You cant change the world without bloodshed

But here's another statement. Do you think it holds true?

You can't change the world WITH bloodshed.

I thought we were talking about "bloodshed" (i.e. violent means) as a catalyst for achieving eventually desirable ends.

... The question is whether these violent means are essential in reaching a desirable goal.... .

I thought we were talking about "bloodshed" (i.e. violent means) as a catalyst for achieving eventually desirable ends. Man is man. I don't see that the nature of man even enters into the argument. In any argument of this sort, certain things must be taken as a given. In this case, I believe, the nature of humankind is one of them. There is already a (presumed) tacit agreement that mankind can, at times, be extremely violent. The question is whether these violent means are essential in reaching a desirable goal. The emphasis is mine; re-reading what the original poster wrote, I have to assume that this is the clear implication. At the very least, he is saying that sometimes such violence is necessary and desriable.

Whoever is bleeding is part of the world,
therefore, causing him to bleed,
has changed the world
(from the earlier non-bleeding condition)
however great or slight the change is.

Q.E.D.

Whoever is bleeding is part of the world,
therefore, causing him to bleed,
has changed the world
(from the earlier non-bleeding condition)
however great or slight the change is.

Q.E.D.

Witty, for sure.

Of course, the world would change in any case.

A clever spin on definitions... :wink:

Is 'being a part of the world'
necessary or sufficient to 'change the world'?

"Change the world" is vague.

How about, could you seize control of the world without bloodshed? Could you create a utopian society without bloodshed? No and no.

Well, that, of course, is a restatement of the old "the end justifies the means" argument.

I don't think that's possible.

Evil means lead to evil ends.

Bullets don't change people,
thoughts change people.

Nice to see ya back, Dave.

How was yer genius convention?

Rock

What would the killing of Gavril Princip have accomplished?
Saved the life of Archduke Ferdinand?

Maybe, maybe not.

The seeds of the Great War were already there, a political assassination -- or the prevention of one -- notwithstandng. But that's somewhat off-topic.

Well, that, of course, is a restatement of the old "the end justifies the means" argument. I don't think that's possible. Evil means lead to evil ends.

Merry Andrew wrote:

Well, that, of course, is a restatement of the old "the end justifies the means" argument.
I don't think that's possible.
Evil means lead to evil ends.

Ah... NO. Where is your justification for that statement??
Did you just pull that out of your... hat?



I suppose it depends how you define "evil". Is killing a terrorist evil?
You are saying that it is, because earlier you said that killing people so
that the rest of us could live in a perfect society is wrong
(which is how this whole debate spawned.)

Killing a terrorist is not evil; that is clear.
If the terrorist is killed so that a hundred others aren't, that is good.
The "lesser of two evils" statement is deceiving - this only takes one side
of the equation. While one man is being killed, we must remeber that
a hundred others are being saved. It is the same with the utopia.