Originally posted by: Warbler
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.
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?
To quote Gandhi, if you kill me you'll have my corpse and nothing more. Not my obedience.
Why not? Just because you are suggesting someone will always resort to tyrany? Then what is the porpouse of locking Saddam out, or killing him? He will be replaced by others. Reminds me of a quote from "Munich", ***POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!!*** in which Eric Bana's character says "All the people I've killed were replaced by worse people, what was the reason?", and Geoffrey Rush's character replies to something like "My nails will keep growing, why cutting then?", only that the nails won't hurt anyone, but the bad people will. So WHY keep doing it if it's impossible to win anyway? Just so we can keep the nails "not too long"?
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite
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.
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?
To quote Gandhi, if you kill me you'll have my corpse and nothing more. Not my obedience.
Originally posted by: Warbler
without resorting to violence? I doubt it. You may achieve peace, but not freedom.
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.
First, it's a silly and completely stupid scenario with no pratical reasons. OK let's just proceed with this Monty Python sketch of a hypothetical situation, and asume we have a world in which we have 4 billion Gandhis - and I don't mean 4 billion people looking like a thin Ben Kingsley in underpants, I mean 4 billion people who wouldn't resort to violence. Then we have a Hitler being born, and by Hitler I mean someone who thins differently and see force as an ally. Then, answer me, why would he think differently? Mutation? Not being educated by the Gandhis surrounding him? What would he gain by resorting to violence? Power to do WHAT? To rule WHO? To rule WHAT? Who would follow him? Obey him? And no, he wouldn't have access to cloning devices, time machines, or flying killing robots.
Feels like we are looking at both sides of the same coin.
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I am still alive because I belive we can acomplish what I wish for, a peaceful and free world.
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.
First, it's a silly and completely stupid scenario with no pratical reasons. OK let's just proceed with this Monty Python sketch of a hypothetical situation, and asume we have a world in which we have 4 billion Gandhis - and I don't mean 4 billion people looking like a thin Ben Kingsley in underpants, I mean 4 billion people who wouldn't resort to violence. Then we have a Hitler being born, and by Hitler I mean someone who thins differently and see force as an ally. Then, answer me, why would he think differently? Mutation? Not being educated by the Gandhis surrounding him? What would he gain by resorting to violence? Power to do WHAT? To rule WHO? To rule WHAT? Who would follow him? Obey him? And no, he wouldn't have access to cloning devices, time machines, or flying killing robots.
Originally posted by: 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, dying for, and yes even killing for.
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.
I didn't answer your question because I am not talking about MYSELF. I am talking about the whole world here. If I only thought about myself, then I would agree that violence is great. Screw the rest of the world, I earn enough to buy guns, who cares if they are at peace or not? Who cares about all the rest of the world? In such a situation, would I kill myself to protect the other? Hell no! BUT I try to think of others, and considering the well-care of the rest of the world, my life is insignificant. I would die or lose my freedom if that meant what I dream for coming true.
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite
If a man is not at peace, is he really free?
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.
I didn't answer your question because I am not talking about MYSELF. I am talking about the whole world here. If I only thought about myself, then I would agree that violence is great. Screw the rest of the world, I earn enough to buy guns, who cares if they are at peace or not? Who cares about all the rest of the world? In such a situation, would I kill myself to protect the other? Hell no! BUT I try to think of others, and considering the well-care of the rest of the world, my life is insignificant. I would die or lose my freedom if that meant what I dream for coming true.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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.
Feels like we are looking at both sides of the same coin.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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.
Why not? Just because you are suggesting someone will always resort to tyrany? Then what is the porpouse of locking Saddam out, or killing him? He will be replaced by others. Reminds me of a quote from "Munich", ***POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!!*** in which Eric Bana's character says "All the people I've killed were replaced by worse people, what was the reason?", and Geoffrey Rush's character replies to something like "My nails will keep growing, why cutting then?", only that the nails won't hurt anyone, but the bad people will. So WHY keep doing it if it's impossible to win anyway? Just so we can keep the nails "not too long"?
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite
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.
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.
I will.