So you agree with the OP? The OP was there is NO PEACE without violence. I ardently disagree.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is no Peace without violence
- Thread starter Oxy2Hydr0
- Start date
- Status
Andoverpolo
Well-Known Member
No I don't agree with that, peace can come about through violence or other ways there is no single way to experience it.
Upvote
0
I disagree that violence EVER promotes peace. Violence may demand it, at the risk of more violence. This is more simular to coersion, than peace. We all know how well regimes promote peace right?
Upvote
0
Andoverpolo
Well-Known Member
Well, you're certainly free to try a Vulcan mindmeld or whatever with the terrorists. Men with guns seem to prevent them from destroying my home pretty well so far.
Upvote
0
Yeah, my reasons are. That's why I didn't want to write it out again.
You don't read the posts before you post? You came in on post 60, you didn't read the posts right before you posted?
Sorry man, I don't feel like writting it again.
Upvote
0
Andoverpolo
Well-Known Member
Yeah, my reasons are. That's why I didn't want to write it out again.
You don't read the posts before you post? You came in on post 60, you didn't read the posts right before you posted?
Sorry man, I don't feel like writting it again.
I don't particularly care what most people think so I didn't read any of the opinions. Mostly I'm just trying to find out something personal that has nothing to do with the topics discussed here. I'm waiting for a flight to South Carolina to meet my new sister in law.
Upvote
0
DanielRB
Slave of Allah
- Jul 16, 2004
- 1,958
- 137
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Peace, All 
I wonder what the OP meant by "peace." Resisting force with force isn't peace, indeed, it will probably delay the end of war. If the opposition just decided to let the attacker have everything he or she wanted, wars would end relatively quickly...but it wouldn't necessarily be "peace". (For example, if the rest of Europe gave in to Hitler and didn't resist him, WW II would have ended sooner, but I wouldn't call the end state "peace", unless "peace" includes a totalitarian state with factory-style genocide).
I view violence as sometimes necessary to establish (or defend) the kind of society I wish to live in and let me children live in. But it's the last resort and inappropriate in many (perhaps most) situations.
As far as Ghandi and India: the British, for all of their cruelty, knew they were in the wrong, just as the rest of the USA knew that they were in the wrong during the Civil Rights movement. As such, non-violent protest and resistance was effective--and much more effective than violent resistance would have been.
I wonder what the OP meant by "peace." Resisting force with force isn't peace, indeed, it will probably delay the end of war. If the opposition just decided to let the attacker have everything he or she wanted, wars would end relatively quickly...but it wouldn't necessarily be "peace". (For example, if the rest of Europe gave in to Hitler and didn't resist him, WW II would have ended sooner, but I wouldn't call the end state "peace", unless "peace" includes a totalitarian state with factory-style genocide).
I view violence as sometimes necessary to establish (or defend) the kind of society I wish to live in and let me children live in. But it's the last resort and inappropriate in many (perhaps most) situations.
As far as Ghandi and India: the British, for all of their cruelty, knew they were in the wrong, just as the rest of the USA knew that they were in the wrong during the Civil Rights movement. As such, non-violent protest and resistance was effective--and much more effective than violent resistance would have been.
Upvote
0
Using Ghandi as an example is not sufficient. Why, Ghandi's preaching was not done when bullets, rockets, swords, rocks were being hurled at him evey hour every day while being a target of an "initiated violence".
Rather, Ghandi was on the outside viewing the violence of both opposing forces. He had an oportunity to seek diplomacy and to criticize the actions of the agressors and those who reacted in defense.
His concept of "nonviolent resistence" in the case for what the British did was like saying ok just stand up and get killed but dont fight back.
A translation of the concept of peace seems to be the stumbling stone as everyones understanding of peace goes beyond the others.
So perhaps the OP should have started with an understanding of what is peace.
Rather, Ghandi was on the outside viewing the violence of both opposing forces. He had an oportunity to seek diplomacy and to criticize the actions of the agressors and those who reacted in defense.
His concept of "nonviolent resistence" in the case for what the British did was like saying ok just stand up and get killed but dont fight back.
A translation of the concept of peace seems to be the stumbling stone as everyones understanding of peace goes beyond the others.
So perhaps the OP should have started with an understanding of what is peace.
Upvote
0
So being peaceful and turning the other cheek when slapped should calm their desire to hurt you and is very intelligent and logical.
But turning your cheek to a person or religion bent on being the dominant religion even if it takes killing most of you until the rest submit and convert is like suicide and stupid .
Upvote
0
DanielRB
Slave of Allah
- Jul 16, 2004
- 1,958
- 137
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Peace, Carey,
Evidently, the early Christians sought martyrdom at the hands of the dominant religion at the time (Roman paganism)...and yet Christianity was successful in transforming that culture. It may have been personally "suicidal and stupid", but Christianity as a movement succeeded.
Or should Christians have taken up the sword and defended themselves against the injustices of Rome? Why or why not?
Daniel
Upvote
0
Andoverpolo
Well-Known Member
As much as I consider the Hitler v. Gandhi celebrity death match thing ridiculous, you're comment is completely laughable. The British Army was sent to suppress the Quit India movement, lots of people were killed, herded into concentration camps and publicly executed. You don't need a history degree to know this stuff, wikipedia is accessable to anybody and "googling" is now a verb in the dictionary. Laziness is not an excuse for sheer ignorance.
Upvote
0
français said:Hello oxy2hydro,
Please tell us what your view on your poll question is. I think it would be nice to see what you think on the issue.
;wave;
I already spilled my view points on this issue.
Andoverpolo said:
The point is Ghandi was not a target of British violence or else he would have been dead long time ago prior to one of his own assassinating him. Why Ghandi was used as example is beyond me when his situation and the nature of the OP is unapplicable.
To take this even further there was violence that later resulted in peace.
My point is that there is no peace without violence. There is some sort of violence directly or indirectly to establish peace, and a part of maintaining peace in most cases violence, ie combatant force, has to be used against initiated violence.
That why we have law inforcement in our cities to maintain peace. If an initiated violence breaks out the police uses violence ie combatant force to illiminate the violence and to establish peace.
What peace means to everyone is something intirely difference based on the varios aspect and perspectives.
Upvote
0
Andoverpolo
Well-Known Member
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
