ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: Thorsteinn on 2014-08-25, 04:41:07
-
Thoughts?
"How easy is it for a man who cannot fight to choose the peaceful solution? It is the ONLY solution he has! He is not being good, because he has no choice. In other words, in order to choose not to do something, you must first be able to do that thing. Do you know how many people I have seen talking about spiritual improvement and the "non-violent" way out, only to scream "kick his ass!" when a situation arises and then run away and hide when that person came to kick their ass? Those people were not martial artists. They did not have the ability to destroy, and therefore had no choice when it came to the question, "Violence or Peace?" -- Mike on IAIDO-L
-
The pacifist is often only able to make that choice because others choose to take the front line, and defend other peoples choice to be a pacifist when battle comes (instead of a slave / prisoner / victim).
-
Is it a man who cannot fight, or who chooses not to? A pacifist does not auto-equate to unskilled or unable to defend one's self, Sean. One doesn't need to be a martial artist in order to 'destroy' as the quoted person puts it; I have a number of impact weapons that'd destroy your day if I hit you with one of them, and all it'd take is one hit, no matter how well versed you are.
A pacifist isn't necessarily a punk either- just someone who would rather pursue peace than war. If anything, that is how we should all be- but we aren't. We glorify violence in all its forms, practice at it and in some cases, worship it. And yet, we all claim to want peace. Well, for the most part.
However, all it takes is a cause- if you give a pacifist enough reason, they'll fight- but you might not like the outcome. ;)
-
Sargent York was a pacifist. He kicked some serious ass in the Great War. I don't think he knew any martial arts. Then again, I could be wrong.
-
Sargent York was a pacifist. He kicked some serious ass in the Great War. I don't think he knew any martial arts. Then again, I could be wrong.
Of course he was a martial artist. He was a soldier. You're misunderstanding the deeper meaning of the term Martial Arts. Martial, means of or pertaining to Mars, the god of war. Martial Arts are literally the "Arts of Mars" or in its purest form, the Art of War itself. We've come to use martial artist to mean someone who practices a specific system of fighting now-a-days (like karate, fencing, mma, etc), but it really means anyone who practices and trains in the art of war. Every professional fighting man is a martial artist in the historical sense.
-
William, Aiden the first line of the quote reads "How easy is it for a man who cannot fight to choose the peaceful solution?" and thus expounds on from there. The quote says that only the Fighter can choose Peace. Everyone else is sentenced to it.
Ian also has the right of it. His knowing how to pilot & fight with a helicopter to bring harm to the enemy is a martial art.
-
One may not be gifted with the talents or skills required for physical combat but still may be able to pull a trigger or push a button. To often we think of "martial arts" as being hand to hand. Finding ones path where your talents and skills reside is sometimes an easily accomplished task while other times it is one of the most difficult.
-
Why can't he fight, was my question? Is it because he lacks the skill, the knowledge or the desire? Anyway, I get what you're after, but I have to tell you- the sheep don't need reminding.
-
I agree with the original post, anyone who cannot fight must not, not some choice made out of moral superiority. I believe that pacifism is selfish and a detriment to a person and society. To not even consider fighting to defend one's loved ones, or to not aid someone when it's within one's power is an epitome of selfishness and carelessness.
-
Sit back and use the force. ;D Why exert physical effort.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
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.
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.