- Time
- Post link
Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate — Page 4
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
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.
- Time
- Post link
Fun Fact: KKK membership peaked at 4 million in the 1920s. Yikes. Wonder why they didn't join up with the Nazis later on, eh? THAT would have been an army....
What's he US military numbers?
- Time
- Post link
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.
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.
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.
EDIT: And I hope, ric, that your above "I will" isn't serious.
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.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
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.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
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.
- Time
- Post link
I apologize for my innapropriate sarcasm.
- Time
- Post link
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!
- Time
- Post link
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?
- Time
- Post link
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.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Um, ok sure. Btw, what's trolling? I think I get the idea but what is it EXACTLY?
I didn't do it to get attention either. But it was off-color as Gaffer put it. So, incident forgotten?
- Time
- Post link
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.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
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.
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.
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?
- Time
- Post link
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?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
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 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?
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.
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.
All avoidable causes. It is ridiculous to think that all those issues can be solved like that, but changing the focus on solving problems trhough violence into something else would do the trick.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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: 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?
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 know.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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?
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.
Originally posted by: Warbler
Again, I agree with Gaffer here.
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 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.
We'll see how that comes along over the following days...
Originally posted by: Warbler
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?
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.
Originally posted by: Warbler
I believe he did apologize to you.
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 want any nails to grow in the first place.
So do I.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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?
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 want any nails to grow in the first place.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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: Gaffer Tape
EDIT: And I hope, ric, that your above "I will" isn't serious.
I do too.
I am.
Well I guess I am insane, then. Peace is truly uthopic.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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!
EDIT: And I hope, ric, that your above "I will" isn't serious.
I do too.
I am.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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: 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!
[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.
Well I guess I am insane, then. Peace is truly uthopic.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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.
So do I.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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.
We'll see how that comes along over the following days...
Originally posted by: Warbler
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.
I know.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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.
All avoidable causes. It is ridiculous to think that all those issues can be solved like that, but changing the focus on solving problems trhough violence into something else would do the trick.
Originally posted by: Warbler
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 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?
LOL Brazille?
You mean Brazil right?See my answer above, I think I've used the same example above.
- Time
- Post link
And what if the Gandhis made sure no Hitler would be born?
But wouldn't that task require violence?
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
But wouldn't that task require violence?
And what if the Gandhis made sure no Hitler would be born?
But wouldn't that task require violence?
Not really. Just contraception. Hey, there's an idea. When we start genetically modifying people, too, let's just turn off the violence gene.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: sybeman
Not really. Just contraception. Hey, there's an idea. When we start genetically modifying people, too, let's just turn off the violence gene.
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
But wouldn't that task require violence?
And what if the Gandhis made sure no Hitler would be born?
But wouldn't that task require violence?
Not really. Just contraception. Hey, there's an idea. When we start genetically modifying people, too, let's just turn off the violence gene.
But since you wouldn't know which kid would be the Hitler, wouldn't that require MASS contraception?