Do you dig Violence?

[hallenrm]

Most of us are violent at times, but some people believe that life is impossible without violence. According to them the world is like a jungle, where only the violent can survive.

 

What about you? Do you think a belief in non violence can help the world today, as was the belief of Mahatma Gandhi and as it is of Daisaku Ikeda

 

:)

[Zythryn]

I am a very firm believer in non-violence.

However, your options didn't quite fit me. While I don't believe anyone should commit violence on another, I do believe that violence sometimes has to be used to prevent violence.

 

I don't believe you can simply say the world would be better without violence as violence is, IMHO, the result of fear and intolerance. Those are the things that need to be eliminated in order to eliminate violence.

[Tarantism]

i put that i am a beiever in non-violence...but i do defend myself if need be.

[Jay-qu]

It makes a good movie.. thats about all.

[hallenrm]

Its indeed heatening to know that at least majority of the Hypographers who are prompted to vote on a subject like violence chose that they believe in non violence.

 

But will these people articulate their thoughts on the relevance of non violence today, when the world is facing violence perperated by Al Quaida and Bush administration.

[Zythryn]

But will these people articulate their thoughts on the relevance of non violence today, when the world is facing violence perperated by Al Quaida and Bush administration.

 

I wish I had an easy solution.

I believe that if we pulled all support for Isreal and pulled all troops out of any non US territory that Al Quaida would deflate or find another enemy to rally around. Please note I do not propose that we actually do this.

 

I think Bush made a huge error in targeting Iraq and not going into Afghanastan with enough troops to capture OBL. Instead he started a fight in a country which acted as recruitment for Al Quida.

 

We now can only hope that OBL meets his end through disease or accident.

 

I'm rambling, I apologize, I just don't know what we need to do to get world opinion back on our side or end the conflict with Al Quida or Iraq successfully:shrug:

[hallenrm]

Well, lets digress from the international violence perpetrated on humanity by Al Quaida or Bush administration for whatever reasons.

 

For a moment let us concentrate on the doctrine of non violence professed by many personalities the world around for ages. Let us try to answer the following questions.

 

1. How many international personalities that professed non violence are you aware of?

 

2. Have you ever cared to read literature about any one of them?

 

3. Have you ever given a serious thought about the doctrine? Say even for fifteen minutes!

 

:)

[hallenrm]

Since I put forward the questions let me answer a few of them. I was born in the same country as M. K. Gandhi, the apostle of non violence recognized the world over. Since I am fairly old, at present 53, I have grown up reading about Gandhi. I have also seen the film Gandhi directed by the famous David attenborough on the life of Gandhi several times. In fact I saw it once again yesterday only, on a TV channel.

Let me brief you what I think this personality was and how did he become what he became.

 

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in a prosperous family; prosperous

enough to educate him enough so that he could attain qualifications for

a barrister from the Oxford University.He was also lucky enough that he

got a contract from some prosperous clients in South Africa. It is during his journey to meet these clients in South Africa that he came face to face for the first time the atrocities based on apartheid of the British Empire. He was thrown out of the first class railway compartment in the night even though he had a valid ticket for the journey.

 

After he somehow reached his destination, he came to know of the culture based on apartheid there. He wanted to react. He realized that any kind of violent struggle would be futile because the law and the power of force was only with the government. He therefore experimented with a non violent struggle and ultimately succeeded. Because the large immigrant population was impressed by this credentials and also because he was ready to suffer imprisonment and injuries. He was ultimately asked to leave S. Africa by the local government. In the meanwhile the news about his experiment and the success spread far and wide mainly because he impressed several English journalists who wrote professedly in the international press about him.

 

Moral: It always helps to be educated and mingle with your adversary.

 

When he came back to India, a country that had been under British rule all his life, he came in contact with many prosperous and influential Indians, namely Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and BalGangadhar Tilak who were somehow trying to find a base in Indian politics but were not very successful because they had hardly any mass appeal amongst the poor and illiterate Indians who constituted a major chunk of the population.

 

It is at this juncture that it dawned on Gandhi the sufferings of his fellow countrymen and the relevance of the non violent power struggle he had experimented in South Africa. He discarded his western attire so that he could be identified with the people. He underwent a long struggle accepting many hardships and failures that came in the way, because he realized that an armed struggle would not be as effective because it would lack mass participation.

 

Ultimately the British Empire had to yield and grant independence, but it was this stage where Gandhi did not achieve a spectacular success. And he was christened as the Father of the nation. The independence brought about a Government led by the prosperous educated landowners, who were keen to cash on their closeness to the leaders of the freedom struggle. After the independence the adversary was not so easily identifiable, in fact it was the sense of communal ism which was present in the majority of the masses.

 

Today, the youth and the children of India are hardly aware of this

personality. Lately a Bollywood film called Lage raho Munnabhai is much a topic of debate in India, because it has tried to place the philosophy of Gandhi in the current context.

 

:)

[ronthepon]

Nobody likes violence in the real life just for it's sake.

 

It either comes from the moment, along with adrenaline and cortisol, or from really puffed up ego. (Or psychosis/neurosis)

[hallenrm]

I think violence is an instinctive response from all multicellular organism when they sense danger. Non violence on the other hand is a result of evolution of the human race. For evidence I would quote the fact that almost all ancient religions like Hinduism ( remember to day is Dasshera and it is celebrated for a violent battle between Rama And Ravana), Islam (it has the threads of Jihad in it that is leading to the the terrorism (not all terrorism) we are all witnessing today. and so is perhaps Christianity remember the Crusades) or Sikhism etc. etc. It is only the more evolved religions like Buddhism and Jainism that shun all kinds of violence.

 

Let me then explore when is non violence a viable mean to resolve a conflict. Non violence works only when you can communicate with your adversary, that is both parties understand each other. Remember Gandhi's experiments with non violent struggle succeeded only because he could strike a chord with the because of his education. Bush administration cannot try nonviolence with Al quaida because they communicate on different frequencies, so is the case of Indo pak conflict, the Indian Government and Naxalites or for that matter Hindu Muslims at large in India.

[HydrogenBond]

I like violence in the movies because it adds excitement. In the movies violence is also a quick way to reach resolution. The alternative would be a lot of talk and double talk, turning life into court TV and soap operas.

 

In reality instead of the movies, violence is an extension of evolutionary theory. It is a way to adapt and control the human environment, giving one, who is able to employ violence, a selective advantage in the human social environment. Violence has also been one of the strongest motivation behind many areas of science and technology. One looks for a bio-weapon and finds new understanding about cells. One seeks nuke weapons and learns to harness the power of the atom. We seek particle beam weapons and learn about the subtructure of atoms. We seek better delivery systems for bombs and put a man on the moon. We also invented computers to help break codes and do calculations for weapons system eventually leading to peacetime uses.

 

I personally prefer peace and nonviolence. But even in cultures where physical violence is shunned, violence analogies are often used. We have cut-throat business practices leading to a more efficient economy. We also slash prices during holiday sales to motivate armies of buyers. Polititians use propaganda warfare to help undermine their political enemies. Even sports like football will often play to sudden death.

 

From a religious point of view, i.e, peaceful religions, one is not concerned with evolution, selective advantage and survival of the fittest. The goal is not the selective advantage of a few alpha males, but is to create a social environment where everyone has the optimum environment so everyone to evolve together as a team. If one thinks about it, violence is very primative, meaning even the pea brain power of a caveman is sufficient to perform violence. The better things of life take more brain power.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well, sometimes violence does solve problems.

 

TFS

[Qfwfq]

In the best possible way?

[Kriminal99]

Violence is a way to prove who was "right" and who was "wrong". To "teach someone a lesson". Even to force someone to accept your viewpoint, even if just for a minute.

 

Of course this isn't really true... A person can be totally wrong and still beat up people who were right.

 

But because our morality system is realized using a sense of power, it sometimes fails when people who are morally inept demonstrate power by violence or other means.

 

Violence is a tool some people try to use to force others to submit to their will. Others use tools like intimidation and deception for the same purpose. Still others believe in the use of none of these, but will use violence (as the most direct way to force people to submit to your will) to defend against any other such force used. Unfortunately our law system which only recognizes physical immoral acts would then classify the violent defender as a criminal and the conniving weasel as an innocent.

[TheFaithfulStone]

In the best possible way?

 

Define "best."

 

How long do you think it would have taken to talk the American South into getting rid of their slaves? Or maybe Hitler into not conquering Europe?

 

Or the guy who is breaking into your house?

 

Or the five year old who ran out in the street?

 

I doubt you could sit down and have a calm discussion and reach a mutual understanding with any of those people.

 

TFS

[IDMclean]

Ok I would like to elaborate on the concept of non-violence.

 

What is violence? My definition of violence is acts intended to restrict the powers of another, and/or relieve another of their freedom of choice. I do not restrict violence to simple physical context as there is very real implementations of social, mental, emotion, and spiritual violence.

 

It is evident from that definition of violence that violence in and of itself is a form of oppression. Oppression is met through three primary ways. Acquiescence, Violent Opposition, and Non-Violent opposition (AKA Civil Disobiedience).

 

Terrorism is violence of the type intended to remove the freedom of choice from a populus and thereby bottleneck the intended target(s) into making a choice they would otherwise not make.

 

This tactic requires one to react in several ways, and thereby validate it and justify it's use. First is recognition of one's own powerlessness and acceptence thereby of their inability to assume responsibilities for one's own actions. That is it relies on one reacting in one of two ways to meet the oppression. Acquiescence and Violent Opposition. Wikipedia lists these as capitulation, acquiescence, and radicialism.

 

This is playing by the tit for tat type rules. It's a game. If you make your next move impulsively, as america did in regard to OBL, then you play into their planned out move. You put yourself at disadvantage by playing the game on their terms. That is you react the way they want and plan you to act and you lose the game.

 

Non-violence is an answer to this tactic. You step back, examine the pieces on the board and you recognize the move they want you to make, and then you refuse to make it. You change the game from their's to yours by refusing to play the game the way they want, plan and expect you to.

 

Now in the extreames, non-violence in total is a hard one to play without losses. Though no tactic is without it's draw backs and no war is won without casualties.

 

It is always the responsibility to educate your fellow beings in ethics.

 

If a man pulled a gun on me, or a knife, I would be inclined to tell them that they have made a mistake and that if they decided to use that implement that they would regret that action for the rest of their life.

 

When a knife was pulled on me, that is what I did. I walked away without a mark on me, though I was none to happy about having a knife pulled on me.

 

Something to realize, is that locks on a door are for honest people. If a person wishes you dead, there is very little you can actually do about it if they are set on that course. Most people however do not wish to harm let alone kill anyone else. Most of the time if you stand up and oppose those who wish to oppress, they will often backdown.

 

Non-violence is supposed to highlight the brutality, and immorality of the actions taken. It is intended to teach the oppressor the error of their way. It is not an easy path, it is not a simple path, it is not fast path. It is the right path however.

[pinar]

I'm against violence in any condition, even if it is in movies. To give exampel I always hated this conclusion of movies; the hero saves the world from evils by killing every one of them . Or somebody hit another in a cool way ??

 

As you may have guessed I don't watch popular movies much since I find them just inhuman.

 

(I'm not sure how things works in other countries but this strange example is from mine)

If you are against violence in any case, and say it openly some people (thanks not all ) accuse you of being traitor. A little example:

when you say,police should'nt use violence against activists , people ask you? "Are you a terrorist? Are you in traitors side? ". Being against capital punishment is equal to being a traitor!

 

To sum up even if I'm against violence, it is difficult to express it everywhere.