Defining "pacifist"

Quillo

An interesting definition of what it is to be a pacifist from Yukiyoshi Takamura of Shindo Yoshin-ryu jujutsu:

"A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence."

Roper

Like Steven Seagal right?

dlofnep

Pacifist - A person who opposes war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.

Quillo

I liked the notion of actual choice involved. Anyone can say they are a pacifist, some may even suffer for their position. But, it seems to me, the real test is when you have the ability to respond but chose not to.

And yeah, I appreciate it has a decidely Steven Segal vibe about it

Miles Long

dlofnep wrote:

Pacifist - A person who opposes war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.

I'm a little too passive to be going and opposing stuff all the time. A pacifist is more one who doesn't get involved what so ever. Opposition is more of an Activists' thing.

Yukiyoshi Takamura wrote:

"A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence."

I don't think this encaplsulates the nature of a Pacifist. Violence wouldn't really come into the equation.

SorGan

Pacifism has different meanings. And as a consequence, it is practiced in a variety of ways. For example, pacifists may make an individual vow of nonviolence. They may also actively pursue nonviolence and peace between factions by staging non violent demonstrations.
I feel it a personal issue/choice to what degree its taken.

dlofnep

Miles Long wrote:

I'm a little too passive to be going and opposing stuff all the time. A pacifist is more one who doesn't get involved what so ever. Opposition is more of an Activists' thing.



I don't think this encaplsulates the nature of a Pacifist. Violence wouldn't really come into the equation.

What? I quoted a dictionary. The dictionary is wrong?

SorGan

dlofnep wrote:

What? I quoted a dictionary. The dictionary is wrong?

Those dictionarys are always telling lies..:D

Mola.mola

Sounds like something a guy would say who would also say this "I could kill you right now, but I won't, cos I'm Steven Seagul"

Miles Long

dlofnep wrote:

What? I quoted a dictionary. The dictionary is wrong?

Obviously I can't say a dictionary is wrong, but I don't tend to believe online resources. They can be very subjective when they mean to be fact. Was it this you got..?

Dictionary.com wrote:

1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

That same dictionary uses the terms confrontational and usually militant to define activism, not accurate IMHO. There is nothing passive/peaceful about "killing or maiming in an instant". Point 1 above is a better meaning of the word, settling peacefully and all that. Beliving the Dictionary or not, this boils down to a difference in opinions, which is kinda unresolvable.

dlofnep

No, I got it from a paperback dictionary. Looks as though I may have to return it to the bookstore. I can see the conversation running like this.

Me: Hi, I'd like to return this dictionary.
Clerk: Why?
Me: Well, it didn't really give an accurate description of a pacifist..
Clerk: According to who?
Me: Oh, some guy on the internet..
Clerk: Right..

Dragan

Personally, I don't think it is either reasonable or important to define a pacifist.

Anyone who considers themselves a pacifist will have there own definitions.

You may be a non violent type who will still take action when required and call yourself a pacifist because you do not seek out trouble.

You may be a person who would love to do violence, but will not, seeing that as the higher moral road to take and call yourself a pacifist because you beat down the primal urge to inflict damage on another person.

You may be a person who would just be too scared to take any kind of action, and call yourself a pacifist to make yourself feel better.

Either way it does not matter….definitions are they purely to describe yourself to other people.

Aand if your worried about what other people think…well, I imagine there is a definition all about that as well.

cushtac

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay – and claims a halo for his dishonesty." - Robert A. Heinlein, sci-fi authour.

He's talking more about those unwilling to go to war than personal confrontation, but an interesting viewpoint nonetheless.

Dragan

Quillo wrote:

An interesting definition of what it is to be a pacifist from Yukiyoshi Takamura of Shindo Yoshin-ryu jujutsu:

"A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence."

And further to my previous post, all definition is merely opinion, no?

Mola.mola

terminology is bollox

Quillo

Mola.mola wrote:

terminology is bollox

Succinct

Colm_OReilly

dlofnep,

Watch your posting. It's not funny, just annoying

loz

Should this thread not be moved to say Humanities or Philosophy ?

Roper

The term pacifist is one that I would say changes depending on the time one is living in.

The Mongols probably thought a pacifist was a guy who only raped, but didn't bother to pillage, where as today a pacifist would be seen as someone who has a mangey dog on a string, dreadlocks, shops in eager beaver and hangs around Shannon Airport trying to look like he's climbing the fence "to get at the warmongers man".

However the ultimate pacifist as defined by the OP definition, is The Seagull. He looks, and you know he's looking at you, and you can't move, and then your nose starts to get itchy but you can't scratch it, because what if he thinks you're picking it? That might be what sets him off.

loz

Colm_OReilly wrote:

dlofnep,

Watch your posting. It's not funny, just annoying

dlof had best post of the thread imo

dlofnep

Colm_OReilly wrote:

dlofnep,

Watch your posting. It's not funny, just annoying

I've had other people tell me otherwise. I've also had people trying to convince me the dictionary is wrong.. I need to watch my posting because of that? Get a grip Colm.

waterford mma

dlofnep wrote:

No, I got it from a paperback dictionary. Looks as though I may have to return it to the bookstore. I can see the conversation running like this.

lmao

waterford mma

loz wrote:

dlof had best post of the thread imo

i agree

Tim_Murphy

i agree

I also agree (admittedly mainly to annoy Colm)

dlofnep

*feels the love*

Colm_OReilly

Dlofnep,

Other people are not the mods. Your first post may have been adding to the forums the rest were nothing more than smart assery.

loz,
Since we're involved in something violent (taking one meaning of the word violent) a discussion of pacificity may have relevence.

Colm

Tim_Murphy

:rolleyes:

dlofnep

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Dlofnep,

Other people are not the mods.

They have to be mods to have an opinion? I never said they were mods. I was outlining that they weren't all seeing things the way you were.

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Your first post may have been adding to the forums the rest were nothing more than smart assery.

There are alot more worse posts than me being sarcastic to some person trying to correct a dictionary - but I never once see you say anything to them. But if sarcasm is above your head, then go ahead and ban me from the forum. I don't have time to be putting up with your petty differences over the sillest of things.

damo

In defence of dlofnep, he was responding to a moron who said a dictionary definition was wrong - freedom of speech anyone?

Mola.mola

i think the best thing is just to drop it. colm accused me of being unfunny too once, he knows I forgive him for making that mistake.

JOB COR is the alpha-mate you gotta respect his authority.

pearsquasher

My aul Pops claims to be a pacifist and proved it a few times. During the Alegerian-French War he was conscripted - being french - and refused to bear arms. He was then thrown in jail for a few weeks and when he came out refused again. This time they dropped him behind enemy lines 80km and told him to make his own way back. He did and then they made him collect injured/dead people. Now thats passive!

He also got threathened a few times on the streets of Paris - once with a knife - and managed to "de-escalate" things claiming his 4 years of Aikido really helped. Aikido would be considered as passive a martial art if ever there was one.

So I would say my old man is passive and i defo a bit of it too as my few "real life" encounters were all "de-escalation" as opposed to "fighting" types thanks to my passivity and a few years of budo too.

Miles Long

damo wrote:

In defence of dlofnep, he was responding to a moron who said a dictionary definition was wrong - freedom of speech anyone?

Moron?!? Thanks man.

What I said was...

Me wrote:

Obviously I can't say a dictionary is wrong, but I don't tend to believe online resources. They can be very subjective when they mean to be fact.

... which gave the same definition as was given by dlofneP. I knew nothing of his paperback dictionary. I still don't believe passivism involves any sort of violence. That, to me, is a contradiction of terms.

There are plenty of words that are commonly used that don't get used in the context of thier literal meaning (i.e. ignorance to mean rude rather than uninformed) but that's going to far off topic.

Without compiling it's meaning into a short definition passivism, IMHO, is ingrained in the nature of a person. Some one with no compulsion towards violence, war, racism, ill tempered arguments or any animosity towards anything. No? But again, That's just how I see it.

columok

Some say that everybody speaks a different version of the same language and that to each of us a word means something different. At its most basic and literal if I were to say "think of a cup" each person would think of something different. Therefore pacifism means something different to everybody and in some ways a dictionary definition is fairly irrelevant.

Numerous experiments and real life incidents: Stanford Experiment, Vietnam, Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Serbia have shown that anybody can do anything. The most rational caring people in the world can do the most inhuman cruel things. For anyone to label themselves as having a fixed set of attitudes is totally naive. I believe that, in a certain set of circumstances, I could do the most vicious brutal things and that conversely in other situations I could be a pinnacle of virtue and morality.

So as mola.mola (or lutra.lutra or whatever he's calling himself these days) has said terminology is bollox.

Dragan

columok wrote:

Numerous experiments and real life incidents: Stanford Experiment

I use the Stanford Prison Experiement as a constant reference for the "good people can do bad things argument". Hugely interesting if people want to research it!

columok

And apparently "Das Experiment" is meant to be an excellent film though I haven't got round to it yes.

use the Stanford Prison Experiement as a constant reference for the "good people can do bad things argument".

Or war. War's good for that.

Dragan

columok wrote:

And apparently "Das Experiment" is meant to be an excellent film though I haven't got round to it yes.



Or war. War's good for that.

I have seen it and it well worth a watch!!!

When it comes to war i always end up over complicating it for myself...as i always end up going on about the difference between signing up and conscription, the whole image that War was glamourous....remember all the footage of good times from the south pacific during WWII...other forms of propaganda, that fact that you are effectively fighting to survive, and to ensure the survival of the tightly knit social group that you are part off and the overall fight to protect your country and "manking" etc etc etc.

In short though, it can all be summed up by a quote from "The Thin Red Line"

"I just killed a man....i just killed a man and they can't touch me for it."

Sorry for running wildly off topic by the way....i do that a lot!:(

Black Swan

Heard a story about a guy who got stopped by cops when leaving a Los Angeles riot zone. They searched his car and found a loaded semi-automatic pistol in the glove box. When questioned about it, he said he was a pacifist. When asked why in the world he had a gun with him, he said that it was there to ensure that they "respected" the fact he was a pacifist.:rolleyes:

damo

Miles Long wrote:

Moron?!? Thanks man.

Apologies...i take back the moron comment.