logo Sign In

Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate — Page 5

Author
Time
Post link
We could use some population control

But seriously, there's no way to make sure he isn't born. We just have to deal with him when he comes.


Or nix the violence gene. Genetically-modified humans. Just like Gattaca
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite

What world would he rule, apart from his own? And what if the Gandhis made sure no Hitler would be born? That's what I have in mind.


He would rule the world. Making sure that a Hitler is not born is beyond our powers.

Originally posted by: ricarleite

Now you propose a better scenario for discussion, although still a bit too drastic. My point of view is only valid when I stress out that not letting these 10001 murders to get into their murdering minds is the way. I mean, think about it. Would you be one of the SS officers? Or Hitler? I know you wouldn't. I know you wouldn't do any harm to anyone. So why can't we all think alike? Besides, my point is, when you resort to violence, you are always wrong. What if the Gandhis got pissed and started to kill the SS officers? They have families who would see this and say "Hey, the Gandhis are evil!", don't you agree? And which side is "correct", on the actually sense of the word "correct"? If a bottle of coke falls from the sky and two tribes start to fight and make a war to get hold of it, which one is correct? Both are wrong, right? As violence is not the way. So what makes the bottle of coke or a pseudo-world domination to be different? You might say that world domination leads to people losing their freedom, but I am not discussion the ends, but the means to it.

I would have to say the families of the SS members are wrong. The Gandhis only killed the SS officers because the SS officer were killing the Gandhis. It all comes down to who started it. In this case, the SS started it, so they are in the wrong.

As for the coke bottle obviously it would be stupid to fight a war over a worthless coke bottle. But I value freedom, rights, and life much more highly than I do a coke bottle. I will fight a war over those.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


I don't refuse to answer any questions. I just thought you did not correctly undertood what I was talking about and was posing a question on something outside my point. But anyway, let's see if I understand what you are asking me... You ask, what if people's life and freedom depended on my fighting. The answer would be NO. I would not, as it would bring to someone else something I don't desire do inflict. I do not wish to kill anyone (unless that person requested me to perform an euthanasia, on certain conditions). I would go on and fight to make it stop on other ways. Let's give a face to your question and assemble a scenario on it, let's say it's a war between my country and some other country. I would try to 1- assist the injured, 2- speak with my leaders to see if we can avoid this situation, 3- see if there is a way to get in touch with the other side and propose the same. I have no idea why would anyone invade my country, let's asume Brazil had a lot of gold and there was no gold anywhere else. I would propose selling it. I would propose using silver instead. Or using some other material. I would do my best not to let the situation get into a war, and if it got it that way, do my best to make it stop.


So, you would let people (your countrymen, your family) be enslaved rather than fight. I would not. As for the Brazil situation I believe I had stated that peace talks had failed.

Originally posted by: [b[ricarleite

I don't want any nails to grow in the first place.


I don't either. But as I said before, that is beyond our powers.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


Well I guess I am insane, then. Peace is truly uthopic.


No, but to think that Pasifism can work against the likes of Hitler is uthopic.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


All avoidable causes. It is ridiculous to think that all those issues can be solved like that, but changing the focus on solving problems through violence into something else would do the trick.



Ric you keep talking about what to do before the violence starts. I am all for trying to prevent violence, but what I have been trying to talk about are situations where it is too late for that I am trying to discuss situations where violence is going to occur and the only way to stop it is to react violently. Take Hitler for example, sure there many things we should have done to prevent him from coming to power and to prevent WWII. But tell me what we should have done after he took Poland and France and was trying to take Britain and Russia and after he started to murder Jews? Well?

Originally posted by: ricarleite


LOL Brazille? You mean Brazil right?

See my answer above, I think I've used the same example above.



1. Yes, I meant Brazil. I apologize for that stupid mistake.

2. My example was I little different than the one you gave. In yours the attackers were after Gold, in mine the attackers simply wanted to kill all your people for the fun of it.

3. You did not answer my question one wheither or not you want our laws against Murder, Rape, Assault, and theft enforced.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite If a bottle of coke falls from the sky and two tribes start to fight and make a war to get hold of it, which one is correct? Both are wrong, right? As violence is not the way. So what makes the bottle of coke or a pseudo-world domination to be different? You might say that world domination leads to people losing their freedom, but I am not discussion the ends, but the means to it.


As for the coke bottle obviously it would be stupid to fight a war over a worthless coke bottle. But I value freedom, rights, and life much more highly than I do a coke bottle. I will fight a war over those.


I know what Ric was referring to, it was a movie on TV or something. Two African tribes lived in a remote location (somewhere in Africa lol), they knew nothing of electricity, cars, houses, businesses, or currency. In a sense it was a commune. And these two tribes had lived in peace for centuries.

One day an empty coke bottle falls from the sky (explained as falling out of a plane or something). This is a one of a kind item to these people, and it makes it priceless. Soon members of each tribe are fighting over this prized gift, which they thought came from God. The bloodshed begins and eventually there is almost no people in either tribe. What's the moral of the story?

I'll tell you; humans are naturally kind and accepting towards each other, but as soon as a material object or objects come into play, the humans have a reason to break the kindness.

Violence and murder is caused by the need for "stuff" and the drive to get said "stuff", no matter what the price. With that said, these are Buddhist terms (with their translations and explanations) about putting an end to suffering:


Dukkha: Suffering exists (suffering is real and almost universal)

Samudaya: There is a cause for suffering (the desire to have and control things, desire for fame, sex, fear, anger, etc.)

Nirodha: There is an end to suffering (letting go to any and all desires and cravings; this doesn't mean you have to be homeless, which is a common misconception)
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Humans are naturally kind and accepting towards each other? I disagree. While you might tell me that it's about material possessions, there are many more reasons than that that people have resorted to violence. Territory, material goods, respect. Throughout history, man has fought to gain the upper hand. You may say that you "don't respect violence", and that's all well and good, but fear can be an ally.
Author
Time
Post link
Hmm, I see your point about fear.

BUT, I quote you: "territory, material goods, respect". I quote me: "stuff, fame".

Territory is one that I forgot about, so yes, you are correct there. But I mentioned the other ones.
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Fame and respect are two very different motives. Violence doesn't always hinge on desire. Maybe it makes them feel good.
Author
Time
Post link
*sigh* Correct again Sybeman

So, desire is a major motive for violence. But it's not necessarily the only motive is what you're saying. Correct?
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
A big part of it, yes, but "desire" is so broad, that it's a big motivation to do anything! That's the whole definition of motive:

1. An emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an incitement to action.

You say that violence and murder are caused for a desire for "stuff". I'm saying that violence is a means to an end. Action requires motive. Violence is one way to act on that motive. I think that violence is the primary action. We've learned to be civil over the millenia, but it's human nature to use force and violence to see to an end.
Author
Time
Post link
Whether violence is a means to an end, or just and end to some people, you can't stop those who choose violence over civility with anything other than appropriate force. If someone wants to beat you up, the best way to stop them is to deliver a blow that makes fighting too difficult. If somemone wants to kill you by pressing a button to detonate the bomb on their chest, the only appropriate force is to stop that button from being pressed by any means necessary, even if it means a bullet between the eyes.

Ricardo, I want to reiterate one of Warbler's questions: Don't you believe there is ANYTHING worth fighting for. Don't you believe that liberty, the freedom to live the way you choose, to think the way you want to think, to not be afraid of your government or the lack thereof, is WORTH fighting for? If you don't think these basic things that all humans hold as inalienable rights endowed to them by their creator, then WHAT can be worth fighting for?

Because the way your posts are coming across, your answer seems like it would be "nothing"...

4

Author
Time
Post link
I'm surprised no one has used Star Wars as an example yet!

Think about it: would the Rebels have achieved freedom from attempting to hold peace talks with Darth Vader and the Emperor?

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

Author
Time
Post link
From the Drew Carey show:

"Violence doesn't solve anything? World War I. World War II. Star Wars. Every Super Bowl. Who says violence doesn't solve anything?"
“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: Nanner Split
I'm surprised no one has used Star Wars as an example yet!

Think about it: would the Rebels have achieved freedom from attempting to hold peace talks with Darth Vader and the Emperor?


They tried.
Author
Time
Post link
Everyone has the capacity to commit violence under the right circumstances. Anyone who says they won't kill in order to immediately save their own lives is sorely fooling themselves. Survival always has been and always will be the first instinct.

I do believe we should work for peace and to "change the way people think", I also believe that in the lack of an immediate, universal solution people should be able to protect themselves from those who do not subscribe to the peace in our time philosophy. In the end, Ghandi's non-violence made him a martyr. His death did not bring about change, and there's been more violence in the world since then, with no end in site. He would would have lived a lot longer if he'd had an armed bodyguard.

Here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia article regarding Ghandi's application of non-violence during WWII: Article

"Sometimes his prescription of extreme non-violence was severely at odds with the prevailing view of a situation. In 1940, he wrote an open letter to the British people in which he offered them the following plan of action for the second world war:

"I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered... I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty's government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal." (From Stanley Wolpert's "Jinnah of Pakistan.")"

So in other words, in order for non-violence to be satisfied we must all submit to horrible violence...is there not a contradiction here??
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
If Ghandi really believe that (it almost sounds like satire) then he was a friggin' moron, end of story.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
If Ghandi really believe that (it almost sounds like satire) then he was a friggin' moron, end of story.


*sigh*
“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
I won't call him a moron but I found this on the Wikipedia page Sage pointed to:

As he had done in the South African War, Gandhi urged support of the British in World War I and was active in encouraging Indians to join the army. His rationale, opposed by many others, was that if he desired the full citizenship, freedoms and rights in the Empire, it would be wrong not to help in its defence. He spoke at the conventions of the Indian National Congress, but was primarily introduced to Indian issues, politics and the Indian people by Gopal Krishna Gokhale, at the time the one of most respected leaders of the Congress Party."

So, Gandhi encouraged people to go join the army and fight in WWI. It would seem at times that Gandhi was not a total pasifist.

lets look at a few quotes on that page:

this is from a letter he wrote Britain advising them on what to do about Hitler
I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

This is advice he gave to the Jews
The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.


I don't know about you but if I were the Bitish or the Jews, I don't think I'd follow that advice.

Now lets look at this quote from the same page:

Gandhi guarded against attracting to his satyagraha movement those who feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. 'I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.'


So that are times when Gandhi would advise violence.
Author
Time
Post link
Actually no. Picking the weapon and using violence is considered in Ghandi's eyes an act of cowardice anyway. He was just eloquently moving out of a dilemma. Cowardice is what can be considered as starting violence in others or oneself. Unclear? If there is no victim there is no committer. You are what you are because you don't chnage it. I once read: the greatest freedom in a human's life is the ability to answer the order: "Give me your wallet or I will shoot you." with "No." You might get shot, but you kept your freedom. Never look upon Ghandi as a defender of individualism.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Billy Mahoney
Never look upon Ghandi as a defender of individualism.


Or of individual lives. He was willing to send the lambs en masse to the slaughter for his beliefs, in and of itself an act of violence.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Billy Mahoney
Actually no. Picking the weapon and using violence is considered in Ghandi's eyes an act of cowardice anyway..


Then how come he encouraged the Indians the join the Army and fight with Britain in WWI?

And if is a choice between cowardice or violence, he advised to chose violence. Well, if he believes that one can chose between the two, then they must be different. Therefore violence does not equal cowardice. Atleast, in the eyes of Ghandi.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Whether violence is a means to an end, or just and end to some people, you can't stop those who choose violence over civility with anything other than appropriate force. If someone wants to beat you up, the best way to stop them is to deliver a blow that makes fighting too difficult. If somemone wants to kill you by pressing a button to detonate the bomb on their chest, the only appropriate force is to stop that button from being pressed by any means necessary, even if it means a bullet between the eyes.

Ricardo, I want to reiterate one of Warbler's questions: Don't you believe there is ANYTHING worth fighting for. Don't you believe that liberty, the freedom to live the way you choose, to think the way you want to think, to not be afraid of your government or the lack thereof, is WORTH fighting for? If you don't think these basic things that all humans hold as inalienable rights endowed to them by their creator, then WHAT can be worth fighting for?

Because the way your posts are coming across, your answer seems like it would be "nothing"...



If anyone here is Christian, which his probably most of you (statistically ).....Then you should remember something, the question "What would Jesus do?". So far, Chaltab and a few others (not that I'm singling you out Chaltab) don't follow Christian beliefs at all.

Jesus did NOT believe in justice; to him everyone deserved to be forgiven for EVERYTHING no matter what. When they crucified him, he didn't fight in self-defense because he felt that violence couldn't be justified even by that. So, my point is follows....



Killing someone in self-defense isn't moral by my standards. Killing *anyone* for whatever reason isn't moral--ever. The greatest good is committing no evil at all. Jesus followed these morals, and look what happened? He became a hero and a God to hundreds of millions of people.

Now THAT'S justification.
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Jesus preached forgiveness so long as penance was made. He did not preach unending forgiveness without a change of heart and payment. "...the wages of sin is death". As a Christian we are taught to forgive because forgiveness is given freely to us, however that change MUST be present.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
And again, posting here that you believe self-defense is wrong is one thing, and actually doing it when your life or the life of someone you love is on the line is quite another.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Jesus did NOT believe in justice; to him everyone deserved to be forgiven for EVERYTHING no matter what. When they crucified him, he didn't fight in self-defense because he felt that violence couldn't be justified even by that. So, my point is follows....

Jesus didn't fight back because he was giving his life as a sacrifice for the sins of man, not because he was a pacifist. Remember the Bible also says that he made a whip and drove greedy money changers out of the Temple Mound.



Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Killing someone in self-defense isn't moral by my standards.

Sure, you say that now, Jag. I wonder if you'd change your mind if someone was running at you with a machette and your only hope was to shoot him.



Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Killing *anyone* for whatever reason isn't moral--ever.


Bollocks. It is not immoral to kill in the defense of self or others, especially those who can't defend themselves. There is such a thing as a just war.


Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
The greatest good is committing no evil at all. Jesus followed these morals, and look what happened?


You're not commiting evil by fighting for what is good and decent!


Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
THe became a hero and a God to hundreds of millions of people.

Now THAT'S justification.


*whisper* Hint, hint, Jag... It's not His death we celebrate on Easter, dude. You're three days too early!

4

Author
Time
Post link
(I need to post again because this is an edit and it wont let me quote people accurately)
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Jesus did NOT believe in justice; to him everyone deserved to be forgiven for EVERYTHING no matter what. When they crucified him, he didn't fight in self-defense because he felt that violence couldn't be justified even by that. So, my point is follows....

Jesus didn't fight back because he was giving his life as a sacrifice for the sins of man, not because he was a pacifist. Remember the Bible also says that he made a whip and drove greedy money changers out of the Temple Mound.



Ok, well I'm not a reliable source so I stand corrected.

Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Killing someone in self-defense isn't moral by my standards.

Sure, you say that now, Jag. I wonder if you'd change your mind if someone was running at you with a machette and your only hope was to shoot him.


Absolutely not.


Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Killing *anyone* for whatever reason isn't moral--ever.


Bollocks. It is not immoral to kill in the defense of self or others, especially those who can't defend themselves. There is such a thing as a just war.

Well I don't believe so, but that's opinion.

Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
The greatest good is committing no evil at all. Jesus followed these morals, and look what happened?


You're not commiting evil by fighting for what is good and decent!

You don't have to FIGHT in order to fight for what is good and decent.

Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
THe became a hero and a God to hundreds of millions of people.

Now THAT'S justification.


*whisper* Hint, hint, Jag... It's not His death we celebrate on Easter, dude. You're three days too early!


Wtf are you talking about? I don't understand what you're saying, I'm not referring to Easter at all. I'm referring to the religion of Christianity!
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif