Comments on: Pacifist Religions

By: michael

michael — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:31:49 +0000

I’m not really sure if it’s right that your view follows what “most” pacifists believe — but if it does then some of these religions go way beyond this.

Also what you’re describing seems standard for most people who don’t call themselves pacifists. If the principle is not to do more violence than is necessary then who would disagree? In which case I don’t see the advantage of the label pacifist.

By: me

me — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:20:14 +0000

I’m a pacifist and that’s not really how it works for most of us
if you are in life threatening danger EX: a gun pointed at your head your allowed to take action but if your about to in a senseless fight you would walk away and if get stricken on you may only do that back not go all crazy on them. EX: a punch to the face you can punch them back but NOT a punch then a kick in the leg and while there on the ground stomp on there face that is stupid and you could have solved that fight with a punch in the gut so they lose there breath and not permanent damage. BTW thoughts jainist are crazy. ntw

By: michael

michael — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:11:55 +0000

David — while I agree Jainism tends to have a lower impact on the environment than other “lifestyles” it still has a very large impact because it requires farming. And it’s mass engagement in farming that’s causing much (most?) of the environmental problems — this does not depend on religion but on the technologies we use and the economic systems.

Although if a lot of people are starving to death it does give the fields a bit of a break, and a much needed chance to reinvigorate…

By: David

David — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:47:48 +0000

So far everything man made is unable to co-exist with the rest of the world. Yet however extreme Jainism is it at least doesnt screw nature like everything else does.

By: michael

michael — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:07:50 +0000

Yep, I think it would be far more ironic to travel back in time and do something to Hitler’s voicebox than to kill him!

By: Jordan

Jordan — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:10:07 +0000

Oh yeah, in self-defense or if there is absolutely no other choice then for sure, but not if you have other options, like to put him in jail or “do something to his voicebox”.

Ok, clarified, thanks.

By: michael

michael — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:13:34 +0000

Of course I’d say it’s ok. We’re not talking about some hypothetical time travel or Minority Report situation but real life (ie. if we have a good feeling someone is about to commit a crime it’s because of their past actions or because they’re in the middle of the action).

We do it all the time in hostage situations when the police rescue team shoot to kill if they think the perpetrator’s about to kill someone; they don’t wait for the action.

Similarly I’d say if I’m given a gun and teleported to the bedroom of say the leader of the Burmese junta I’d probably shoot him — and it won’t be because of past actions.

But what I was talking about was that the idea that it’s always wrong to kill anyone no matter the circumstances (you can think of other circumstances if you like) is ridiculous

By: Jordan

Jordan — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:13:56 +0000

Wait, wha- what?

Can you explain Pacifist 3 a little more? Are you saying it’s ok to kill someone for a crime they are going to commit? Haven’t you learned anything from Terminator 2?