Is there a superior way to do pacifism?

Although I doubt Ghandi would make it far in a boxing ring, lol..I think not fighting when you're able shows more strength of character.

Perhaps he was a brilliant tactician and was secretly ripped

You could be right, hard to tell under all those drapey white clothes. Lol

A true pacifist can fight and doesn't fight. True pacifism requires the tough choice. Choosing not to fight because you will certainly lose is no great feat. Choosing not to fight, even though you can win, so you can love your neighbor as yourself: that's real strength.

Agreed

Option C: The person that lives on/in the Pacific ocean

In all seriousness though, the person who chooses not too fight is the real pacifist

lol

If you choose not to fight, no matter what, you are a pacifist.

Is it a choice though, if your only option is not to fight?

If you CHOOSE. That means you have options

I mean, if you are weak, you can still choose to fight.

As in. If you have options. What part do you not understand? If you are weak, then you don't have a real choice

a weak man can fight, just not well

Exactly. It's not a real choice

its still a choice.

Not a real one. One is obviously more beneficial than the other

every choice is a real choice.

Because?

Ever hear of 'the underdog'? Like David and Goliath. No two opponents are equally matched. Often the one weakness turns out being a strength and the strong opponent loses. Like USA and Afghanistan lol

If the weakness turns out to be a strength, they are more equally matched than originally thought. If an opponent who is believed by all to win backs off, then that is pacifism

Well not really. A pacifist would have avoided the fight, not out of cowardice but out of principle. This meme we're debating starts off with the wrong assumptions. For example, most strident pacifists prefer to sacrifice their life than fight, out of principle. It is a moral stand. It doesn't apply to random fist fights. It's martyrdom.

I don't think you understand this. If all believe you will win, yet you refuse to fight, what other reason would you have to withdraw, other than moral reasons?

but if you are only a pacifist because you cant fight, u just dont want to loose.

A pacifist wants to oppose oppressive government and their moral position is strength if they choose to not fight and get beat down by an oppressive government. Might does not equal right.

I know, but in a moral fight, the weaker man usually loses, and some people would rather stay silent than lose

There you are! Fighting is immoral therefore the winner is the person with self control and peaceful.

but sometimes it is necessary to fight

Pacifism means no fighting. Martin Luther King and Gandhi are just two examples - they were both assassinated because of its power. Its even in the bible. Why else are they persecuted in history? Yet they are seen as heroes, and more so than any hot headed warmonger, though they have had some success also, just more hated.

i get that, i do, i dont see that as a bad thing. but all im saying is that sometimes its neccesary to fight

Well, I took the effort to check up what "pacifist" means and, according to Google, it means "a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."
So I think both types are pacifists, since they probably both believe that violence shouldn't be justified.
Unless they both believe in self-defense.. Even then it's arguable whether or not self-defense is violent, but I digress...

On the other hand, if we define "pacifist" as "a person who does not choose violence as a means", then I think it would be the latter, depending on how we define the word "choose" and what it means to "not choose".

Of course, it could be like what DakotaStanley23 said: a person who lives in the Pacific ;-)

I agree with that, and yeah, self-defense could be it's own topic

No its a double negative and illogical. On such a huge moral question you don't decide on one line from Google you do more research. Both answers can be correct but under completely different circumstances.

what's a double negative?

The second

ye

Obviously the one who can fight

obviously

The second one

The man whom chooses not to, not because they can’t fight, but knows it’s the right thing to do.

And what if it were the right thing to do?

Then your genoside

. . .

What if it were to prevent a genocide?

Then just run away or spare. We were taught this by toby fox in undertale.

video games aren't real life

and if you run away, the genocide still happens. It's not just you involved, that's what makes it a genocide

Hi Captain_Scar! The second is the closest to the definition.

How've you been?
and I agree

I'm doing well, and you?

alive

Ah, as, glad to be alive?

More often than not XD

Engaging in risk-taking are we? :)

Whatever risk you're referring to, probably not no

So no sport racing, mountain climbing, jumping from building to building? :)

That's truuueee

rain and lightning too

Ah, so you run despite weather conditions. You know that reminded me of a video I've seen in Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQrJbcKuSsI

What do you think?

I mean, cross-country if that counts lol

There might be some risks associated with the activity, mostly environmental.

Heat, bees, murder hornets, bird droppings, .... do you agree?

That's interesting