1
   

Yourself and the Nature of Non Violence

 
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2004 10:54 pm
I have never used violence as a way of solving anything. But that might just be because I have never had many chances to be violent and I have always been too small to do anything.

There are so many jerks in the world that could use a swift kick in the groin but that would just make them so much more cross. Sometimes I just want to push those hotheads over the edge so that I can show that I have mastery over their emotions and I also do it in an effort to see if I can make their heads explode.

Whoever said that violence never solved anything was obviously wrong. Intimidating the intimidator always works. Those of us who used to believe that our clearly superior intelligence would somehow win a fight now know that life doesn't work that way. Biology is based chiefly on the physically fit and those people who are both big and stupid find that anger is the best way to vent their frustration at not being able to assimilate so well in a technological society.

I find it interesting that religions are the utmost advocates of pacifism yet are also the reasons behind the biggest wars in history. Jainism is the only true pacifistic religion out there.

There were a people who used to live in northern mexico who used wooden swords to make sure they didn't kill their attackers. Needless to say, they were all killed off. Nevertheless, they set a great example that all nations these days should follow, don't kill your opponent, just disable his ability to attack you.

And with this wonderfully un-pacifistic quote by Martin Luther King I end this little rant of mine, "Why don't we take this fight outside."
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 02:02 am
The Quakers were pretty pacifistic, weren't they?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 07:07 am
Still are, unless you consider R M Nixon, rufio.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 02:48 pm
So - your turn Edgar?

I have enormous respect for Quakers.

I kind of wish I had the guts for total non-violence - but I don't. Self-preservation kicks in with a bucket-load of adrenaline - and the urge to protect someone smaller or weaker than oneself is even more powerful, I think. Has anyone else ever experienced being paralyzed with fear, until you notice someone else who is more afraid, or who seems very defenceless, and suddenly you are as brave as a lion?
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 04:06 pm
He was a Quaker?

Anyway, my understanding was that he WAS trying to end the war....
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 04:17 pm
Quote:
Anyway, my understanding was that he WAS trying to end the war....

under the guise of making peace Nixon, on the 9th of March, 48 boxes - approximately 48 square miles of Cambodian territory - were carpet bombed for Breakfast. Over the course of the next 14 months, the US conducted 3630 B-52 bombing raids in Cambodian territory.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 04:24 pm
Well, he wasn't like LBJ, running on an anti-war platform and then making no attempt to end it..... but we're getting off-topic. Never said I liked Nixon, just pointing that out.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 04:29 pm
the anti-war movement "made it politically impossible" for President Nixon to proceed with his planned escalation of the war which included the possible use of nuclear weapons.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 04:29 pm
Not off topic, Rufio. We're talking violence and non-violence here, as I'm certain that edgar will agree. This link about covers it, and now I'll shut up.:
http://www.govst.edu/users/ghrank/Introduction/liars.htm
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 04:32 pm
Letty has the bases covered so I will take a Dr. Pepper break 10/2/4
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 04:33 pm
Very true.... this could almost tie into the PC thread too.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 05:50 pm
Nixon pursued the war much harder than LBJ. He campaigned on an "I have a secret plan to end the war" slogan and admitted once elected that he was using campaign rhetoric; he never intended to end the war, but to bomb the Vietnamese into submission. When he finally realized he could never win, Nixon declared Peace With Honor and got the hell out. During the final days of involvement the most effective antiwar elements were the Veterans against the war.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 06:04 pm
absolutely, edgar. Absolutely!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 06:10 pm
dlowan says: "Your turn, edgar?"
I gave a brief summary which you may have overlooked. I will elaborate a bit, if I may.
The incidents I mentioned involving guns - One of them - My sister very stupidly became involved with the worst sort of man. She left him, but was fearful he would do something to her. She came to me and asked me to protect her. Well, I knew by this time the guy had kicked another man in the head repeatedly, killing him, so I readily took the pistol my sister handed me. He came up to the gate that cold Oklahoma night and talked to us. The entire time I had the pistol in my coat pocket aimed directly at him. I had no doubt that if he had made the wrong move I would have shot him and then drug him to the house. Fortunately he resolved the matter in his own mind and went away.
Several years later I was to remodel a home in a black neighborhood. One neighbor took exception to my presence and spoke words to the effect that "Somebody's gonna get killed." I kept a .38 with me the whole time after that.
Since then I have gotten rid of the gun and plan never to carry one again, no matter what.
But in the 80s I carried a lot of frustration with me and spoke very beliggerently to the people who trod on my bad side. I did not fight anybody and in fact considered myself, still, a part of the Peace Movement.
I have stood foursquare against the fighting of every war we have been in except WWII and I often wonder if we couldn't have defused that one somehow before Hitler attacked Poland. It would have required a level of commitment and maturity few people have.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 06:43 pm
edgar, Remember this?
Neil-Young's Lyrics - Ohio Lyrics
Tin soldiers and nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in ohio.

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in ohio.

Gotta look at both sides, edgar. That was NOT legit.

Good grief. I even got disappointed in James Michner's interpretation of the situation at Kent State.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 06:50 pm
Kent State. I remember it well. Students shot from pure malice, encouraged by the rhetoric and shield of the governement. I desperately wanted a regime change - a popular revolution - in those days. Come to think of it , that's what I still want.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 01:19:59