I disapprove of ALL violence

[nam78_two]

All and any....
Violence has never solved anything and will never solve anything.

Whatever the cause, violence is bad...

Mahatma Gandhi had the right idea...non-violence is the only way...ever....

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. I wish I could agree with you

but my personal experience has taught me otherwise.

[ruggerson]

2. So if someone came into your home

and started murdering your children, you would sit there and hum "ohmmmmm" and preach non violence?

[ErisFiveFingers]

5. Nope.

I would kill them and then wait for the state to free me, or become an example.

Ghandi wasn't anti-violence, he was anti-violence without sane reason.

[lvx35]

7. Gandhi was actually anti-violence.

in all scenarios, he was just about being really pro-active to stop the violence...see post below.

[ErisFiveFingers]

8. The gungeon will drub you.

Ghandhi was a mix of Malcom X and MLK. He supprted a militarized india. I'll wait for the troll to drop the quote.

[lvx35]

11. I've studied that guy quite a bit, and I've NEVER heard that...

...it seems anathema to all his other ideas.

[ErisFiveFingers]

14. I have cross posted there, but:

His basic logic was: If we had guns, we would kill them. Since we lack guns, we will be killed. If we have guns or not, we should still march in the right direction, and do the right thing.

[lvx35]

22. hmmm. well here is a stance of his you may be thinking of:

He said never to confuse non-violence with cowardice - he would rather see the indian people take up arms against their oppressors than be oppressed, but he would rather see them prevail through non-violence than take up arms. So armed resistence is higher than corwardice....That might be it.

[lvx35]

6. Gandhi taught non-compliance, preaching while your kids were killed...

...would be compliance. Gandhi would say you should do everything you can to stop the violence between the people involved, not be compliant, not be violent your self. His idea was to stop the action, the idea, but not the persons involved.

[nam78_two]

13. exactly...very similar to MLK really/nt

[lvx35]

20. Yeah, MLK tore a lot of pages from gandhi's book.

I wish more people would do the same, its a damn good book :)

[Kire]

19. self delete

I was going to say "self defense is not violence" but I don't want to argue with anyone

[rumpel]

3. very much agree n/t

[lvx35]

4. Very much agree too....but a question:

Are you an atheist? Do you believe in God? An afterlife?

[nam78_two]

9. Agnostic-very humbly agnostic

was an arrogant atheist when younger...very briefly libertarianish (I suppose)...

Now I try not to be arrogant about anything I believe in ...except I think compassion is the essence of any sane philosophy...

[lvx35]

18. Cool.

I'm always interested how people's beliefs play into non-violence. Some, like you , look at it as a higher principle to sacrifice for, while some are a little more "hedonistic" looking forward to treasures in heaven for non-violent beehavior. I certainly condemn neither.

[Union Thug]

10. I want to agree, but violence is necessary sometimes...

for example, self defense...

[nam78_two]

12. I meant political violence mostly/self-defence is an instinct isn't it?

:shrug:

[Union Thug]

15. I may not agree there, either. For example, when the unions

fought back against strike breakers, or when certain ILWU factions beat down scabs. I'm all for it. But, that too, is self defense in a way.

[Kire]

21. self delete

"beating down scabs" just doesn't seem like something Gandhi would do, but I don't want to argue with anyone

[lvx35]

24. As I posted above about gandhi,

he said its nobler to take up arms and fight than be cowed or oppressed, but non-violence is the highest path. The truth is most people don't have the balls for true non-violence at all though, which is why I respect your opinion. I don't know if when the bullets are flying I could actually act like Jesus and love my enemy, especially if I had a gun lying right next to me and could hold them back. But I don't deny the purity of the principle, and the nobility of true non-violent acts when they actually occur.

[nam78_two]

25. Exactly :)

lvx35 explains it way better than I ever could :)...
am as inarticulate online as in person :-/......

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

16. Self-defense isn't only an instinct, but it's necessary violence.

Politically, I believe this war is wrong and so are most wars. However, I believe everyone has the right to dend themselves, their family, friends and property, using violence, if necessary.

[LostInAnomie]

17. I'm not sure all the freed slaves...

... and holocaust survivors would agree with you.

[nam78_two]

23. didn't mean what I said in a condemnatory way....

Just by and large I on't think violence is productive...

just my opinion...I think its best avoided when possible....
Not saying it hasn't helped at times in the past....

Just think in this day and age, its best avoided whenever possible....

[57_TomCat]

43. What you said was ALL...

I disapprove of ALL violence
All and any....
Violence has never solved anything and will never solve anything.

Whatever the cause, violence is bad...

Mahatma Gandhi had the right idea...non-violence is the only way...ever....

In fact you said above NEVER solved anything and WILL NEVER solve anything.

How does this compare with with your latest quote?

didn't mean what I said in a condemnatory way....
Posted by nam78_two
Just by and large I on't think violence is productive...

just my opinion...I think its best avoided when possible....
Not saying it hasn't helped at times in the past....

Just think in this day and age, its best avoided whenever possible....

Seems to me violence has it's uses when defending the innocent. It HAS solved problems and WILL solve them again.

[Kire]

26. Kwai Chang Caine is a better analogy

Use the enemy's violence against him. Never harm.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

49. That was a TV show. NT

[Syrinx]

27. I'm glad my grandpa's generation fought the Nazis

And if someone hurts someone I love, I'm going to do my best to hurt them back.

EDIT: To clarify, I mean if someone intentionally inflicts violence on someone I love.

But, yes there is much too much violence in the world. And much of it is due to religious differences, which is ironic to my mind.

[Kailassa]

28. I'm not a pacifist, but I do work at eliminating the need for

violence in my own life.

Once I walked inside after returning home from a shopping trip to find a strange man
in my kitchen, talking on my telephone. Seeing he was still on the phone when I'd
finished I offered him a cup of tea. I saw no reason to believe he was a threat just
because I didn't know why he was there, so I refused to treat him as one.

A few years ago a drunk burst into my lounge-room after midnight when I was home alone.
So I asked what he wanted, showed him where the bathroom was, and then escorted him to
a nearby house that he had been looking for.

I've been attacked and nearly killed in the past, but on those occasions possessing a
gun would not have helped me. And on the above occasions, having a gun that I relied
on for protection could have easily resulted in escalating violence and caused
unnecessary deaths.

It was after accidentally killing an attacker in my teens that I developed a respect for
Gandhi. Killing damages the killer, and, unlike the victim, the killer has to live with
that for the rest of their lives.

[Kire]

29. Incredible

I admire your courage.

[Kailassa]

31. I'm not brave, I just happen to feel deeply that

life is like a captive bird, if we keep it tightly held there is no joy in it.

If you can put fear aside and live by your beliefs, you might not live as long,
but for as long as you do live, you will be able to sleep with yourself at night.

The look of aging and boredom that we see in peoples' eyes when they grow older
does not come from age, it comes from having sold out on what mattered for them
when the were young. A person who has given up on their ideals has grown old, and,
even if they don't realize it, broken their own heart.

This earth has everything it needs to become heaven. We don't need to hae a belief
to feel the miraculousness of the situation we have on this planet. And all it takes
is for enough people to value the joy of living more highly than they value their
own lives, and work to share that joy around, and we could be living in something
close to paradise.

To truly live, one must be free. To cling to one thing no matter what, even when
it is life itself you are clinging to, negates freedom.

[niyad]

32. a pity we cannot recommend replies. you stated this beautifully.

[FILAM23]

44. I tip my hat to you

but in those 2 scenarios of yours there would have
been one man in jail and another one dead.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

50. Getting killed damages one even more.

You said: Killing damages the killer, and, unlike the victim, the killer has to live with
that for the rest of their lives.

Yes that is true. And the PTSD of your experience can be a difficult thing to live with. However, I believe that allowing the attacker to have killed you would have done you a much worse harm. Further, you likely saved some other innocents in the future.

[Kailassa]

51. Yes, the possibility of an attacker repeating their behaviour

is a valid concern. We are all creatures of habit.

For that reason I once decided to kill a pedophile who had previously abused my sons
when I found him at a railway station trying to rape a teenage boy.
He saved his life by running too fast, but if I'd been carrying a gun, I'd have shot
him in the back that day and bugger the consequences. At least I was able to look
after his intended victim, but, being a homeless user, he wouldn't report the attack
to the police.

Violence is bad, and killing is terrible, and we should all work to minimize both.
But there can never be a hard and fast rule that can be applied in every situation.

But an "OldSiouxWarrior" doesn't need me to tell him that. ;-)

[OldSiouxWarrior]

53. We are in agreement.

BTW - My screen name is to honor my uncle (WWII) and my great-great-grandfather (Frontier wars, including Little Big Horn)

I personally never saw action.

[Kailassa]

54. I hope you never do.

But I know that if you ever have to, you will act
with courage and honour they would be proud of.

[OneBlueSky]

30. "The Day The Earth Stood Still" . . .

happened to catch a bit of this sci-fi classic on AMC today . . . at the end of the film, Klatuu addresses the citizens of the planet Earth . . . telling us that the "universe is getting smaller" every day, he says that the "other planets" have gotten together and created a race of robots that prowl the universe looking for signs of aggression . . . the robots (like Gort) cannot be reprogrammed -- if they find aggression, they destroy the planet doing the aggessing . . . his visit is a warning to Earth to get its shit together, or risk being toasted . . .

seems this is precisely what is happening today . . . but instead of a race of robots, the Earth itself is providing the leveling mechanism for human violence and aggression and greed . . . if we don't heed the warnings, the planet may not be toast (she's pretty sturdy), but the life forms that inhabit her will be . . . us included . . .

[jody]

33. "non-violence is the only way"? Do you mean against everything or just

some things, e.g. against crime, against disease?

[Kailassa]

52. I hope you never have a non-violent immune system.

It's a volent world in there, with your macrophages scurrying around
constantly locating and destroying the little terrorists in there,
and cannabalizing their remains.

[TreasonousBastard]

34. Yeah, I agree, but there are...

problems that pop up. It's never easy to make flat statements that get caught up in reality. For over 350 years Quakers have been exploring this whole nonviolence thing, and have learned a few things--

Pacifism, nonviolence, peace and all that good stuff starts within the individual, but not all individuals share this inner peace.

Violence exists around even the most peaceful of people, and everyone can be affected by it The job of the pacifist is not to run from violence like a coward, but to do everything possible to stop or mitigate it. And when it occurs, to mitigate its effects. Nonviolence is not a negative running from violence, but proactive in preventing it.

Since the amount of "inner peace" varies between people, and isn't of a fixed amount in anyone and can rise and fall, there are times when you are a coward if you don't fight, and others when you are a coward when you do.

What is called "courage" is largely the risk one might suffer and die for something. Are you willing to suffer and die to continue the violence, or to bring about the peace?

We torture ourselves with trick question like "What if you found someone raping your daughter and there was a gun handy?" Or, "What would YOU do if you were in France when Germany attacked?" We know there are no good answers to these questions, but we also know that there are situations that test our beliefs in nonviolence. If something like this happens, we must react in some way and we have, hopefully, developed a moral compass to guide us in doing the right thing.

Even in the matter of self-defense, violence is not necessarily the answer. If you are attacked and you kill the attacker, you have made the choice of who is to die, a choice you would have preferred not to make in other circumstances. You have decided that your life is worth more than the attacker's. You have also stolen the attacker's chance to repent and change his ways.

Neither violence nor nonviolence is easy, but who said it was supposed to be easy?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

48. No, the attacker chose violence.

You said: Even in the matter of self-defense, violence is not necessarily the answer. If you are attacked and you kill the attacker, you have made the choice of who is to die, a choice you would have preferred not to make in other circumstances. You have decided that your life is worth more than the attacker's. You have also stolen the attacker's chance to repent and change his ways.

I have made a rational probability choice. I know that I will not attack an innocent. The attacker has attacked me. If he is able to later he will likely attack another innocent as that is his way of life. I will defend myself. If he does die as a result of my defense, then his chain of violence is stopped. In addition to defending myself, I have likely defended a number of innocents from future attacks.

So, Yes, I have chosen to live and my attacker to die, if it comes to that choice. Further, I fully believe that is the moral choice.

[TreasonousBastard]

55. But, you know nothing about your attacker on which to...

make that choice.

On the basis of probabilities, you assume that your attacker is not a brilliant medical student who was dosed with PCP by someone and who will, if he lives, eventually be the one to find a cure for AIDS or cancer.

You assume that your life is worth more than his on the basis of what is essentially guesswork. That assumption may be correct if we can assign different values to different lives, but even if it is why is it an excuse to kill?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

56. Probability statements are not guesswork.

I deal in the real world. I don't respect fantasy worlds in which my attacker may tomorrow have a great transformation and become God's gift to humanity. The odds of that are ultra tiny. In the real world, by the fact that he has initiated an attack on me, for no reason, says that he is a violent criminal (By defination) and I will defend myself.

You seem to expect me to sacrifice my life, which I know has value, on the vanishingly small chance that my attacker might be of greater value.

If you do indeed live your life by such tiny chances, I would LOVE to get you into a poker game for real money.

[TreasonousBastard]

58. I am well aware of what odds are, but...

this isn't a game.

For one thing, these life and death struggles are rare, and while there are pure predators and serial killers out there, most of the time things can be defused or handled before it gets to the point of someone getting hurt.

If I gave the impression that self-defense is never appropriate, that was not my intent. The point of exercises like this is not to define exactly how one should act in a situation most of us won't find ourselves in, and if we do the situation will be far different from what we imagined. The point is to find out where our moral compass points and to look inward and see if we would act from a selfish point of view, "him or me," or from one of reasoned ethics. Is blind fear and instinct guiding our actions, or do we have a developed ethic we follow?

There are no good answers to this sort of question, or right or wrong ones, but these questions have to be asked if one is to develop one's moral compass, and coming up with "the answer" is simply not doing the job.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

60. That was the impression that I had.

Yes, I did think that you were saying that self-defense wasn't allowed. There is a school of thought, that I do not agree with, that says that you can't ever take a final action until you have all information, and because a human can never have all information then a human can't take a final action. I thought you were coming from that school. Of course, in a self-defense case, not to take an action is in itself an action.

Yes, those situations are rare and, thankfully, most of use will not find ourselves in them. I have a CCW, and am usually armed when I am out and about. So I have taken classes and thought about that dreadful, "What if?"

My first line of defense is avoidance. Stay away from places and situations that have higher potential dangers.

My second line of defense is to attempt to defuse a situation - if possible. I will be the first to apologize, even if I know I am in the right. I will back down and not respond to an insult. It isn't worth getting into a shoot-out over. What do I care what some stranger thinks of my manhood? If possible, I will retreat.

Only as a last resort, but still in a timely manner, does the gun come into play. So far, for me it hasn't. It has twice for my wife. No shots fired, perp ran away. No I won't go into details, for details could identify us and this is the internet. I will have to ask you to believe me that she was in serious danger in those occasions.

Actually, most situations can be thought about in advance. Violent actions by predatory people tend to be very similar. By learning those tactics you can better avoid them, or if you can't avoid them you can recognize when you are being set up as a victim and know that a self-defense situation is rapidly developing. And in learning that kind of street smarts, one also finds the moral compass for the situation. That is important, because a violent situtaion, if it develops, will not allow the time for detatched reflection. If you are to live, you will have to drop back to scenarios that you have already role played. We call that training. It was that kind of training that allowed by wife to realize that she had been targeted and stop the would be criminals before actual shooting was needed.

[virginia mountainman]

35. hmm Than why did he say THIS??

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
—- Mahatma Ghandi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446

"I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour."
---Mahatma (D.G. Tendulkar) Vol. 4 2nd Edn.(1960)


"Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."
---Mahatma (D.G. Tendulkar) Vol. 4 2nd Edn.(1960)


"Better far than cowardice is killing and being killed in battle."
--The Message of the Gita, R. K. Prabhu (1959)

[lonehalf]

37. You are right.

I think that most people who say they are against violence are only against violence against them.

Take the death penalty for instance, those who oppose it are only against it for the criminal, They don't seem to care about the victim.

[Sparkly]

38. Opposing the death penalty does NOT mean not caring about the victim

The government didn't execute the victim.

And executing the criminal doesn't bring the victim back.

[lonehalf]

39. It doesn't bring the victim back but it does...

...prevent the criminal from creating another victim.

In that sense the execution of a criminal is a deterrent to crime,

As a matter of fact, if you can find a case where someone was executed and then killed again I will agree that execution is not a deterrent to crime.

[Sparkly]

40. Life without parole works, too. nt

[57_TomCat]

41. No it might not...

There are many examples of murderers in prison for life, with nothing to lose, killing other prisoners and or guards.

Death to a convicted murderer may not be the preferred choice but it does guarantee that they will kill no more.

Violence is a fact of life. How one reacts to violence and the effects are what builds character. Defending the innocent with good intentions by using violence is NOT a violation of a non violence lifestyle.

[Sparkly]

42. Prison violence as an argument for the death penalty

is really reaching.

[FILAM23]

45. Not always

they can always escape. Now life in solitary I would buy
other then that I will always support the death penalty

[Sparkly]

47. Fine, life without parole in solitary.

The point remains, as it began: opposition to the death penalty does NOT equate to not caring about victims.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. I think that's a child's philosophy.

It sounds very noble, but even a small amount of thought will demonstrate that it's not a good idea.

There *are* situations where the least worst thing either an individual or a nation can do is resort to violence, and being unwilling to do so in those is a vice.

Someone who was raped or murdered while you stood by and watched without intervening because there was nothing you could do without resorting to violence would soon put you straight.

Your claim that violence has never solved anything conveniently ignores all the things that violence has achieved - all the people who successfully defended themselves against attack, all the holocaust survivors, and so on.

[PresidentWar]

46. So the violence in the American Revolution was unsuccessful?

I'd love to hear your explanation for the existence of the USA.

Also, please tell me how Hitler would have been stopped outside of the use of violence against him.

My point is, yes, violence is not a virtue...but there ARE some times when one needs to fight.

[Joey Liberal]

57. The truth is republicans would use violence against us

Republicans don't understand anything but violence. Just listen to El Pigbo Limbaugh, Dr. Evil Dick Cheney, and Ann "The Man" Coulter. When they are rounding up Liberals, environmentalists, Gays, poor people, union members, the homeless and the disabled, will you still be against violence?

[ce qui la baise1]

59. That is the ideal, but I am not that evolved. God did say

he helps those that help themselves. Or whoever wrote the bible.
It makes a lot of sense.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

61. That phrase is not in the Bible.

It is simply a folklore proverb.

Further, evolution does not have a direction, except towards survival. Those with a gene that will not allow defensive violence will be removed from the gene pool faster than those who will defend themselves. So evolution favors self-defense. So the person who is better at self-defense is the one who is actually more evolved, as defined by evolution.