Originally posted by: ricarleite
To quote Gandhi, if you kill me you'll have my corpse and nothing more. Not my obedience.
Well, I take it then that Gandhi would be against using a full nelson to stop Hitler. So Ric agrees 1 Hitler 4 billion Gandhis: Hitler rules the world. He might be lonely, but he will rule the world.
You can ask for neither violence to take place, but it is not going to happen. Not everyone would listen to you. If the side that wants to defend itself decides not to defend itself and instead lays down its arms, the side that is attacking wins.
I for one do not believe that every act violence is a response to another act violence. Somtimes the first act of violence comes out greed, insanity, selfishness, religous fanaticism, or simply not caring.
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
That's not completely true, Ric. Have you ever read Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood"? Perry Smith and Dick Hickock murdered a family of four just because of a rumor that there was a safe containing ten thousand dollars in the family's house. The family didn't use the least bit of resistance, and they all wound up dead. Now I ask you: how can you ask for neither violence to take place, when you have no control over the other side?
To quote Gandhi, if you kill me you'll have my corpse and nothing more. Not my obedience.
Well, I take it then that Gandhi would be against using a full nelson to stop Hitler. So Ric agrees 1 Hitler 4 billion Gandhis: Hitler rules the world. He might be lonely, but he will rule the world.
Originally posted by: ricarleite
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.
In my scenario, I wasn't worried about how Hitler came to be Hitler, he just came to be that way. It is possible for that to happned even with 4 billion Gandis in the world. Remember some people argue you are born the person you are and environment has nothing to do with it. As far as what he would gain from using violence? He would gain control of the world. You right, he couldn't clone himself. So what if the world consisted of only Hitler, 10,000 SS officers, and 4 Billion Gandis. Now what?
Again, I agree with Gaffer here.
Originally posted by: ricarleite
And by the way, while the whole point has been to resort to violence to defend yourself from an outside violence, what I am asking is for neither violence to take place. Why? Because, that outside violence is always a response to another kind of violence, be it directly or indirectly. Someone atacks you because you have either atacked someone first, or someone else has done it. Violence does not come out of nowhere. And if we stop this circle of perpetuating, by stopping BOTH sides, we'll then achieve peace.
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.
In my scenario, I wasn't worried about how Hitler came to be Hitler, he just came to be that way. It is possible for that to happned even with 4 billion Gandis in the world. Remember some people argue you are born the person you are and environment has nothing to do with it. As far as what he would gain from using violence? He would gain control of the world. You right, he couldn't clone himself. So what if the world consisted of only Hitler, 10,000 SS officers, and 4 Billion Gandis. Now what?
Originally posted by: ricarleite
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.
Well, if you refuse to answer my questions, then there no point to continueing this debate. When I asked my question, I wasn't trying to refer to senarios where your not fighting could free others. I was thinking about situations where fighting and killing would be the only way to obtain freedom for yourself and for others. Of course I would agree if dying and or giving up freedom would free others and save lives, then thats what I would do. But what if that is not the case? What if other peoples lives and their freedoms, and rights depended on you fighting for them?
I believe he did apologize to you.
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Well, I'm not quite fighting against you here, ric. I agree that pacifism is by far the best way to deal with things. However, in a real world situation, it doesn't always work, so I condone violence only as a last resort, because, at some point, it's the only thing people will listen to. And it's sad, but it appears to be true. But in terms of theory, I agree with what you're saying.
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.
Well, if you refuse to answer my questions, then there no point to continueing this debate. When I asked my question, I wasn't trying to refer to senarios where your not fighting could free others. I was thinking about situations where fighting and killing would be the only way to obtain freedom for yourself and for others. Of course I would agree if dying and or giving up freedom would free others and save lives, then thats what I would do. But what if that is not the case? What if other peoples lives and their freedoms, and rights depended on you fighting for them?
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Feels like we are looking at both sides of the same coin.
yep
I understand and respect the fact that you have a different view. You have every right to your opinion. I just don't understand it. But please understand that I'd rather have 10 billion Gandis on the earth, than 1 Hitler.
Originally posted by: ricarleite
And let me get this straight. Jagdlieter, please do avoid trolling as you've been doing so far. Trolls usually (and thankfully) have a short life-span on this forum. Please don't be next, and if you feel such an urge to call attention to yourself, I recommend you to find other ways. I don't disagree or disaprove your needs, I just think it isn't fair to ruin a good, clean and moderated debate forum just because of that. OK?
Feels like we are looking at both sides of the same coin.
yep
Originally posted by: ricarleite
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"?
yep. that why. If we don't fight the Hitlers, The Stalins, The Sadams, the Nazis, The KKK, they will grow too long and powerful and take over the world. I am not willing to let that happen. Are you?
I don't know that I'd put it the way Chaltab did, but I too wonder how one can possibly think that total and absolute pasifism will work against people who are willing to shoot unarmed nonviolent people to obtain what they want.
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab, I'll take your comments as a constructive critic and as a complement. I do have a radical and small-voiced point of view, but those are not based really on 100% logic, but in my principles and ethics. If everyone had a small amount of this sort of principles, as we all do (no one here is a criminal or a murder), and having it this way is indeed possible (maybe only theorically), then why should I give up? I know you guys don't agree with me, I know I'm alone here, but these are my principles, this is how I have conducted my life, or at least tried to. I'm no Gandhi, I might be wrong and hypocritical and babbling something that is not correct, but still I'm following what I feel is right. You guys are doing the same,a dn i understand that! I totally understand your point of view, I just think there is another way!
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"?
yep. that why. If we don't fight the Hitlers, The Stalins, The Sadams, the Nazis, The KKK, they will grow too long and powerful and take over the world. I am not willing to let that happen. Are you?
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
The way you talk about it, the US handled the Civil Rights Movement in a completely civil way that did not involve individuals bombing churches and committing grotesque acts of murder, only to have the local authorities, i.e. the police, whose job is to serve and protect the people, not do their jobs by never pressing charges, sometimes silently supporting acts or murder and barbarism, and sometimes actively attacking marches with high pressure water hoses and brutal arrests, sometimes for no reason at all. And that makes those police officers any better than Nazis or terrorists how? And remember that the Civil War was not fought for the express purpose of freeing the slaves. It was only done during the war to undermine the Confederacy's sovereignty. And afterwards, black people weren't much better off than they were before in many places.
I never said the U.S. handled the Civil Rights movement perfectly. I am saying that they handled it better than the Nazis would have. The Nazis would have mowed the peaceful protestors down with machine guns, end of the Civil Rights movement.
before Civil War: black people were in chains
after Civil War black people were freed. Case closed
I do too.
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
[quote]So WHY keep doing it if it's impossible to win anyway? Just so we can keep the nails "not too long"?[/quote]
YES! If we cut the 'nails' before they can get 'too long' we save the world MORE violence and grief.
Ric, listen to yourself. How can you possibly, logically believe your own arguments. You can't possibly think pure, blind pacificsm would work against people who HATE YOU, and WANT YOU BEHEADED, and want to see the streets of our cities run with the blood of our children, who DESPISE freedom in any form...
My brain cannot understand how you can possibly even begin to believe that pacifism will work against such a foe. You're acting like a mindless brainwashed idiot, Ric. You're supposed to be smarter than that!
The way you talk about it, the US handled the Civil Rights Movement in a completely civil way that did not involve individuals bombing churches and committing grotesque acts of murder, only to have the local authorities, i.e. the police, whose job is to serve and protect the people, not do their jobs by never pressing charges, sometimes silently supporting acts or murder and barbarism, and sometimes actively attacking marches with high pressure water hoses and brutal arrests, sometimes for no reason at all. And that makes those police officers any better than Nazis or terrorists how? And remember that the Civil War was not fought for the express purpose of freeing the slaves. It was only done during the war to undermine the Confederacy's sovereignty. And afterwards, black people weren't much better off than they were before in many places.
I never said the U.S. handled the Civil Rights movement perfectly. I am saying that they handled it better than the Nazis would have. The Nazis would have mowed the peaceful protestors down with machine guns, end of the Civil Rights movement.
before Civil War: black people were in chains
after Civil War black people were freed. Case closed
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Now, I'm not saying at all that certain important things aren't worth fighting for. I'm simply saying that, just because they are worth fighting for, running off to die and kill shouldn't be the obvious solution but rather the final one.
That is all I have been trying to say.
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
T
EDIT: And I hope, ric, that your above "I will" isn't serious.
Now, I'm not saying at all that certain important things aren't worth fighting for. I'm simply saying that, just because they are worth fighting for, running off to die and kill shouldn't be the obvious solution but rather the final one.
That is all I have been trying to say.
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
T
EDIT: And I hope, ric, that your above "I will" isn't serious.
I do too.
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
[quote]So WHY keep doing it if it's impossible to win anyway? Just so we can keep the nails "not too long"?[/quote]
YES! If we cut the 'nails' before they can get 'too long' we save the world MORE violence and grief.
Ric, listen to yourself. How can you possibly, logically believe your own arguments. You can't possibly think pure, blind pacificsm would work against people who HATE YOU, and WANT YOU BEHEADED, and want to see the streets of our cities run with the blood of our children, who DESPISE freedom in any form...
My brain cannot understand how you can possibly even begin to believe that pacifism will work against such a foe. You're acting like a mindless brainwashed idiot, Ric. You're supposed to be smarter than that!
I don't know that I'd put it the way Chaltab did, but I too wonder how one can possibly think that total and absolute pasifism will work against people who are willing to shoot unarmed nonviolent people to obtain what they want.
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab, I'll take your comments as a constructive critic and as a complement. I do have a radical and small-voiced point of view, but those are not based really on 100% logic, but in my principles and ethics. If everyone had a small amount of this sort of principles, as we all do (no one here is a criminal or a murder), and having it this way is indeed possible (maybe only theorically), then why should I give up? I know you guys don't agree with me, I know I'm alone here, but these are my principles, this is how I have conducted my life, or at least tried to. I'm no Gandhi, I might be wrong and hypocritical and babbling something that is not correct, but still I'm following what I feel is right. You guys are doing the same,a dn i understand that! I totally understand your point of view, I just think there is another way!
I understand and respect the fact that you have a different view. You have every right to your opinion. I just don't understand it. But please understand that I'd rather have 10 billion Gandis on the earth, than 1 Hitler.
Originally posted by: ricarleite
And let me get this straight. Jagdlieter, please do avoid trolling as you've been doing so far. Trolls usually (and thankfully) have a short life-span on this forum. Please don't be next, and if you feel such an urge to call attention to yourself, I recommend you to find other ways. I don't disagree or disaprove your needs, I just think it isn't fair to ruin a good, clean and moderated debate forum just because of that. OK?
I believe he did apologize to you.
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Well, I'm not quite fighting against you here, ric. I agree that pacifism is by far the best way to deal with things. However, in a real world situation, it doesn't always work, so I condone violence only as a last resort, because, at some point, it's the only thing people will listen to. And it's sad, but it appears to be true. But in terms of theory, I agree with what you're saying.
Again, I agree with Gaffer here.
Originally posted by: ricarleite
And by the way, while the whole point has been to resort to violence to defend yourself from an outside violence, what I am asking is for neither violence to take place. Why? Because, that outside violence is always a response to another kind of violence, be it directly or indirectly. Someone atacks you because you have either atacked someone first, or someone else has done it. Violence does not come out of nowhere. And if we stop this circle of perpetuating, by stopping BOTH sides, we'll then achieve peace.
You can ask for neither violence to take place, but it is not going to happen. Not everyone would listen to you. If the side that wants to defend itself decides not to defend itself and instead lays down its arms, the side that is attacking wins.
I for one do not believe that every act violence is a response to another act violence. Somtimes the first act of violence comes out greed, insanity, selfishness, religous fanaticism, or simply not caring.
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
That's not completely true, Ric. Have you ever read Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood"? Perry Smith and Dick Hickock murdered a family of four just because of a rumor that there was a safe containing ten thousand dollars in the family's house. The family didn't use the least bit of resistance, and they all wound up dead. Now I ask you: how can you ask for neither violence to take place, when you have no control over the other side?
good point.
Tell me Ric, would you be for getting rid of our police forces? When criminal resist, the police resort to violence to stop them. Would you be against that? Do want choas and anarchy to rein supreme? Do you want laws against murder, assult, rape, and theft inforced?
Tell me, if an enemy army surrounded Brazille and then annouced they intended to kill every person in Brazille just for the fun it, and peace talk were tried and failed. What would you advise your nation and other nations to do? Just stand there, do nothing, and let it happen?