and got slaughtered, they would accomplish far more good than continuing to terrorize and disrupt others' lives.

@Jerkface - that is actually a very good point (being slaughtered could accomplish something) To determine if pacifisism works we have to set a way of judging success or failure. Suppose we have two warring tribes each with 50 warriors, if they went to war over time 75% of them may be killed, but if they went to war and one side were pacifists only 50% would be killed (ignoring the friendly fire incidents). Using this measure of success / failure pacifism works.

well if the tribe attacked a pacifist tribe in the first place we have to assume that they wont stop halfway through.
which means the casualty rate would be pacifists 100% other tribe 0%
hmm one tribe certainly seems smarter

being dead doesnt solve anything. which is one reason I dont agree with pacifism

sure I could have the moral high ground but I'd much rather be alive

oh if you want the book just email [email protected]
and say you want the book

To me, pacifism is only successful in a majority movement or cause one of the most powerful social movement starters, the Martyr effect. A few examples have been used, M. L. King Jr., Gandhi.
There is one great revolution that I remember. When Queen "Bloody" Mary started burning non-violent Protestants fighting for religious freedom and choice, the Martyr effect kicked in when people saw how pious and dedicated they were to the faith, willing to admit they were Protestant knowing the consequences. Yes some people died, but along came the Renaissance?? (or Enlightenment... not sure) Era that blossomed and changed the world.
I am very sure there are others, but none come to mind now. Sicarius, would this count as pacifism as an effective tactic. "A prince's most powerful fortress is the admiration of the people." ~Machiavelli?? Not sure again. If your people disprove, be afraid.

Look who's the materialist now. Sicarius cares more for his hide than his ethics. My hide is useless if my ethics are unsound.

loving life makes me materialistic?
hardly.

I would rather muse over questionable moral deciscions I may have made than never think anything again.

I'm sure militant indians were glad they lived to see an independent india, (whether or not they had to feel sorry for lives taken and or property destroyed) rather than all of ghandis pacifists that got gunned down.

besides using violence does not make you immoral. in certain situations, certainly.
but in certain situations being a pacifist can be equally if not more unethical

just found out some interesting info. peter gelderloos, the author of how non-violence protects the state was arrested last year in spain for allegedly launching mortars at a squatters protest

It's odd for me to agree with old Siccy but I do in this case. Both the Bible and Origin contain a rather large degree of warfare and if we observe in great detail history we observe that unless a substantial majority are the ones seeking change the change will not come except through violence and even if the majority is using peaceful means there's no guarantee the opposers of the majority will seek to resolve the matter by peaceful means. Non-violence was responded to by violence in America, NI and China, three quite different countries and from personal empirical experience I can categorically state that humans often prefer shouting or violence to a calm and civilised discussion.

Ask your self if Pacifism would have worked in Germany around 1932 to stop the Nazis. If you say yes, you are very foolish or dishonest with us and maybe your self.

Everyone knows pacifism would have failed there, what's your point?

The few who promote pacifism at any place and seem to forget that.

Ah.