Do you dig Violence?

[IDMclean]

I feel dread everytime I hear someone tell me that "violence is sometimes nessessary!", They say that the Non-violent solution has been tried. That it has failed. That the principles that allow Non-violence to function don't work in every situation.

 

The funny thing about this position, and this is to me the most interesting aspect of it is this. Violence has been tried, examined, and proven to be in-effiecient time and time again. we have literially thousands of years of it being experimented with, documented and proved to be a non-solution in most cases. Where as non-violence is no where near as documented, no where near as tried.

 

I have been told "it wouldn't work" when it hasn't even been attempted. Hardly fair, I think.

 

It's disheartening to hear the shear number of people who sing in the cacophany of silence, heralding the coming of the all consuming fire.

[Kriminal99]

Non-violence belief sets like those taught by people like ghandi are intersting, but I do not subscribe to them.

 

They cannot really be defeated, because part of the argument is that if you die to a violent person you still haven't "lost". You have failed to justify your opponents actions in his mind by returning his violence and your death will weigh on his consience.

 

My problem with this is as technology grows there are more and more easy ways to kill people such that you don't have to give it a second thought. Launching a fire and forget missle at a village of tribals would be an example of what I mean... it's not like you would be there to see the suffering. But even just firing a gun at someone (from a distance especially) is a detached experience when you compare it to, for example, fighting someone to the death with your bear hands.

 

I am much more interested in the lack of violence of spirit taught by the same people... They also believed you should refuse to hate others. I am much more likely to follow a hybrid belief set where I will shoot someone if they try to shoot me first, but I will not hate or judge that man.

[hallenrm]

Violence is not limited to fellow human beings alone, while one can claim that s/he is non violent vis a vis to other human beings and strongly support the philosophy of non violence, the same individual would not think for a second before killing an insect or a small animal that appears a threat or plain simple nuisance!

 

:)

[IDMclean]

Gandhi said look to the treatment of the animals to find the moral status of the society. Extreame Jainist and followers of the principle of Ahimsa go so far as to gentlely brush the insects out of their path as the go along.

 

Now I side with buddhism on this one, however. As I have voted I believe in Non-violence, however I do get violent, by my own definition in certain circumstances. This is because I do not believe in extreames but a middle path.

 

I follow the principles which are immanent in the universe. One of which is that the principle of least action (quantum) or least resistence (classical). Same for violence, the least violent solution is usually the best one. The closer to zero violence you get the better. The best way to stop violence is to prevent it.

 

Many people have argued with me that violence was the only choice in War X. My favorite example is World War II. It is argued that we had no choice, and the germans would have done terrible things and that violence was the only solution...

 

What is often missed in the whole arguement for violence, or against non-violent solution is that once it gets to the place where violence has broken out there has already been a cop-out by someone regarding their responsibility in finding the best solution, the solution that achieves the most goals with the least comprimise.

 

By the time we (america) made it to violent involvement in World War II, we had already been in bad form. The world on a whole had equally participated in creating the enviroment in which fascism and violent conflict blossomed. We fed the fires of the holocaust by our actions and in-actions. That is we had already failed multipul times in meeting our moral obligations.

 

This is why non-violence would not have worked in World War II. Not because it would be to costly, or not persasive enough but because we had refused to search out, or recognize, the best solution. We failed to conduct ourselves, as people of the world in such a way as to alleviate the collective suffering. We failed to step forward and boldly oppose that which was wrong.

 

In terms of meeting opposition, we had acquiesced. The war on terrorism is no different. We have not even failed, we have not even tried looking for the best solution. We have played the game, which we know the end to. History is so full of it. Big surprise that violence didn't (and doesn't) lead us anywhere in terms of solving world issues, like terrorism.

 

Violence takes next to no commitment to a viable solution. Violence is admission of defeat without even looking for a better solution. It's like banging your head against the wall when your frustrated. It solves nothing. It leads nowhere.

 

By it's definition, violence is non-constructive. By definition non-violence is constructive, and presses forward greater unity, co-operation, and understanding.

 

-Hmm... and pound of cure. naw to expenesive. ah prevention by the ounce! What a great deal.

Laughing One of Entertainment