Is pacifism immoral in some circumstances ?

[morbidenigma]

discuss?

[jeromechickenbone]

I respect the general concept - ie you have to rise to a higher level of consciousness and not participate in violence, violence begets violence, etc.

But, I do believe that there is a line in being pacifist and allowing abuse to continue.  In that case, I support beating the shit out of whoever is abusing you until they get the hint that they need to stop.

[Blasphemy (A)]

discuss?

Pacifism is for fucking pussys, its in mans nature to be violent, aggressive and destructive. Being a pacifist is the equivalent of being a fag, why? because just like a fag your existence is doomed for what you are. Aggression fuels man and gives him the ability to push forward, through pain, suffering, and rivals. Violence is innate to survival from the killing of a rival to a killing of your food, its a requirement. Destruction is necessary for survival in a variety of ways, destruction of tradition, old ways in order to survive. Destruction in morality and of taboos in order to evolve. Pacifism is a concept held for the weak who aren't strong enough to survive. So they invent this concept to reject and to be a top some make believe high ground. A high ground which can not exist without the violence and aggression.

[Nate Dogg's Rotting Corpse.]

Like Jrome, I respect it as a concept. It's a lofty way to imagine the world and opens up an avenue for discussion about survival that wouldn't exist if everyone shared Blasphemy's opinion. That being said, I don't see it as a practical way of living life as a whole society. Like communism, these utopian hopes and dreams for the world often don't translate well when applied to society as a whole, rather they are better suited for forums like colleges or religious sects, voices that are heard but and considered but not implemented by the majority populous. I for one respect the tyrannical nature of man, despite the large scale anger and sadness caused by it.

[Teddy Roosevelt]

To satisfy our violent nature, we'd have to expierence war first-hand. All of us sitting on our computers, watching TV and working dull jobs while other people fight wars isn't satisfying out violent nature. Politicans don't feel violent when they vote for wars. They go back to their mansions and are glad they don't have to be the ones fighting. How many people do you know that want to figh in war? I'm gussing zero. if you want to satisfy your violent nature, just go out and play a contact sport.

[G-Bee]

Pacifism is for fucking pussys, its in mans nature to be violent, aggressive and destructive. Being a pacifist is the equivalent of being a fag, why? because just like a fag your existence is doomed for what you are. Aggression fuels man and gives him the ability to push forward, through pain, suffering, and rivals. Violence is innate to survival from the killing of a rival to a killing of your food, its a requirement. Destruction is necessary for survival in a variety of ways, destruction of tradition, old ways in order to survive. Destruction in morality and of taboos in order to evolve. Pacifism is a concept held for the weak who aren't strong enough to survive. So they invent this concept to reject and to be a top some make believe high ground. A high ground which can not exist without the violence and aggression.

You are mixing up a lot of things: Violence, agressiveness and destructiveness. I agree that you can be violent to achieve positive results, like killing for food. But that is not the same as being agressive or destructive. Those two are usually counterproductive, Agression clogs the mind and is bound to affect yourself in a negative way.

Besides that, you use the word destruction in ways that I wouldn't. Destroying tradion? Destroying morals? That is simply change you are talking about, not destruction.

[Blasphemy (A)]

Pacifism is for fucking pussys, its in mans nature to be violent, aggressive and destructive. Being a pacifist is the equivalent of being a fag, why? because just like a fag your existence is doomed for what you are. Aggression fuels man and gives him the ability to push forward, through pain, suffering, and rivals. Violence is innate to survival from the killing of a rival to a killing of your food, its a requirement. Destruction is necessary for survival in a variety of ways, destruction of tradition, old ways in order to survive. Destruction in morality and of taboos in order to evolve. Pacifism is a concept held for the weak who aren't strong enough to survive. So they invent this concept to reject and to be a top some make believe high ground. A high ground which can not exist without the violence and aggression.

You are mixing up a lot of things: Violence, agressiveness and destructiveness. I agree that you can be violent to achieve positive results, like killing for food. But that is not the same as being agressive or destructive. Those two are usually counterproductive, Agression clogs the mind and is bound to affect yourself in a negative way.

Besides that, you use the word destruction in ways that I wouldn't. Destroying tradion? Destroying morals? That is simply change you are talking about, not destruction.

That's what I was taught growing up. I Guess to each his own though 

[Fraxxx]

I respect the general concept - ie you have to rise to a higher level of consciousness and not participate in violence, violence begets violence, etc.

But, I do believe that there is a line in being pacifist and allowing abuse to continue.  In that case, I support beating the shit out of whoever is abusing you until they get the hint that they need to stop.

+1

Pacifism is a concept held for the weak who aren't strong enough to survive. So they invent this concept to reject and to be a top some make believe high ground. A high ground which can not exist without the violence and aggression.

Or it's the other way around. Maybe such an explanation is only a excuse for those who are too weak-minded to overcome their sometimes violent nature, even if it was to everyone's advantage.

I guess violence should always be a last resort but it's not bad to have someone on your side who's willing and able to break bones when really necessary.

conclusion: It's the wonderful diversity in man's nature that made us king round here.