logo Sign In

Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: ricarleite
So please do explain why "democracy" is the one with justifiable means to resort to violence.
What? Democracy, or more accurately, representative government constrained by Constitutional Law, has proven time and time again to be the most fair and least abusable form of government. It is the form of government the US (and Brazil, I might remind you, Ric) have right now, and it is the kind of government that Islamofacism (and all other types of facism) cannot stand.

Read my response to Warbler above. I am not talking about democracy, I am asking why are WE right and THEY are wrong.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Also, if we have been killing each other since the biblical times, and we keep doing it now, what makes you think a war will solve everything now?


What are you talking about? Who said war is the solution to 'everything'?


Not to everything literally. What I am asking is, if violence has never stoped more violence, what makes you belive that it will eventually work? If there's no point and violence will continue, why make more of it?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite

Read my response to Warbler above. I am not talking about democracy, I am asking why are WE right and THEY are wrong.

Oh, dear lord, Ric, please drop the relativist bullcrap. We are right because we believe in the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, even those who *peacefully* disagree with us. They are wrong because they riot and kill people over some friggin polticial cartoons, they treat their women like property and slaves, they send their children to blow up civilians in the name of some distant nameless Divinity who supposedly will give them virgins and wine throughout eternity if they kill the infidels! If that isn't evil, what is, Ric?


[Not to everything literally. What I am asking is, if violence has never stoped more violence, what makes you belive that it will eventually work? If there's no point and violence will continue, why make more of it?


Didn't D-Day stop WW2 in Europe? Didn't the atom bombs stop it in Japan? What are you saying, Ric? You're really starting to scare me, because it sounds like you're suggesting that we should sit back and allow tyrants and terrorists to have their way with us in the name of peace. You CAN'T really believe that, can you?

4

Author
Time
Post link
We would not have any terrorist problem if our governments weren't so stupid. The terrorist actions we are facing are only reactions to our own foreign policy. You should wonder what makes people so frustrated that they are prepared to blow themselves up and take as many people as they can with them.

I don't think it's weird Iran and North Korea want nulcear weapons. Maybe their fear of being attacked is justified after what happened to Iraq. If both sides have nuclear weapons maybe there's balance...
I would not be surprised at all if Bush decides to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran. He thinks he can solve all problems by bombing. Result: only more violence.

edit: We all know the only country ever to actually use atomic bombs. I believe Japan was already beaten. But if you want to throw the damn thing to make a country surrender, why would you have to show it's power by throwing it on a city??? And wasn't 1 enough?
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: ricarleite

Read my response to Warbler above. I am not talking about democracy, I am asking why are WE right and THEY are wrong.


Oh, dear lord, Ric, please drop the relativist bullcrap. We are right because we believe in the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, even those who *peacefully* disagree with us. They are wrong because they riot and kill people over some friggin polticial cartoons, they treat their women like property and slaves, they send their children to blow up civilians in the name of some distant nameless Divinity who supposedly will give them virgins and wine throughout eternity if they kill the infidels! If that isn't evil, what is, Ric?


Relativism isn't "bullcrap," Chaltab. Do you honestly think anyone we've fought against truly thought they were wrong? That they openly embraced the dark side? Of course they thought they were right, just like we think we're right. It's the inability to accept any opposing viewpoint as a legitimate viewpoint that leads to conflict in the first place. Yes, there are many exceptions. I have no idea what the hell led Germany to believe they were justified in the Jewish genocide, but they obviously thought that. Conversely, the fundamentalists you mentioned obviously think we're completely wrong as well for having what they view as a sinful, partying lifestyle with no responsibility and no adhering to the same rules that they so staunchly follow.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Wasn't it just stated in this very thread that Japan was arming women and children for an invasion of the mainland? You can't negotiate or wait out a force like that. You have to use decisive force.

And please, please, quit with this stupid 'we'er the cause of terrorism' nonsense.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Wasn't it just stated in this very thread that Japan was arming women and children for an invasion of the mainland? You can't negotiate or wait out a force like that. You have to use decisive force.
But why drop the bomb on a city? And why 2?

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
And please, please, quit with this stupid 'we'er the cause of terrorism' nonsense.

We are. The ignorance about it is the worst.

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
I just love when we go for each others throats on war or politics subjects

OK, so, about my point of "why use violence", what I meant is, violence pretty much has no end, right? I mean, all of you guys who claimed that resorting to violence to suppress other non-justifiable violence is the only way, agree that it will never end, that it is part of human behaviour, part of what we are, and that we will never be 100% peaceful. If there is no point, why resort to violence in the first place? One: we are all gonna die anyway, a horrible, violent death or not. Two: violence is unavoidable and forever will be part of our lifes. Three: if we are all subject of this violence, why bring more into it? A crude, ridiculous example: if invading Iraq brings the country into a civil war that kills many civillians and soldiers, and not invading it will mantain Saddam as to perform tortures, and violence will remain on the world, why bother in the first place? Why invade Iraq? If the world is beyond any redemption and peace is an uthopic lie, why bring more pain and hatred into this doomned world anyway?

I could go on and say that wars are generated due to profit (our side) or insane mind-washed fundamentalistic porpouses (their side), but nah that would be pointless. Our side is the cool one.

No matter where we are in a war, we are the ones with the right points.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite


If there was 1 Hitler and 4 billion Ghandis, he wouldn't be able to do much.

Yes he would. The Ghandis would peacefully protest Hitler and Hitler would kill them one by one.


Originally posted by: ricarleite


To avoid violence? Yes, I am willing to give up a lot of things. If giving up my life, rights, way of life, religious beliefs and freedom IS going to help in achieving a non-violent future for our world, I would give up those things right now.

Well, we are never going to agree on this because I have been brough up to believe it just to fight for our rights, life, and liberty. Sure, you could give up your freedom, way of life, your rights and live at peace. But what kind of life will you have? You'll be a slave. Will you have any joy in your life? Any happiness? Is peace really worth that?

Thomas Jefferson didn't seem to think so. Read this quote made by him in 1775:
Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we have received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable.

We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before god and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficient Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.


I agree with him. As said in Braveheart: "They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom"

I like peace. But there are somethings that I am not willing to give up to obtain it.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
A crude, ridiculous example: if invading Iraq brings the country into a civil war that kills many civillians and soldiers, and not invading it will mantain Saddam as to perform tortures, and violence will remain on the world, why bother in the first place? Why invade Iraq? .


I was hoping it wasn't going to end in civil war. I was hoping the people of Iraq end up and at peace, and that they would have a democratic government.

Is Civil war really worse than the torture Sadam was putting his country through.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
If the world is beyond any redemption and peace is an uthopic lie, why bring more pain and hatred into this doomned world anyway?


Your right, lets just kill ourselves now and get it over with. We're doomed anyway right?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite


If there was 1 Hitler and 4 billion Ghandis, he wouldn't be able to do much.


Yes he would. The Ghandis would peacefully protect Hitler and Hitler would kill them one by one.



Wait, what?! Protect hitler? I don't think you understand Ghandi at all. He was all about passive resistance, not nationalism...
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
oops! another embarrassing typo. It has been corrected.
Author
Time
Post link
EDIT: Never mind. Looks like me and Warbler posted the same thing at the same time

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Ah, here we go again, editing multiple quote tags. This is hard...

Before we go on, let me once again remind anyone I am not personally atacking ANYONE here. We're still friends no matter what is said, and if I offend anyone, I apologise, as it is not my intention. Sometimes the debate gets heated and it is easy to mix up things. So, please... let's not let this get personal right?

Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite
If there was 1 Hitler and 4 billion Ghandis, he wouldn't be able to do much.
Yes he would. The Ghandis would peacefully protest Hitler and Hitler would kill them one by one.

This is a ridiculous and silly example. Why would Hitler kill 4 billion Gandhis? How would he kill the 4 billion Gandhis, kung fu?? And why?? Why would Hitler go postal and kill everyone, if he had no one to support him?! He would have no army! Nothing to conquer! Just peaceful people to kill, and he would have their corpse and nothing more! See?

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
To avoid violence? Yes, I am willing to give up a lot of things. If giving up my life, rights, way of life, religious beliefs and freedom IS going to help in achieving a non-violent future for our world, I would give up those things right now.
Well, we are never going to agree on this because I have been brough up to believe it just to fight for our rights, life, and liberty. Sure, you could give up your freedom, way of life, your rights and live at peace. But what kind of life will you have? You'll be a slave. Will you have any joy in your life? Any happiness? Is peace really worth that?


Yes it is. Besides, it would not be for myself, but for the future generations. As I've said, if it was to secure a safe and peaceful future for the rest of mankind and the following generations, yes I would give up my life. Wouldn't you? No? Hmn so why are soldiers dying anyway? Isn't that the porpouse of why THEY die? Only problem with their deaths is, violence will continue. No peace. Oh well.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
A crude, ridiculous example: if invading Iraq brings the country into a civil war that kills many civillians and soldiers, and not invading it will mantain Saddam as to perform tortures, and violence will remain on the world, why bother in the first place? Why invade Iraq? .


I was hoping it wasn't going to end in civil war. I was hoping the people of Iraq end up and at peace, and that they would have a democratic government.

Is Civil war really worse than the torture Sadam was putting his country through.


Was that a question? I don't know which one is worth. Depends on how you see things being worse. You could count the weekly average body count of innocent civillians and see which one is higher. I have no idea right now, but I could look for the numbers and see.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
If the world is beyond any redemption and peace is an uthopic lie, why bring more pain and hatred into this doomned world anyway?


Your right, lets just kill ourselves now and get it over with. We're doomed anyway right?


Well, I've been saying that peace is achieavable and all we gotta do is stop resorting to violence, and those who oppose my point of view said it is not. So, if that point of view is correct, than yes, there is no point of having the human kind on this planet and we should all die. That might sound a bit drastic, but, makes sense to me.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Yes, the world IS doomed. But killing ourselves may be a bit extreme.

I like to look at it this way, 'make the best of the time you have left.'

And Warbler, that was THE FUNNIEST typo I have ever seen lol!
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
If the world consisted of 4 billion Gandhis and 1 Hitler, Hitler would rule the world.

No he wouldn't. Hitler never killed someone himself. He got others to do that. I don't think he could achieve that in a world with only Gandis. Hitler never even saw the death camps.

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, I was thinking that too. Hitler's biggest skill was that of being a wonderful orator who was able to convince others to do his bidding. Would he be able to convert 4 billion Gandhi clones into doing his bidding? Most likely not.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite

This is a ridiculous and silly example. Why would Hitler kill 4 billion Gandhis? How would he kill the 4 billion Gandhis, kung fu?? And why?? Why would Hitler go postal and kill everyone, if he had no one to support him?! He would have no army! Nothing to conquer! Just peaceful people to kill, and he would have their corpse and nothing more! See?


Why did he kill 6 million Jews? As to why would kill them: Hitler being who he is would try to inforce his will on all the Ghandis. The Ghandis being who they are would of course peacefully resist Hitler. Hitler would not like that one bit and would react violently and kill them. As to how, remember Ghandis do not fight back so assuming Hitler had a gun with enough bullets he could easily shoot them one by one. It might take 10 or 20 years but he could do it.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


Yes it is. Besides, it would not be for myself, but for the future generations. As I've said, if it was to secure a safe and peaceful future for the rest of mankind and the following generations, yes I would give up my life.

So, you're telling me that you'd give up your life secure a way of life that was safe,peaceful, and without freedom? A life where future generations are enslaved? peace isn't worth that kind of future for mankind.


Originally posted by: ricarleite
Wouldn't you? No? Hmn so why are soldiers dying anyway? Isn't that the porpouse of why THEY die? Only problem with their deaths is, violence will continue. No peace. Oh well.


The soldiers are trying to achieve freedom not just peace.

Ric, make a choice:
A)fight and die a free man, or
B)live peacefully as a slave
which will it be? I chose A.


Originally posted by: ricarleite


Was that a question? I don't know which one is worth. Depends on how you see things being worse. You could count the weekly average body count of innocent civillians and see which one is higher. I have no idea right now, but I could look for the numbers and see.


true but as I said, the goal wasn't civil war, it was freedom. I was never crazy about the Iraq war, it is just that I'd like to see them and all people free.


Originally posted by: ricarleite


Well, I've been saying that peace is achieavable and all we gotta do is stop resorting to violence, .


but what kind of peace will it be? The kind where likes of Hitler and Stalin rule the world? That is not the kind of peace that I want.


Originally posted by: ricarleite
So, if that point of view is correct, than yes, there is no point of having the human kind on this planet and we should all die. That might sound a bit drastic, but, makes sense to me.


fine, you first. no? I didn't so. I don't know whatt the point of having humans on this earth is, but I don't believe that we are here to surrend our freedoms, rights, beliefs, and liberty to evil bullies. I think we should fight as little as we have and still maintain our freedoms and rights, and enjoy whatever little peace that comes along. Not much, but it is better than suicide or surrender.


Originally posted by: Arnie.d

No he wouldn't. Hitler never killed someone himself. He got others to do that. I don't think he could achieve that in a world with only Gandis. Hitler never even saw the death camps.


that is because he had others he could get to do his bidding. But, being that there was no one else other than the Ghandis, he would have to do it himself.

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Yeah, I was thinking that too. Hitler's biggest skill was that of being a wonderful orator who was able to convince others to do his bidding. Would he be able to convert 4 billion Gandhi clones into doing his bidding? Most likely not.


that is exactly why he would kill them, because they would refuse to do his bidding. That's the kind of guy he was.
Author
Time
Post link
To answer your response to ric, Hitler killed the Jews because he blamed them for Germany's horrible economic conditions. He first saw an orthodox Jew and concluded that someone that looked like that could not possibly be a German. And his nationalism took over.

But if there were 4 billion Ghandis and 1 Hitler, they could easily win out, peaceful or not. There are non-violent ways of dealing with psychopathic criminals, and I doubt Ghandi would be against incarcerating Hitler. And since Ghandi was originally a lawyer, all the easier it would be to prosecute him. Okay, that last sentence was a joke, but I think you get the point. Pacifism isn't the same thing as apathy. Just because someone's a pacifist doesn't mean they're just going to sit idly by while one violent maniac picks them all off, one by one. But it doesn't mean they have to resort to violence, either. Or at least extreme violence, i.e. murder. Just have to have one of them get behind him and put him in a full nelson, as an example. And then lock him up and attempt to rehabilitate him. But it seems very unlikely that Hitler that could have killed every other person in the world by himself.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Just have to have one of them get behind him and put him in a full nelson, as an example..

but, is that not an act of violence? And in my example Hitler had gun. I don't think a full nelson work, whoever tried it would get shot. I thought the only thing Ghandi would do is peacefully protest.

For the sake of argument, lets take Hitler and clone him 99 times so now there will be 100 Hitlers. Let us also give all the Hitlers machine guns. Now what do the Ghandis do?

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Pacifism isn't the same thing as apathy.


Ric's version seems to come close. (no offence)
Author
Time
Post link
Welll, I suppose it depends on your definition of violence. I wouldn't call two puppies playfully wrestling on the ground to be violence, even if they get mildly hurt in the process. To put a Hitler in a full-nelson would, most likely, not injure him at all, but just keep him from moving. But if one Hitler's staring down even 100 Gandhis, it would be very easy to be able to incapacitate him, even if he was carrying a gun.

Hehe, I must admit this hypothetical situation is starting to sound rather silly, like one of those geek conversations about pitting two unrelated superheroes or supervillains together to see who'd win in a fight.

But to get it a bit more serious, how about the Civil Rights movement? Sure, there was a lot of violence involved on both sides, but some of the most famous examples and imagery in the movement were peaceful protests and marches led by people like Martin Luther King against violent police forces, yet the Civil Rights Movement was regarded as successfuly eventually. Their peaceful methods overcame the violence of their opposition.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Which is why the Civil Rights Movement is a wonderful exception. Not all change can be enacted through violence.

On the other hand, if the government of the United States had been corrupt as say the government portrayed in "V for Vendetta" then the peaceful protest could have deteriorated into a mass genoicde. Neither side (the Federal Government or the Activitists) wanted bloodshed in that sitution and a peaceful solution was reached.

The problem is, as said before, sometimes violence is often only option because the enemy DOESN'T want a peaceful solution.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I will use a simplified version of the quote tags to make it easier.

First, as for the whole Hitler vs Gandhi discussion, it is a silly and ridiculous scenario and has no porpouse on our current discussion. I hardly think that a raving lunatic Adolf Hitler, killing apathic Gandhis with a machine gun in such a bizarre hypotetical world has anything to do with our discussion. besides, after he travels all around the world killing people, and clone himself (as we all know, Hitler was a cloning scientist as well), and kill everyone, what was he going to do? Dance and laugh, shooting in the air?! Hitler did what he did because of other reasons. Stalin did what he did due to other reasons.


The soldiers are trying to achieve freedom not just peace.

Ric, make a choice:
A)fight and die a free man, or
B)live peacefully as a slave
which will it be? I chose A.


I didn't mention ANY of the possibilities. If there was a way people could live freely and in peace, and I belive we CAN (all we have to do is stop being such mean sons of bithces), and if to acomplish that I would have to give my my own freedom or life, but making sure the rest of the world is free and at peace, I would give up my life in a second.

If a man is not at peace, is he really free?


fine, you first. no? I didn't so. I don't know whatt the point of having humans on this earth is, but I don't believe that we are here to surrend our freedoms, rights, beliefs, and liberty to evil bullies. I think we should fight as little as we have and still maintain our freedoms and rights, and enjoy whatever little peace that comes along. Not much, but it is better than suicide or surrender.


I am still alive because I belive we can acomplish what I wish for, a peaceful and free world. If we can't, if what you guys are saying is right, and if there isn't any hopes, well, give me that gun, I'll be the first to blow my brains out.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
First, as for the whole Hitler vs Gandhi discussion, it is a silly and ridiculous scenario and has no porpouse on our current discussion. I hardly think that a raving lunatic Adolf Hitler, killing apathic Gandhis with a machine gun in such a bizarre hypotetical world has anything to do with our discussion. besides, after he travels all around the world killing people, and clone himself (as we all know, Hitler was a cloning scientist as well), and kill everyone, what was he going to do? Dance and laugh, shooting in the air?! Hitler did what he did because of other reasons. Stalin did what he did due to other reasons.


I have to quote this. It's the funniest thing I've read all day, and it was basically what I was trying to say in my last post, but you nailed it.

EDIT: However, it's become so silly and such a funny idea that I'm tempted to make a new thread for pitting together ridiculous combinations of world leaders to see who'd win in a direct fight.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Welll, I suppose it depends on your definition of violence. I wouldn't call two puppies playfully wrestling on the ground to be violence, even if they get mildly hurt in the process. To put a Hitler in a full-nelson would, most likely, not injure him at all, but just keep him from moving. But if one Hitler's staring down even 100 Gandhis, it would be very easy to be able to incapacitate him, even if he was carrying a gun.


again that calls for an act of violence. Ric, you are the Gandhi expert, would Gandhi be against using a full-nelson to take down Hitler?

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape


Hehe, I must admit this hypothetical situation is starting to sound rather silly, like one of those geek conversations about pitting two unrelated superheroes or supervillains together to see who'd win in a fight.


see my answer to Ric on this below.

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape


But to get it a bit more serious, how about the Civil Rights movement? Sure, there was a lot of violence involved on both sides, but some of the most famous examples and imagery in the movement were peaceful protests and marches led by people like Martin Luther King against violent police forces, yet the Civil Rights Movement was regarded as successfuly eventually. Their peaceful methods overcame the violence of their opposition.

But look at what country it worked in. The U.S.A. Do you really King's methods would have worked in Nazi Germany? In the Middle East? Against Stalin? Against Bin Ladin? Sadam? I doubt it. Also, what ended Slavery in the U.S.? The American Civil War.

Originally posted by: ricarleite

First, as for the whole Hitler vs Gandhi discussion, it is a silly and ridiculous scenario and has no porpouse on our current discussion.


bullsh__, it goes to prove that total and complete pasifism doesn't work against people who care nothing for human life. Hitler would rule the world in my scenario because Gandhis refuse to fight him. That's the point.


Originally posted by: ricarleite

I didn't mention ANY of the possibilities. If there was a way people could live freely and in peace, and I belive we CAN (all we have to do is stop being such mean sons of bithces), and if to acomplish that I would have to give my my own freedom or life, but making sure the rest of the world is free and at peace, I would give up my life in a second.


you didn't answer my question. And in my question, I never said that you're dying would give other people peace and freedom. My question is solely about just you, your life, your rights, and your freedom.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


If a man is not at peace, is he really free?




If a man is not free, can he really be at peace? Ric, we are never going to agree on this because I have been brought up in a nation where freedom, justice, and peace are worth fighting for, dying for, and yes even killing for.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


I am still alive because I belive we can acomplish what I wish for, a peaceful and free world.


without resorting to violence? I doubt it. You may achieve peace, but not freedom.

Originally posted by: ricarleite<brIf we can't, if what you guys are saying is right, and if there isn't any hopes, well, give me that gun, I'll be the first to blow my brains out.


fine *gives Ric the WarbSP™* Just so you I have no intention of killing myself afterward. Just becaue we can't achieve peace and freedom without resorting to violence every once is a while, doesn't mean there is no hope. But if you feel that way, go ahead.
Author
Time
Post link
Quoted from Warbler:
If a man is not free, can he really be at peace? Ric, we are never going to agree on this because I have been brought up in a nation where freedom, justice, and peace are worth fighting for.



You have to see the irony in your statement.


If someone is non-violent and peaceful through their whole life, then they have lived a perfect life. It's not about 'making everyone else peaceful'. If you are peaceful, then that's enough.
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif