Non-violence

[ibetyouvotenexttimehippy]

First off I want to make it clear I am not asking anyone to do my homework, I am simply looking for opinions. I have to write an essay.

"The principles of non-violence have been used throughout the world in an attempt to affect social and political change. how successful has it been and does it have a place in the modern world?"

I have already written 1500 words on this but am looking for some others opinions about it. I have basically said it has a place in the world but as of current it is a vacant position, some Gandhi/Mandela quotes et cetera.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

[MR.Kitty55]

Originally Posted by ibetyouvotenexttimehippy

First off I want to make it clear I am not asking anyone to do my homework, I am simply looking for opinions. I have to write an essay.

"The principles of non-violence have been used throughout the world in an attempt to affect social and political change. how successful has it been and does it have a place in the modern world?"

I have already written 1500 words on this but am looking for some others opinions about it. I have basically said it has a place in the world but as of current it is a vacant position, some Gandhi/Mandela quotes et cetera.

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

Apply it to everyday situations. Think about it, if you get in a fight with someone is anything solved? No, the person who loses is only more angry than before and seeks revenge.

You might want to bring up 9/11(thats today how bout that?) and how terrorism is a merely a response to our own violence towards the middle east?

Violence breeds violence. Thats the whole message. Peace can only come from peace (or absolute destruction of your enemey but even that isn't really possible)

[Q]

Originally Posted by MR.Kitty55

Peace can only come from ... absolute destruction of your enemey ... that is... really possible

I agree.

[alooha from hell]

peaceful lobbying to get what you want is more absolute because you are beating someone at their own game. violent action to get what you want is simply physically overcoming someone so they cannot say you are wrong...since their jaw is broken.

i think of it as the difference between winning at chess by putting your opponent in checkmate, versus flipping the board over and walking away.

obviously both have been shown to work (gandhi, US revolutionary war, etc.) and since they have worked, why wouldn't it work in the modern day? in fact, both are already at work today.

if anything you should show two examples of how both ways are working and contrast them.

[Chimro]

Non-violence is a moronic idea promoted by the Pharisees ("Jews") in an attempt to suppress any sort of revolt by true Israel ("white Europeans"). Gandhi and Mandela are both heathens, so relying upon their opinions is rather foolish.

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

[half-wit goon]

Non violence has a place as long as it meets it's goal, or serves the morality of the practictioner, being proactive, but not violent. Having a place in the world does not necessarily mean being ulitmately effective. The idea of resisting, but doing so in a manner that pleases god/the universe/ancestral spirits, and not necessarily meeting quick tangible benchmarks. I'd argue it's a case by case basis on whether it would be effective, depending what circumstance, or how long a resistor is willing to wait for change. There's no general rule. Though you could get cynical and proclaim the glory of war, and it's relatively rapid degree of effectiveness to attaining a groups needs, or wants.

'It makes no difference what men think of war, said the Judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way. Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favour of the weak. Decisions of life and death, of what shall be and what shall not, beggar all question of right."- The Judge, Blood Meridian

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Chimro

Non-violence is a moronic idea promoted by the Pharisees ("Jews") in an attempt to suppress any sort of revolt by true Israel ("white Europeans"). Gandhi and Mandela are both heathens, so relying upon their opinions is rather foolish.

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Wow...just wow.

[MR.Kitty55]

Originally Posted by Q

I agree.

Even nazis still exist....I fail to see a real example.

We dropped the most powerful weapon known in exsitence on Hiroshima and you can still go there and see buildings that survived the bomb....


You can't possible wipe out an enemey unless it lies in one person.

[MR.Kitty55]

Originally Posted by Chimro

Non-violence is a moronic idea promoted by the Pharisees ("Jews") in an attempt to suppress any sort of revolt by true Israel ("white Europeans"). Gandhi and Mandela are both heathens, so relying upon their opinions is rather foolish.

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Yeah because the Bible doesn't say "Love thy enemy" and promotes killing. Granted there are verses like the one you just showed but when it comes to code of conduct (i.e. 10 commandments) it specifically says to LOVE your enemy.

If you're going to be an ignorant moron at least do it where you can't be proved wrong so effortlessly.

[KikoSanchez]

Maybe think about the civil rights movement, the current middle east situation, and darfur. Furthermore, you could think about it as a categorical imperative. Ie universalizing the principle of non-violence vs the principle of pre-eminent attacking.