Pacifism   Current Rating: (2.49)     # of Ratings: 69       Click HERE to share your opinion See More Political and Economic Ideologies

1. ninfan , on 6/4/2004 11:05:00 PM, said: I don't really care about Pacifism, but ANSGARD, again, you are AN IDIOT!   (1 people found this comment helpful, 0 did not)

2. ANSGARD , on 6/4/2004 10:15:00 AM, said: Pacifism is for silly people. people that dont understand anything about history or politics. Pacifism is only a way to be cowards   (0 people found this comment helpful, 3 did not)

3. Brian Schiff , on 5/19/2004 8:28:00 AM, said: Pacifism is immoral when it violates the biblical standard regarding idly standing by while the blood of your neighbor is shed. It's a form of snobby pseudo morality when someone like the "moral giant" of pacifism, Gandhi said that Jews should protest Hitler by committing mass suicide-and stuck with his comments when the results of The Holocaust were clear.   (0 people found this comment helpful, 1 did not)

4. darick , on 4/25/2004 4:31:00 AM, said: Peace is definitely neccessary for the betterment and progress of all mankind, but if some war-like nation invades your territory, if you follow pacifism, you're unlikely to have a military. This would probably lead to the total obliteration of the country and the rulers may even say it's OK because they're pacifist and they wouldn't believe in self-defence of any kind. It's a nice idea but it wouldn't work in the real world.   (1 people found this comment helpful, 2 did not)

5. personwithcomment , on 4/16/2004 8:53:00 PM, said: Pacifism is the act of not creating war and trying to work things out peacefully, instead of, say, a "preemptive" strike. You try to hurt me, and there's a high chance I'll hit you hard. Guess what? I'm a pacifist. It's not necessarily pure. As for America, we won freedom, but where is it now? We're this close to Marshall law. Instead of sneering at pacifists, let's try to dislike things that are actually amoral.   (0 people found this comment helpful, 0 did not)

6. Bleh , on 3/27/2004 6:53:00 PM, said: So, you're a pascifist, huh? Well then, give me your wallet and don't make a fuss. Wouldn't want anyone to get hurt.   (3 people found this comment helpful, 1 did not)

7. ClassicTVFan47 , on 2/7/2004 8:45:00 PM, said:      A good idea, mostly. Peace should be attempted to be maintained at all costs. When there are no threats to the nation or government, this is a noble goal. However, when there are potential threats to the nation or the nation comes under attack, self-defense is necessary to preserve the nation. However, on a personal scale, this is a great philosophy to follow. No individuals should physically fight each other. Unless its self-defense with a life at stake, its a great thing to not attempt to instigate fisticuffs.   (3 people found this comment helpful, 1 did not)

8. Serrinn , on 12/2/2003 1:36:00 AM, said: I admire the ideological principles behind this, but quite simply put - it can't work. Give up on it. There is always going to be some imperialistic nut who wishes to invade and if you happen to be a pacifist nation then quite simply - you're screwed. I only gave this a three because I admire the idea - in terms of effectiveness it only deserves a one.   (4 people found this comment helpful, 0 did not)

9. StanUzbeck , on 9/25/2003 7:34:00 PM, said:      It may not have been the way that America won its independence, but it is precisely how the country of India (with four times the population) won it's independence from the largest empire the world has ever known (British Empire). They won their independence by NOT fighting, by refusing to use violence against their oppressors. Gandhi is one of history's greatest men, and he would rather have died than kill a single person in defense of his country. But India is a special case. Personally I think that pacifism is a good way to get pushed around by people who aren't necessarily superior to you, just more aggressive. If someone injures a loved one of mine, I'm going to do everything in my power to cripple the bastard.   (4 people found this comment helpful, 0 did not)

10. LadyShark4534 , on 9/15/2003 6:32:00 PM, said:      Looks good on paper, but it can never be achieved. Pacifism is only wishful thinking.   (2 people found this comment helpful, 2 did not)

11. CanadaSucks , on 8/14/2003 7:30:00 PM, said:      In terms of morality, it is probably the best. In terms of pragmatic application, it is probably the worst. We just aren't ready for Pacifism as a species. . .we still haven't managed to stop killing each other over money, religion, et.al.   (1 people found this comment helpful, 1 did not)

12. Daryl , on 7/23/2003 11:32:00 PM, said: I think it is important to seek the good in all things,and the good of Pacifism is blatently obvious.Pacifists don't kill people.To all you "Christians" who are anti-Pacifist,hear this."Thou shalt not kill."Ex.20:13,the sixth commandment.The only reason that Pacifists and Buddhists and Liberals make you people angry is because they do the same thing that they say.They don't say they want peace and then start wars,or start wars in the name of peace.I'm not sure I know which is right,but I do know that pacifists do what they truly believe is right,unlike the majority of people that oppose them.   (2 people found this comment helpful, 2 did not)

13. Gups11 , on 6/19/2003 4:36:00 PM, said: A truly beautiful, utopian idea that will never be practical. Many have said if most people were pacifists the world would be better. Well not really, if most people were pacifists they would be utterly annihlated within 50 years. It would take the entire world to pull pacifisim off. There will always be wolves ready to eat the sheep, "like they were at a banquet" which is why there is always a shepard there to protect any succesful herd. The U.S.A. has played that role since wwII, and undoubtably the world has progressed signifigantly. The fact that we have stood up for what is right has prevented imperialism and any major war, which is why we now have time to try to feed the starving countries.   (2 people found this comment helpful, 2 did not)

14. Redoedo , on 6/12/2003 1:39:00 PM, said:       Rather than express my opinion of the idea of pacifism (peace for all), I would like to leave you with a speech on peace delivered by President John F. Kennedy on June 10, 1963. Through his words, he reminds us that peace is not unattainable when looked at realistically. "What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task. Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal. Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems. With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it. So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace."   (4 people found this comment helpful, 1 did not)

15. President -X-D , on 5/7/2003 9:00:00 AM, said:      This idea is an example of an individual willfully rejecting the right to defend himself. Those practicing pacifism are cattle waiting to be rounded up by the next robber, thief, or dictator who comes along.   (2 people found this comment helpful, 5 did not)

16. RebelYell1861 , on 5/6/2003 2:41:00 PM, said:      Mindless, make-believe Buddhist rubbish.   (2 people found this comment helpful, 4 did not)

17. optimist , on 5/6/2003 1:58:00 PM, said: Admirable when based in a philosophy of non-violence rather than on fear. I would call it hopeful rather than utopian. While allowing for debate and difference, this way of life seeks to avoid war and its profoundly negative short-term and long-term consequences. If more people lived according to true pacifism (as opposed to sometimes violent anti-everything rallying,) civility in this world would be greatly enhanced.   (3 people found this comment helpful, 1 did not)

18. DickDirk , on 4/28/2003 12:23:00 PM, said:      Capitalism is the best system except when the people who practice it become untolerable stiffs. You probably won't get to see any of the movies I make Jaws, because I will want my movies to appeal to the world. So right away America will ban them. That's the freedom of capitalism. Anyways, I don't make the kind of crappy Speilberg movies that you like.   (2 people found this comment helpful, 6 did not)

19. kamylienne , on 4/4/2003 12:11:00 PM, said:      It's good to be tolerant and pick your battles wisely, but when that's all done and you and/or your loved ones are being mistreated, if someone's rights are being violated, then there's a point where you have to stand up and fight for what you believe in. I'm not saying we should constantly fight over everything, but when you're getting stepped all over, then the only one who's going to protect you is yourself. Of course, you shouldn't fight over little measly things, and peaceful protests are excellent ways to object to something, but there are limits.   (5 people found this comment helpful, 0 did not)

20. trishbn5 , on 3/6/2003 7:21:00 PM, said: To many commies pretending to be pacifists.   (5 people found this comment helpful, 6 did not)

Browse reviews of next item: Protectionism