Would Pacifists defend peace?

[alice in chains]

I've thought about this and my first impulse would be to stay away from violent situations. But Pacifism is such a strong idea that you cannot simply turn away. So, would you defend the well-being of Pacifism if violence was necessary?

 

[zen]

Yep. Then again, I would defend my piece of apple pie....

 

[alice in chains]

I wonder if Ghandi truly had power of non-violent resistance or if it was just a circumstancial benefit he had in his favor. Maybe we're all just subject and at mercy of the conditions of our environments.

 

[BornReady]

Someone told me Ghandi was a pacifist because that was what was needed in their situation.

 

[alice in chains]

that's pretty damn interesting...

makes me wonder what he would've chosen hadn't he been called.

 

[zen]

"where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."[SUP] [/SUP]Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

 

[Francis]

"where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The full quote..

Gandhi rejected the idea that injustice should, or even could, be fought against “by any means necessary” — if you use violent, coercive, unjust means, whatever ends you produce will necessarily embed that injustice. To those who preached violence and called nonviolent actionists cowards, he replied: “I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence....I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour....But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha

Sounds to me like he much preferred forgiveness and nonviolence..

 

[All Else Failed]

Pacifism is for children and hipsters

 

[Zorak]

Someone told me Ghandi was a pacifist because that was what was needed in their situation.

Completely true.

that's pretty damn interesting...

makes me wonder what he would've chosen hadn't he been called.

Gandhi was in part responsible for thousands of peoples deaths, both British and Indian. He used to order the Indian populace to go out and rip down & destroy British infrastructure: so roads, railways, trains, telegraph lines and stations, hospitals etc etc. How does one do this in a manner that is pacifist? Often these events inexorably ended in large scale destruction and murder.

He was a clever operator imo, and you have to look closely at all his words, not just the ones that make it into books of quotations, to understand quite how he was going to achieve his goals.

 

[HK]

At least Gandhi was being realistic. It's all very well to say 'you should never use violence' but sometimes violence is necessary for your own survival, or to protect others.