Main > The Round Table

The Non-Martial Artist: Pacifist or Man-Without-Choice?

<< < (3/3)

Eva de Carduus Weald:
I often wonder if humanity is capable of peace. Biologically we are forced to see an us and a them, it is necessary because otherwise there would be chaos, chemically our brains produce this distinction for humanity is another animal, we are ruled as much by biological chemicals as we are society. However, we also have brains and can, with effort, redefine us and them to people vs concepts.

The difficult part is that violence is the easy answer. It just takes stabbing, shooting, blowing up, or pummeling until the other guy dies or surrenders and even then that isn't always accepted.

Then look at morality, is it wrong to kill? If so why? And if it is wrong to kill why is it only wrong to kill some people but not others? This is again dictating us (not okay to kill) and them (sure have at evisceration and blood and guts and death and etc). De-humanizing the "enemy".

Now saying that I should note that should anyone come after me, my family, or some random person on the street and I see it, I shall do violence on their posterior to my hearts content. Why? Because that made them a them to me. They threaten something I feel the need to protect. And while not normally a violent person, I can be downright vicious in what I would do to them to hell with the rule of law.

Which brings up another topic, law. Law is not right, nor is it absolute, it is a set of rules that keep us playing nice and polite....for the most part.

So someone who cannot fight does not exist, unless they are in a coma or completely paralyzed they could fight, but might choose not to for the horror that will follow them in their life after committing acts of violence, the legal ramifications, the psychological ramifications, the social ones as well. The choice is theirs and should not be something for which they are mocked, not everyone is a fighter. The consequences of not fighting are their own to bear, just as the consequences of fighting are your own.

Sir Nate:
I can't answer this very well. I believe In dying for a cause/ fighting. But being peaceful for a cause and pushing can be a form of fighting. People have always fought for rights, and have shown to be able to without being violent.

Sir William:

--- Quote from: Sir Naythan on 2014-09-03, 00:30:26 ---I can't answer this very well. I believe In dying for a cause/ fighting. But being peaceful for a cause and pushing can be a form of fighting. People have always fought for rights, and have shown to be able to without being violent.

--- End quote ---

Do you have examples, Naythan.  I ask because in any account I've ever read, Civil Rights Movement of the 60s included, blood is shed at some point.  Might be their own, but their detractors as well.  It is true that Dr. Martin Luther King advocated for a non-violent stance, peaceful protests- but that would only apply to those who followed his teachings; there were a great many players in that movement, however, and not all of them were peaceful, or even interested in peace.

Throughout history, any fight over 'rights' as we term them, involved bloodshed.

Lord Chagatai:
So I think that everyone has the ability to fight it is built into us. When pushed to a certain level the fight or flight mode kicks in and we either defend ourselves or we run. Pacifists choose to run unless backed into a corner and have no where to go, at which point that pacifist will choose to fight, either with words trying to talk his way out or by physical means. I am a spiritualist, and most of my philosophies tend to be passive in nature but if I am pushed or cornered with no way to go, you betcha I am gonna let you have it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Sir Nate:

--- Quote from: Sir William on 2014-09-03, 18:46:23 ---
--- Quote from: Sir Naythan on 2014-09-03, 00:30:26 ---I can't answer this very well. I believe In dying for a cause/ fighting. But being peaceful for a cause and pushing can be a form of fighting. People have always fought for rights, and have shown to be able to without being violent.

--- End quote ---

Do you have examples, Naythan.  I ask because in any account I've ever read, Civil Rights Movement of the 60s included, blood is shed at some point.  Might be their own, but their detractors as well.  It is true that Dr. Martin Luther King advocated for a non-violent stance, peaceful protests- but that would only apply to those who followed his teachings; there were a great many players in that movement, however, and not all of them were peaceful, or even interested in peace.

Throughout history, any fight over 'rights' as we term them, involved bloodshed.

--- End quote ---

While that is the event I had in mind, There are still many that didn't  go to that point of violence. But your right others still did as well.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page