If defending yourself involves exerting physical force, then you haven’t really rejected violence.
I reject the idea of violence. My preference is that it would not happen in the first place. As another member said- not all pacifists reject completely the use of violence- I happen to be one of those pacifists.
And as others and myeslf have said using the term pacifism in such a manner is simply a misuse of the traditional definition. You could conceivably call rapists and murders pacifists with such loose definitions.
Pacifism as a personal conviction is very admirable.
As long is it not being pushed on anyone else.
You make a lot of threads based around confusion of labels, and an inability to articulate your own ideas clearly.
And you are wrong. Pacifism can mean rejection of war, not rejection of all kinds of individual self-defense.
Juan is technically correct. However, most people (myself included) tend to think of absolute anti-violence when the term “pacifism” is used. But it also has been used to more specifically refer to anti-war sentiments.
So technically rapists and murders can be pacifists, generally people don’t tend to think of the term in such a manner.
Hmmm… I didn’t intend to make this a thread to be around other people’s misperception about what pacifism is. I do reject violence and war but I don’t support a NAP. The reason why I don’t support an NAP? I believe that even most of the time that self-defense wars are wrong. That doesn’t mean that these nations shouldn’t defend themselves. It just means that I don’t support the concept because the war is still wrong in the first place. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’ve put some thought in my views on war and I’ve come to that conclusion yesterday night. I can see what users are saying about how you can’t just support self-defensive wars if you’re a pacifist. The view is incompatible with pacifism.
I don’t think I’m confused on the label here… I think it’s more that other people are confused about where I stand. I don’t support NAP. As for my inability to articulate my ideas clearly… I don’t think that I really have that issue. If you could show where I wasn’t that good at articulating my ideas clearly… please do. I thought I was making it pretty clear that I reject the idea of war- but- not self-defense.
so you’re saying that you reject a self-defense war but not self-defense individually (meaning you defending yourself), but how does this reject the NAP? A society, if cooperating with an NAP mind-set wouldn’t coerce a person, a draft, into fighting what might be a defensive war. Coercion to fight in a defensive war or even to coerce somebody to defend their individual self is un-NAP. What’s all the hub-bub?[:D]
“consequential pacifist” - isn’t better to be just a free man?
Libertarianism makes you free to be the pacifist - under attack you can fight back or surrender - your choice.