logo Sign In

Violence VS. Non-Violence ~~~ Debate — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
The thing is, Jag, as Chaltab points out, people join the army and go to war to defend their nation, to defend innocent people. That doesn't mean they want to kill. And while you're right that, if everyone decided that violence wasn't necessary, then war could be averted, there will always be someone who solves their problems with violence. If someone starts the violence, you're already in a defensive position.

Nobody "deserves" to die. But violence is a part of human nature. A part of our heritage. A part of our culture. You're a little misgiven if you think you can convince everyone to stop fighting by saying "Violence is wrong, guys, see?"
Author
Time
Post link
I'm not going to quote because this is getting complicated. First of all, yes; I agree with your statement about self defense.

Secondly, you said that the people who went to war were defending the people who died in 9/11, but wasn't the word you meant to use REVENGE??? Because that's what it was! We didn't sail over to the Middle East out of self-defense, so don't lecture me on naivety (although I may be it at times).

Thirdly, I'm surprised about the Christmans thing(frightening images popped into my head portraying soldiers as pawns, controlled by the gov. in a gigantic game of chess; the chess board, EARTH). Not that I don't believe you, but, well--frankly I almost don't. And the word DUTY is not by any means in the same category as SELF DEFENSE, it was a word created to make the violence of war more tolerable by reminding us that what we were doing was "right". Whether we personally believed this or not wasn't relevant, the fact that our government believed it was enough to make us fight again. Trust me when I say I think before I speak, we just think differently(why debates exist right? ).

Fourthly, I WILL read Lord of the Flies because it sounds interesting.

Finally, Your last (relevant) statement regarding 'going to war against the monsters that hate mankind'; Doesn't it sound kind of bad, when you practically say: the solution to these monsters is killing them so we don't have to deal with them anymore? I mean, this kind of thing has been done before and it wasn't really justified if you ask me, like governments killing their own citizens out of fear of revolution.
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: sybeman
The thing is, Jag, as Chaltab points out, people join the army and go to war to defend their nation, to defend innocent people. That doesn't mean they want to kill. And while you're right that, if everyone decided that violence wasn't necessary, then war could be averted, there will always be someone who solves their problems with violence. If someone starts the violence, you're already in a defensive position.

Nobody "deserves" to die. But violence is a part of human nature. A part of our heritage. A part of our culture. You're a little misgiven if you think you can convince everyone to stop fighting by saying "Violence is wrong, guys, see?"



Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't, you shouldn't be so pessimistic.


"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Jag, a man breaks into your house and points a gun at a family member and says he is going to kill that family member, what are you going to do. True, you could try to talk him out of it, he may only be bluffing, but what if he isn't? what if you try talking to him and you fail and he shoots and kills your family member?


Lets take this further, what if after shooting and killing your family member, he escapes. Do you or do not want the police to go after him. Do want him to just walk around free for the rest of his life and never be punished for what he did? What if the police find him and he refuses to surrender without a fight. Should they let him go or use violence to take him into custody?


As for war. As I said before, unless you wish to be ruled by the likes of Hitler, war is somtimes necessary. Or are you going tell me that a man who kills 6 million Jews because he hates Jewish people shouldn't be stopped?

You're right when you say if both sides put their guns down, there would be no war. But, put yourself in the soldiers position, soldiers from the enemy country are charging at you and your comrades, are you going to bet your life, the lives of your fellow soldiers, your country, and your family that if you put your gun down, the enemy will too?

Nonviolence works if both sides agree to solve their problems nonviolently. But if only one side chooses nonviolence, the side that chooses violence will win. So unless you like to lose, you will have to choose violence.


And are you willing to give up to avoid violence? Your life? Your rights? Your way of life? Your religious beliefs? Your freedom? If the choice is to give up the things that I have meantioned or resort to violence what do you do? At what price nonviolence Jag?
Author
Time
Post link
**In response to sybeman**

No, I don't.

We cannot see air but is is there! We cannot see an end to violence but maybe IT IS THERE!!!

You may think this analogy is foolish but you cannot prove me wrong! Do you agree with even THAT?
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter

We cannot see air but is is there! We cannot see an end to violence but maybe IT IS THERE!!!


and maybe it is not. Do you agree with even that? You know its one thing to go after Bush for sending our troops to war, but it is another thing to call them murderers. That really offends me. I wonder what the friends and family members of the soldiers that have died in war would have to say to you about that.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler

And are you willing to give up to avoid violence? Your life? Your rights? Your way of life? Your religious beliefs? Your freedom? If the choice is to give up the things that I have meantioned or resort to violence what do you do? At what price nonviolence Jag?


It seems I have a weak spot! The human in me says that if someone even puts one finger on a loved one, I will kill them(not literally, but I will make things even that's for sure). I almost have two halves; one instinct, and one logic. All of us do.

So, yes I agree that your scenario is correct, if someone else's life was at risk I would do what it would take to save them, even if it meant I had to kill. If my life was on the line, and I had a choice to kill or die; I do not know what I would do, because I have never been put in the situation.

I can only assume that self-preservation would take over, unfortunately, which basically nullifies my previous arguments.

So the real question, what would YOU do? I can easily say that someone else should do this or that but do I believe it of myself? I don't know! And it's plain frustrating! Ok, fine.....

I'm comfortable in accepting defeat. I accept that self-defense is a justifiable reason for killing someone. I agree that Hitler deserved death after what he had done(though I will never truly be able to draw a line to seperate "deserving" and "undeserving"). I agree that sometimes primal instincts are MUCH more powerful than logical ones and result in the 'changing of sides' in terms of morals. And for Chaltab, I accept that not all who enter war on their own terms do it for bloodshed.
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter

We cannot see air but is is there! We cannot see an end to violence but maybe IT IS THERE!!!


and maybe it is not. Do you agree with even that? You know its one thing to go after Bush for sending our troops to war, but it is another thing to call them murderers. That really offends me. I wonder what the friends and family members of the soldiers that have died in war would have to say to you about that.


I never called them murderers (or meant to), if it came off that way I take that back then. And yes I agree with you, some questions have no answers; and it drives thinkers like me MAD!
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
I am a liberal, pacifist, anti-violence kinda guy, and I tend to agree with Ric and Gandhi, but, as I have said numerous times before, humans suck, as does human nature, and there will always be violence and negativity. Do Ghandi's words actually help us find an anser in the real world, or are they just idealistic wishful thinking? Perhaps it is the fact that everybody thinks it is stupid idealism that stops it from ever being anything more than that. So should I stand by and be non-violent, or do I need to partake in the violence to protect myself and my family/friends? And by doing so am I simply being a hippocrite and adding to the poor human nature that I loathe so much? Is there ever a time when violence is necessary? some good examples have been given. So who is right? Jesus said turn the other cheek - if we take this literally, let's say some guy punches me on the face, so I turn the other cheek. He puts a bullet in it and I die. Did I do the right thing? Did my pacifism prevent violence or make the world a better place? Either way, I'm dead. On the other hand what if, after being punched in the cheek, I headbutted the guy, pulled my own gun, and shot him? But why even let him punch me the first time? What if I saw his fist coming for my face, blocked it, then pulled my gun and shot him. But why even let him get the swing in? How about if, as soon as I see his eyes move towards me and his hand move, I shoot him. Or how about if I just shoot anyone who looks like they might want to hit me? Then again, perhaps if I walk around with my gun permanently drawn, nobody will want to hit me at all and I will be safe. Or will this make other people who see me brandishing my gun go for their weapon in the fear that I am going to shoot them? What if they decide it's better to shoot me before I shoot them? Where does any of this get us? To put the question on a global scale, is War ever justified? Hitler needed to be stopped, and appeasement in the early stages of his advance across Eurpoe only made it harder to stop him in the long run. Yet I am anti-war so how can I say WW2 was justified? No matter how hard I or we try to plant the seeds of peace, there will always be those who will, for whatever reason of their own (be it greed, revenge, anger or just plain craziness) want to quash that peace. Sometimes it is even done in the name of peace!! (can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, etc). This is quickly becoming my catchphrase, but I'll say it again: it all comes down to human nature, and human nature sucks.

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do know that the day we blow ourselves up will be a fitting end to our pathetic race.


P.S. Excluding the pea-brained hillbillies who refer to Iraqis as 'turkeys who need to be put down' and take pleasure in killing and violence, or beating tehir captives then photographing them, etc, I have absolutely nothing against the individuals involved in the current Iraq war, or any other war. I have a problem with the governments who sent them into that war, and even then I don't have anything against some of those government individuals because I understand the very hard decisions involved. However, when ulterior motives and back-alley dealings are bought into the equation, then I have a problem. But fundamentally, the front line men and women fighting on either side are ok in my book. They are just doing a job, and in many cases (such as WW2) they were enlisted and didn't even choose to do that job. Although having said that, does 'I was just following orders' really cut it? Isn't that what they said at Nurenburg...

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Originally posted by: ricarleite
"An eye for an eye will make everyone blind"

NOTHING justifies violence. Nothing.


There's the ticket, we agree on that one Ric. Good quote btw, who is it again?


It's also one of the most naive philosophies on the planet...I can imagine one of the Iraqi Khurds going up to Saddam and saying "You know, an eye for an eye only makes the whole world......ARRRRRGHGGHGHH!" immediately before being shot, followed by nerve gas being released in their village. Please, oh please.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Originally posted by: ricarleite
"An eye for an eye will make everyone blind"

NOTHING justifies violence. Nothing.


There's the ticket, we agree on that one Ric. Good quote btw, who is it again?


It's also one of the most naive philosophies on the planet...I can imagine one of the Iraqi Khurds going up to Saddam and saying "You know, an eye for an eye only makes the whole world......ARRRRRGHGGHGHH!" immediately before being shot, followed by nerve gas being released in their village. Please, oh please.
Sage is right - it's a very naive and unrealistic attitude. But how sad that that is the case. Like I said - human nature sucks.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Have you guys ever realized that all justification for violence is to stop violence? In order to stop it, you gotta generate a greater, stronger violence, and therefore IMPOSE you will over the weaker. Problem is, the other side might do the same.

So I guess that killing someone who has break into your house is justifiable. And, for most people, that's the end of the story. "If someone breaks into my home I'll shoot that person and that's it!", but, what caused that man to break into your home? Is it for the money? But why? Is that person on drugs? What was the cause of that personal degradation that lead it to commit acts of violence in the first place? Is the only alternative to fight it with violence, or can we prevent it? Instead of focusing on grabbing more guns, why don;t we focus on how to avoid violence to begin in first place?

And then we sadly realize that there are two reasons for this. First, the people who tend to focus on violence to end violence, is the kind of person who would commit an act of violence in the first place. Second, violence generates a whole bunch of money to some people who are living in secure, protected and rich homes away from the misery and poverty of the whole world.
“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: Yoda Is Your Father
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: Jagdlieter
Originally posted by: ricarleite
"An eye for an eye will make everyone blind"

NOTHING justifies violence. Nothing.


There's the ticket, we agree on that one Ric. Good quote btw, who is it again?


It's also one of the most naive philosophies on the planet...I can imagine one of the Iraqi Khurds going up to Saddam and saying "You know, an eye for an eye only makes the whole world......ARRRRRGHGGHGHH!" immediately before being shot, followed by nerve gas being released in their village. Please, oh please.
Sage is right - it's a very naive and unrealistic attitude. But how sad that that is the case. Like I said - human nature sucks.


I totally hate that it's true. I want to clarify that. I want my kids to grow up in a world that's better than the one we have. Sadly, I have to be realistic and teach them to be strong, because it's fantasy to believe it's any other way...

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Have you guys ever realized that all justification for violence is to stop violence? When you figure out how to do this across the globe simultaneously, then I'll buy into that line of thinking.

First, the people who tend to focus on violence to end violence, is the kind of person who would commit an act of violence in the first place.
A generalization and stereotype.

Second, violence generates a whole bunch of money to some people who are living in secure, protected and rich homes away from the misery and poverty of the whole world.


Another stereotype based on indoctrinated thinking rather than facts. I live in quite, safe, middle-class neighborhood. If someone breaks into my neighbor's house and they respond with violence I don't make a dime...And so we're back to the original point. If someone breaks into my home, I should sit down and sing folk songs with the person and discuss how it's not REALLY their fault that they broke in. It's their poor socio-economic circumstances that forced them to pick up a knife and a crow-bar and made them break in during the middle of the night and try to kill me. Water under the bridge!

Back to my signature from last week... If poverty and social injustice are the only factors in crime why do rich people still go to jail?? Martha Stewart, Leona Helmsley, the Enron group, the governor of my home state, the list goes on....
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I hate this multiple quote tags, so it might not look properly, but oh well:

Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Have you guys ever realized that all justification for violence is to stop violence? When you figure out how to do this across the globe simultaneously, then I'll buy into that line of thinking.


All I was saying on that sentence you've quoted, is how the ONLY real reason someone would call up for a justifiable violence act is to END another violence act. Would you use violence to anything else, and being justifiable and have you violence act as morally acceptable?


Originally posted by: JediSage

First, the people who tend to focus on violence to end violence, is the kind of person who would commit an act of violence in the first place. A generalization and stereotype.


In which way? It's pretty much the whole story of the egg and the chicken, who came first? The egg or the chicken? Who has started the violence? Saddam Hussein uses violence but to his own MIND it's justifiable. That's because he is using violence to impose a greater good over some other violence, which, then, was justifiable. It's an endless cicle. So the ones perpetuating violence are the ones who may begin it on the first place.

Originally posted by: JediSage

Second, violence generates a whole bunch of money to some people who are living in secure, protected and rich homes away from the misery and poverty of the whole world.


Another stereotype based on indoctrinated thinking rather than facts. I live in quite, safe, middle-class neighborhood. If someone breaks into my neighbor's house and they respond with violence I don't make a dime...And so we're back to the original point. If someone breaks into my home, I should sit down and sing folk songs with the person and discuss how it's not REALLY their fault that they broke in. It's their poor socio-economic circumstances that forced them to pick up a knife and a crow-bar and made them break in during the middle of the night and try to kill me. Water under the bridge!


I was not talking about you or the general people. I was talking about people who profit from weapons and the violence industry.

Originally posted by: JediSage

Back to my signature from last week... If poverty and social injustice are the only factors in crime why do rich people still go to jail?? Martha Stewart, Leona Helmsley, the Enron group, the governor of my home state, the list goes on....


Those are white-collar related crimes, related mostly to financial crimes like illegal stock moves or bribery. But what does that have to do with violence? Who said rich people don't go to jail?
“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
It seems we're all beginning to hate the human race and the unanswerable questions that come with it.

This debate has become really healthy hasn't it? (don't think it sarcasm, because it isn't!)
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Well, it is because human nature is central to this debate. If it were POSSIBLE, what you're saying would of course be the best way to go. But all throughout history, from Cain and Able to the brewing civil war in Iraq, there has always been a portion of the world that refuses to rise above the urges to do harm to others. Pacifism only works, as Sage and YodaIYF have been saying, if both sides agree to it, and that CERTAINLY isn't going to happen in this war. Islamofacism and democracy cannot coexist peacably in the same world, end of story.

4

Author
Time
Post link
*sigh*

Agreed.

All we can do now is do the best that we can; in a way that will make this world as peaceful as it can be, however much that is.
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Well, it is because human nature is central to this debate. If it were POSSIBLE, what you're saying would of course be the best way to go. But all throughout history, from Cain and Able to the brewing civil war in Iraq, there has always been a portion of the world that refuses to rise above the urges to do harm to others. Pacifism only works, as Sage and YodaIYF have been saying, if both sides agree to it, and that CERTAINLY isn't going to happen in this war. Islamofacism and democracy cannot coexist peacably in the same world, end of story.


So please do explain why "democracy" is the one with justifiable means to resort to violence. Also, if we have been killing each other since the biblical times, and we keep doing it now, what makes you think a war will solve everything now?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Have you guys ever realized that all justification for violence is to stop violence?
well, that is the only justification I would accept.

Originally posted by: ricarleite


So I guess that killing someone who has break into your house is justifiable. And, for most people, that's the end of the story. "If someone breaks into my home I'll shoot that person and that's it!", but, what caused that man to break into your home? Is it for the money? But why? Is that person on drugs? What was the cause of that personal degradation that lead it to commit acts of violence in the first place?

unfortunatly, if someone breaks into your house, and points a gun at a family member, you usually to don't have time to go back and solve those problems before the criminal shoots your family member.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
degradation that lead it to commit acts of violence in the first place? Is the only alternative to fight it with violence, or can we prevent it?


in the long term maybe, but in the immediate situation, no.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Instead of focusing on grabbing more guns, why don;t we focus on how to avoid violence to begin in first place?.


How bout we do both?

Originally posted by: ricarleite


All I was saying on that sentence you've quoted, is how the ONLY real reason someone would call up for a justifiable violence act is to END another violence act. Would you use violence to anything else, and being justifiable and have you violence act as morally acceptable?


huh? I think you may have commited typos here. Could you make this more clear?

Originally posted by: ricarleite


So please do explain why "democracy" is the one with justifiable means to resort to violence. ?


Well I don't know that I'd put it exactly that way, but what kind of government would you prefer to live under? Democracy, Facism, Communism, A Monarchy, A Dictatorship? I'll pick the one where the people decide who the leader will be. I'll pick type the government that believes in equality, freedom and justice for all.

you never answered my earlier question:

Originally posted by: Warbler

And what are you willing to give up to avoid violence? Your life? Your rights? Your way of life? Your religious beliefs? Your freedom? If the choice is to give up the things that I have meantioned or resort to violence what do you do? At what price nonviolence Jag?
At what price Ric?

As for Gandhi

think about this:

If the world consisted of 4 billion Gandhis and 1 Hitler, Hitler would rule the world.
Author
Time
Post link
You're wrong. Hitler would rule no one. Because all of the Ghandis would give up their lives for what they felt was right.
http://www.my-musik.com/uploads/zidane006.gif
Author
Time
Post link
Well then, if all the Ghandis "give up their lives for what they felt was right," then Hitler will still rule the world. He'll just be alone.
Author
Time
Post link
God I hate multiple quote tags...

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
All I was saying on that sentence you've quoted, is how the ONLY real reason someone would call up for a justifiable violence act is to END another violence act. Would you use violence to anything else, and being justifiable and have you violence act as morally acceptable?


huh? I think you may have commited typos here. Could you make this more clear?


OK sorry, let me re-write that. All I was saying on that quote, is that the only reason someone would use violence and use it in a justifiable way, would be to END another act of violence. Is there any other reason for someone to USE violence, in a justifiable way, and in a way that bis morally acceptable?

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite


So please do explain why "democracy" is the one with justifiable means to resort to violence. ?


Well I don't know that I'd put it exactly that way, but what kind of government would you prefer to live under? Democracy, Facism, Communism, A Monarchy, A Dictatorship? I'll pick the one where the people decide who the leader will be. I'll pick type the government that believes in equality, freedom and justice for all.

I am not saying that democracy is a bad system or worse than other ways of ruling. What I asked is, what makes OUR side the GOOD one? What makes the violence applied by the democratic regimes justifiable over the violence applied by "our enemy" - which is not really our enemy if you think about it, but still...

Originally posted by: Warbler

you never answered my earlier question:

Originally posted by: Warbler

And what are you willing to give up to avoid violence? Your life? Your rights? Your way of life? Your religious beliefs? Your freedom? If the choice is to give up the things that I have meantioned or resort to violence what do you do? At what price nonviolence Jag?
At what price Ric?

As for Gandhi

think about this:

If the world consisted of 4 billion Gandhis and 1 Hitler, Hitler would rule the world.


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

If there was 1 Hitler and 4 billion Ghandis, he wouldn't be able to do much.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite


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


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


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

4