Peace without Violence?

[spartanmachine]

As much as I love peace, I'm of the opinion that everything we have of value was earned through violence at one point or another.
Do you believe that we can ever have peace on this Earth without it being earned and maintained through violence?
More and more I'm starting to believe that violence is simply an inextricable part of who we are.

[Shitoryu Dude]

I think the impending threat of violence is enough at times to ensure peace and being left alone, but every so often you just have to go take care of the arsehole who won't play nice.

:beer:

[Dex]

Ask Jesus if he thought violence was necessary in order to live in a society.

Ask Ghandi, who freed his country from British Colonialism and oppression.

What about Martin Luther King?

As long as violence is one of your options, you are a smaller man. That's my opinion. :)

More and more I'm starting to believe that violence is simply an inextricable part of who we are.

That's your choice.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Dex
Ask Jesus if he thought violence was necessary in order to live in a society.

Ask Ghandi, who freed his country from British Colonialism and oppression.

What about Martin Luther King?

As long as violence is one of your options, you are a smaller man. That's my opinion. :)



That's your choice.

(Matthew 10:34) - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

(Luke 12:51) - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..."

(Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."



It's also interesting to note, that while Ghandi and Martin Luther King were both excellent example of succesful non-violence in action, they also both got bullets in the head for their trouble.

[Cody]

Originally posted by Dex
Ask Jesus if he thought violence was necessary in order to live in a society.

Ask Ghandi, who freed his country from British Colonialism and oppression.

What about Martin Luther King?

As long as violence is one of your options, you are a smaller man. That's my opinion. :)



That's your choice.

As long as you limit your options, you limit your odd of survival and the ability to protect those under your care. That's my opinion ;)

-C

[Shitoryu Dude]

Removing violence as an option merely shows what a sheltered life you have led. Either that or you are stupid - take your pick.

:beer:

[Senjojutsu]

I don't know Dex, while your channeling why don't you ask British PM Neville Chamberlain and Premier Daladier of France about peaceful coexistence, you know "Peace in Our Time".   How many millions more died in WWII because of their appeasing, peacenik mindsets?

"British Colonialism and oppression"! :rolleyes:
Against the backdrop of the 20th century - British oppression is a quaint anachronism.   That's oppression with a small "o" - as in a child's tricycle versus a Harley.

Also how would your beloved Ghandi fared against an occupation government of an "Uncle Joe" Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, or Ho Chi Minh?  

Your Ghandi would have just been another skull in a killing field.  

[Iain]

In the realm of realpolitik, violence will always be a fact. The idea of clubbing someone over the head to get what we want is as old as the hills. The only problem is violence is often a product of paranoia rather than of a real physical threat. On the flip side, it's often a product of inaction in the face of truly aggressive behaviour.

On a fundamental level, you can never really know if a government is stockpiling weapons because it is afraid or because it intends to wage war. We cannot read minds -yet. One person builds a bomb, the other person builds two just to be sure, and the person with one builds another four 'just to be safe', and all of a sudden everyone thinks that everyone else is out to get them. It's called the security dilemma.

The need to stockpile weapons is a fear response at the most fundamental level, and because it is irrational and emotional in nature, it necessarily evokes irrational fear-based responses. Responses like MAD.

Ideally, we'd all simply balance our need for security with our need not to provoke our neighbouring nations, and formulate a collective response to agression as determined in a rational and sensible manner. However, this is about as likely to happen as me sprouting wings and flying to venus, so until I grow wings, we'll just have to keep our guns trained on the nearest communist, brown person, or factory worker. You know, 'Just to be safe'...

[Cady Goldfield]

It's odd that martial artists on a martial arts website would be debating whether violence is necessary. We can bargain for peace only from a position of power, not one of weakness. Sometimes, violence is necessary to make and keep the peace.

You are in the position to be peaceful only if you are capable of defending yourself. Otherwise, you are peaceful not by choice, but by weakness - a waiting victim to the powerful. You are in in the position to grant mercy only if you are capable of bringing an attacker to his knees.

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick." - Theo. Roosevelt

[Shitoryu Dude]

I like my stick to have a few nails pounded through it. Just for the effect mind you..... :D

[Dex]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu
I don't know Dex, while your channeling why don't you ask British PM Neville Chamberlain and Premier Daladier of France about peaceful coexistence, you know "Peace in Our Time".   How many millions more died in WWII because of their appeasing, peacenik mindsets?

Yes of course, I am responsible for that.

Obviously I am saying that I am a nazi appeaser....and don't forget to put in that 'peacenik' insult..always helps ;)

This is what I am saying: I am trying my level best...my absolute hardest...to remove violence as an option from my life. I used to physically chastise my kids when I saw fit, now I don't. I used to fight when I was drunk, but now I don't.
It's odd that martial artists on a martial arts website would be debating whether violence is necessary
Why is that?...coz we are all such hard motherfvckers who can lay waste to everyone...is that what oyu really think?

Removing violence as an option merely shows what a sheltered life you have led. Either that or you are stupid - take your pick.
Of course..you got me. I have led a life totally sheltered from all violence and interaction. Also I am stupid...to an extreme degree.
Also how would your beloved Ghandi fared against an occupation government of an "Uncle Joe" Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, or Ho Chi Minh?
Do you know anything about Ghandi and the British occupation? Or his role in South Africa?

Of course i don't just act according to my chances of survival...I like to think that I have a certain depth of honour. Hell...perhaps I have even proved myself again and again, who knows. :)

ps. as to whatever elder is saying..the last words I ever saw from him were 'short order cook' (whatever that is).
elder999 This person is on your Ignore List.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Dex
Y I have led a life totally sheltered from all violence and interaction. Also I am stupid...to an extreme degree.


ps. as to whatever elder is saying..the last words I ever saw from him were 'short order cook' (whatever that is).

The first I have no reason to doubt to be true, though I have no way of knowing. The second is obvious.:p

.....as to the third sentence, well, as if that's going to keep me from replying.:p

[Gene Williams]

Dex, You are probably the most complete idiot I have ever encountered.:rolleyes:

[Dex]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
Dex, You are probably the most complete idiot I have ever encountered.:rolleyes:

I have decided to live my life by my chosen role-models. I have chosen my models to be the likes of peaceful men and women. I have done this for the sake of my children and their development. (as opposed to arming them and telling them to kill)

I didn't make this choice through 'choice'. I made it through experience, extremely violent experience. I am comfortable with it and if anyone thinks they can oppose it with logic, fair enough I will enjoin them. I don't claim that my position is superior, I just claim that it is honourable and fair, moral and social. I claim that it is a choice worthy of living by, and even though I do not compare myself to Christ, Ghandi, King and others...I will use them as an example.

Just don't bother me with ridiculous extremities such as 'blood on the door-knob, families lying dead' or such nonsense. If you wish to challenge me use normality, where we live.

I don't care where people are born, I don't care what religion someone is, I don't care what martial art they do, I don't care about anything except how people relate to each other on a personal/social/subjective/objective level.

I'm not perfect, but I am not a thug either. In my world that makes a big difference. If you see it differently that is fine...just drop the personal abuse because it only makes you look like an arsehole.

[Dex]

btw..where I live..if you walk around acting hard and talking hard like some of the rubbish in these forums...you will end up with a face that looks like a subway map pretty quick :)

Being hard will not change that..and some day some other idiot will decide that your kids are the way to teach you a lesson, or your wife or your brother or your father or your friend. And you will most likely deserve it.

Don't preach to me about violence until you have to explain to your family about why they got it because of you.

[Maro]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
Dex, You are probably the most complete idiot I have ever encountered.:rolleyes:

cough

[Maro]

As we enter this election year here in the USA, I want set a few rules in regards to messages posted in our forums.

1. All political discussions will stay in the Member’s Lounge only.

2. Please respect everyone’s political views and opinions.

3. Do not post childish comments about any of the candidates, elected officials, and their families. This includes the misuse of their names in derogatory attempts at misguided humor.

4. Don’t piss me off

If you break a rule, your post will be deleted. Do it again and you will loose access rights to the forum.


From the Forum Rules.

Are you exempt for some reason?

[spartanmachine]

Think about it has there ever been a time in civilized history that people have not organized themselves into groups and fought each other. Also has not the best way to deal with violence and not let it get completely out of hand been tying it together with a moral code as opposed to trying to be completely peaceful?

[scoundrel]

Originally posted by Dex
Just don't bother me with ridiculous extremities such as 'blood on the door-knob, families lying dead' or such nonsense. If you wish to challenge me use normality, where we live.

And

Being hard will not change that..and some day some other idiot will decide that your kids are the way to teach you a lesson, or your wife or your brother or your father or your friend. And you will most likely deserve it.

Ok, I'm a little confused. Just for the record, are we or are we not going to use "ridiculous extremities"?

[Dex]

Sorry Scoundrel I probably misreperesented myself there.

I am caught between two cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Both fine cities but both places where violent retribution can easily fall on violent people. In short if you justify violence then so can anyone else. Violence may be part of growing up but I don't think it is part of being an adult in normal society. Hopefully :)

I know it sounds dumb and contrived, but I just want a better world for my kids.

Maro - there are in fact people who are not moderated in these forums and are free to be as abusive and ignorant as they please. The forum moderator does nothing about it and they act with impunity.

[Nsherrard]

With respect to Dex being an idiot, I hate to tell ya'll this, but his posts are well-reasoned (not to mention well-spelled), articulate, and untainted by easy aphorisms or bombastic demagoguery (unlike many other posts here). In addition, "you're stupid" or variations thereof are about the worst possible response to a reasonable argument. It shows a lack of comprehension. Issues of violence in human society are something great minds have struggled with for recorded human history. I suppose if someone had just said to one of those great thinkers, leaders, or philosophers, "you're an idiot" that would have saved a lot of time and energy. By the way, give the biblical quotes a rest. I'm not going to quote any contradicting lines, because if anyone here actually believes Jesus advocates violence in the scriptures, then we may safely apply to them ANY variation on the aforementioned phrase. I have no great desire to argue theology, but I'll give a hint to help out those who might be confused: metaphor. TTFN.

[Dex]

Cheque's in the post, mate :)

[Nsherrard]

Cheers! :beer:

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu
I don't know Dex, while your channeling why don't you ask British PM Neville Chamberlain and Premier Daladier of France about peaceful coexistence, you know "Peace in Our Time".   How many millions more died in WWII because of their appeasing, peacenik mindsets?

...

Dear Mr. Uninformed,

While i can't comment on the French, Neville Chamberlain played a good game.

In the 1920s & 1930s, Birtain had cut back it's military power, and Hitler had agressively expanded his in the '30s.

This left Chaimberlain in a position of weakness. If Hitler declared war on Western Europe, he could of rolled through France and the UK with little resistance.

Chaimberlain kept him sweet until Britain had built up her military to a sufficient level to offer a credible threat to the Germans before issueing ultimatums like: "Keep out of Poland or else!".

So even though I am attacking you for being grossly uninformed, this actually ends up prooving your point, that peace comes from being in a position of strength. :)

[Nsherrard]

"Chaimberlain kept him sweet until Britain had built up her military to a sufficient level to offer a credible threat to the Germans before issueing ultimatums like: "Keep out of Poland or else!".

So even though I am attacking you for being grossly uninformed, this actually ends up prooving your point, that peace comes from being in a position of strength."



I'm not saying ol' Neville did a bad job, but I was under the impression there was some sort of war-type interlude in there somewhere. Maybe my history isn't up to snuff though...

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by Nsherrard
...

I'm not saying ol' Neville did a bad job, but I was under the impression there was some sort of war-type interlude in there somewhere. Maybe my history isn't up to snuff though...

Sorry, what do you mean by 'war-type interlude'?

I don't want to go answering question until i know what's being asked! :)

[Nsherrard]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument according to the last two paragraphs I quoted above was that Neville was able to placate Germany until Britain had built up enough military might to pose a credible threat, and this resulted in...peace? You claimed that this arming of Britain proved that a position of strength brings peace. Isn't there the little matter of the most costly war humanity has ever seen?

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by Nsherrard
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument according to the last two paragraphs I quoted above was that Neville was able to placate Germany until Britain had built up enough military might to pose a credible threat, and this resulted in...peace? You claimed that this arming of Britain proved that a position of strength brings peace. Isn't there the little matter of the most costly war humanity has ever seen?

Sorry, no.

John claimed that millions more people died in WW2 because Neville Chaimberlain tried to appease Hitler.

I never intended to clain this resulted in immediate peace, I'm sorry if my posts suggested otherwise.

Neville Chaimerlain's actions meant that i can now live in a country which speaks English and hasn't got gas chambers full of Jews and an Austrian interior designer with a silly mustache as our supreme leader. I think that the actions of Neville Chaimberlain bought Freedom to Western Europe, and with this Freedom has come relative peace since WW2.

The arming of Britain allowed us to provide a credible opposition to Nazi Germany which, in the long term, bought peace, freedom and stability to Western Europe.

[spartanmachine]

Can anyone think of a significant length of time that their weren't any wars going on in the world? Cause I can't.

"I am caught between two cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Both fine cities but both places where violent retribution can easily fall on violent people. In short if you justify violence then so can anyone else. Violence may be part of growing up but I don't think it is part of being an adult in normal society. Hopefully"

This is very strange reasoning considering that most violence falls on innocent victims in these cases and not on violent people. Yes it's true that if you're violent, odds are one day you will mess with the wrong person but that's not the point of this thread.

I'm not looking to justify violence here. What I am doing is attempting to understand it in the sense that it has always existed and has played a strong role in the furthering of civilization. That's a fact, not a justification.
I'm not looking at it in the sense of within a society or individuals but in a broader sense of throughout humanity and civilization.

[Marc Renouf]

In response to Dex's well-articulated argument, I can only point out that while well-reasoned, it entirely misses the point. Yes, violent means bring violent ends (you know, "those who live by the sword die by the sword").

But no one here is advocating that kind of lifestyle. No one is saying that you should go out and pick a fight with everyone you meet. But there are times when non-violence is not enough. Cutting violence out of your life completely doesn't make you a better person, it makes you a better victim. And as Huw pointed out, innocents are victims of violence far more often than people who go looking for it.

I'm not saying that if a guy cuts you off in traffic that your should beat him to a pulp (although people might be more polite in traffic if it were a real possibility...), but if someone threatens you or your family with violence, smiling broadly and saying, "can't we just be friends" isn't going to help you. If you never defend yourself, you are asking for trouble just as much as if you get liquored up and go looking for a fight. The difference is that the belligerant drunk has a chance in a confrontation, the pacifist doesn't.

Perhaps the root of the disagreement is in the definition of violence. I get the impression that Dex feels that self-defense is not violence. I disagree, for the simple reason that any time you are using physical force to assert your will over others(even if it's your will to not get curb-stomped), you are perpetrating violence.

We are here on e-budo for a reason. We are martial artists. Tacit in studying the martial arts is the idea that you must be willing to use your art to defend not only yourself, but others as well. With that is a tacit understanding that you are preparing yourself to do violence with no hesitation. If you do not have that understanding, why study martial arts in the first place? You'll get much stronger, more flexible, and better conditioned by taking up dance. You'll probably get more ladies too.

So why are you here?

[Iain]

Unfortunately, Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia. The Czechs had a sizeable military and an easily defensible country. It is unlikely that they would not have been able to check the eastern advance of Germany with sufficient force to severely curtail his ability to strike out across Poland and down into France. This would have created more than enough of an obstacle to stop the Germans from cutting off the Mainland from British aid, allowing and initial front to be established within Europe rather than across the channel. If Uncle Joe had seen a little but of spine from the Allies early on, he never would have honoured the Molitov-Ribentropp pact, and the Germans would have been caught between the hammer and anvil of 1942 in 1939 instead. Chamberlain thought he was conducting a game of realpolitik, but his willingness to blindside Czechoslovakia to but himself a couple of months both emboldened Hitler and likely led to seven years of war instead of maybe 2 -or maybe even none at all.

[Senjojutsu]

Neville Chamberlain as the great warrior PM ? - isn't revisionist history a wonderful thing!   Winnie I guess now being defined just a whiskey sot who just got lucky.

I can't wait to see how President Jimmy Carter is portrayed by historians in about twenty years, weak loser that he was.

Your argument is specious due to the fact Germany was also busily rearming during the 1930s, so waiting another year bought you what?

Most historians cite the first meaningful lost opportunity against overt Nazi aggression to intervene was in the Rhineland occupation by Hitler in 1936 which in fairness did predate Chamberlain's term.

Germany was still relatively weak and if it was forced to back down and withdraw it may have caused an internal revolt against Shicklegrubber by the German Army High Command.   We will never know.   Then came his annexation of Austria in early 1938.

As Iain has stated, The Munich Conference of 1938 in which England and France definitely threw Czechoslovakia "under the bus" to maintain a peace.   Think about it - if Allied backbone was shown then.   There would have been the Czech armies fighting on their home turf, Polish armies, English and France armies, and this before Germany had signed the non-aggression treaty with Soviet Union. So Chamberlain's waiting bought you what?

Also remember Chamberlain was the British PM during the initial months of the WWII.   The so-called named "Phony War" period by some American journalists in fact Chamberlain resigned due to his initial uninspiring war leadership during the its first eight months - in addition to the appeasement baggage. But then immediately followed the German blitzkrieg in May 1940, and the resulting conquest of France.

The human constant is there are a dozen little Hitlers in the world today, there always are.   But luckily all these Hitler wannabee's happen to lead pisshole sub 3rd world countries whose armies are just thugs - and not an advanced, industrious country like Germany of 1939.

Military Action would have resulted in deaths too, but would it have been on the resulting scale.   Maybe you just cannot trust those Prussians, or as Churchill was known to quip; "The Hun is either at your feet or at your throat".

I think one must remember three things about using "military strength":

1. You must have some toys
2. You must now how to effectively play with them
3. You must be willing

Yes "willing" is very important part.   As in "resolve", and England and France wasn't willing in 1936 or 1938.

America is still "willing" and has the toys and know how to use them - which is why we are the world's one current superpower - and I know that pisses some of you guys off.

=========================================

As opposed to going back to and review WWII - I would like to ask Messrs. Larsen and Johnston are they ashamed with their government's military action during that little spat between England and Argentina during 1982?   That conflict in the South Atlantic called The Falklands War.

Where Argentina invaded the Falklands, which they call the Malvinas and claimed sovereignty over. Was the United Kingdom right to use force in order to reclaim and protect its territory even without UN Resolution 502?   After all - Argentina never threatened the UK homeland - did they?

Why didn't the British give peace a chance and diplomacy more time to work?
:mad:

[Shitoryu Dude]

Er, because Argentina had asked for an @$$ whupping in a big way?

:beer:

[Gene Williams]

Churchill also said, "A Hun alive is a war in prospect." Sort of like I feel about Muslims now:mad:

[Iain]

Well, hindsight's a wonderful thing. The only problem is if we treat it like prophesy and proceed accordingly, we run the risk of walking out infront of a firing squad instead of into the history books.

Things always seem self evident in retrospect, but in the moment, the right course of action is rarely clear; even if we think it is.

[Cody]

You can't have peace without occasional violence, I thought that would be self-evident. The very concept of "peace" itself is defined by nagation of violence. If there is no violence, there is nothing to negate to begin with.

That is not to say I support reckless use of violence. I accept the inevitability of violence use in some occasions. However, elimination of particular (non-threatening) religion or sets of belief is not a valid excuse in my book.

-Cody

[larsen_huw]

Fair enough. A lot here, I'll take it piece by piece.

Originally posted by Senjojutsu
Neville Chamberlain as the great warrior PM? ...

I definately didn't call him a warrior PM, i didn't notice anyone else doing it either. I said he was a diplomat who played a good game to give Britain time to get some military might to prop up any future backbone with!



Originally posted by Senjojutsu
... Winnie I guess now being defined just a whiskey sot who just got lucky. ...

Nope. Winston Churchill comes across in the UK today as a flawed man who was exactly the leader Britain needed to singlehandedly turn the tide of the war against the Germans.

I know very little about Carter or what went on in his era, so I'll leave the next bit alone.



Originally posted by Senjojutsu
... Your argument is specious due to the fact Germany was also busily rearming during the 1930s, so waiting another year bought you what? ...

If you have very little, and your opponent has laods. Then you start rearming at roughly the same rate as your opponent. After a year you have a fair bit, and he has loads and loads. The ratio of Nazi military to British military was made more favourable in that extra year.



Originally posted by Senjojutsu
... Most historians cite the first meaningful lost opportunity against overt Nazi aggression to intervene was in the Rhineland occupation by Hitler in 1936 which in fairness did predate Chamberlain's term.

Germany was still relatively weak and if it was forced to back down and withdraw it may have caused an internal revolt against Shicklegrubber by the German Army High Command.   We will never know.   Then came his annexation of Austria in early 1938. ...

As you said this predates Chamberlain. I don't think he can be blaimed for this. Infact it shows the situation he was faced with when he came to power ... it's not like he turned a blind eye to Hitler's expansion ... it was already in full swing before he became PM!


Originally posted by Senjojutsu
... As Iain has stated, The Munich Conference of 1938 in which England and France definitely threw Czechoslovakia "under the bus" to maintain a peace.   Think about it - if Allied backbone was shown then.   There would have been the Czech armies fighting on their home turf, Polish armies, English and France armies, and this before Germany had signed the non-aggression treaty with Soviet Union. So Chamberlain's waiting bought you what? ...

I honestly don't know what the Russians mght or might not of done. Joe Stalin was a crazy who had expansionist ideas of his own. For all we know, the whole of Europe could be marching to the Red Flag if events had been different!

But yes, in a callous game of international chess, Czechoslovakia was sacrficiced to give us an extra 12 months to rearm.



Originally posted by Senjojutsu
... Also remember Chamberlain was the British PM during the initial months of the WWII.   The so-called named "Phony War" period by some American journalists in fact Chamberlain resigned due to his initial uninspiring war leadership during the its first eight months - in addition to the appeasement baggage. But then immediately followed the German blitzkrieg in May 1940, and the resulting conquest of France. ...

U-huh. Yeah, it's also known as the Phoney war over here. When war was declared, 1000s of young British men went and joined the military ... how many of those thousands do you think would of been able to be trained up in those 8 months?



Originally posted by Senjojutsu
... As opposed to going back to and review WWII - I would like to ask Messrs. Larsen and Johnston are they ashamed with their government's military action during that little spat between England and Argentina during 1982?   That conflict in the South Atlantic called The Falklands War.

Where Argentina invaded the Falklands, which they call the Malvinas and claimed sovereignty over. Was the United Kingdom right to use force in order to reclaim and protect its territory even without UN Resolution 502?   After all - Argentina never threatened the UK homeland - did they?

Why didn't the British give peace a chance and diplomacy more time to work?
:mad:


Nope. I'm vert proud of our amred forces and their conduct against the Argantinians. A war which our long time friends, the Americans, refused to offer any military support to, as they didn't want to piss off the despotic Argentinian government!

Anyway, British soil was invaded and had to be recaptured. British troops were humiliated for the amusement of the Argentinians. Britains credability as a world power hinged on us being able to sail half way round the world and kick some arse.

Incidentally this all happened at roughly the same time i was a cheeky grin on my parents' faces! :D I was born in November '82 ... roughly 9 months after the Falklands War kicked off.

I didn't notice the USA acting with restraint and diplomacy when Pearl Harbour was bombed, and the Japanese weren't threatening the US mainland.

Maybe I'm not the best person to have asked that to, seeing as i never argued that peace could come without voilence. All i argued was that history has been unnecessarily unkind to Neville Chaimberlain.

[spartanmachine]

"Maybe I'm not the best person to have asked that to, seeing as i never argued that peace could come without voilence."
So you agree with me.

"All i argued was that history has been unnecessarily unkind to Neville Chaimberlain."
In which case you took over my thread.

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by spartanmachine
"Maybe I'm not the best person to have asked that to, seeing as i never argued that peace could come without voilence."
So you agree with me. ...

Not necessarily. I don't disagree or agree with what you say enough to voice an opinion.


Originally posted by spartanmachine
... "All i argued was that history has been unnecessarily unkind to Neville Chaimberlain."
In which case you took over my thread.

You're a big boy now. I'm sure you'll be able to deal with it! ;) :D

Read the sign on the door:


Member's Lounge
Take off your tabi, grab some sake and relax. Off topic posts welcome.

[MikeWilliams]

Originally posted by spartanmachine
In which case you took over my thread.

It could have been a lot worse. He could have started talking about Capris.

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by MikeWilliams
It could have been a lot worse. He could have started talking about Capris.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nah, i save that for when i know Matt's gonna read it, it sends the poor boy up the wall! :D

[elder999]

originally posted by spartanmachine
As much as I love peace, I'm of the opinion that everything we have of value was earned through violence at one point or another.
Do you believe that we can ever have peace on this Earth without it being earned and maintained through violence?
More and more I'm starting to believe that violence is simply an inextricable part of who we are.

originally posted by Dex
Ask Jesus if he thought violence was necessary in order to live in a society.
Ask Ghandi, who freed his country from British Colonialism and oppression.
What about Martin Luther King?
As long as violence is one of your options, you are a smaller man. That's my opinion.


(Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."

I finally got to do some proper cross-country skiing this past weekend ;I spent a fair amount of that time thinking about a few things, like this thread.

I don’t know that I entirely agree with you basic premise, Kosta: violence is an inextricable part of our lives, but I don’t know that I can say that everything we’ve earned has been earned through violent means.
Dex chose to answer somewhat differently-in that he’s speaking of personal choices, and admirable ones at that.

I think he’s right though: the use of violence does diminish us, though we may not have a choice.For most of us,though, it is better to be diminished through the use of violence, than to be dead because of it.

There’s a reason why the Shaolin monks trained in martial arts-they were expected to go out into the world, and needed martial skills to defend themselves. We cannot control what choices other people make, or how they will respond to non-violence. Buddhism is a religion which embraces pacifism, especially the Cha’n version that the Shaolin once practiced; it was a result of the fusion of Buddhism with Taoist inaction.

Funny story: when I was in college (again!) the head of the religious studies department had a prominent Taoist come and give a long and lively lecture on non-action. At the time, Iran had just released the American Embassy hostages, and the Ayatollah Khomeini was still a topic of discussion. The lecturer-whose name I can’t recall-said that the Taoist way would be to do nothing, that, in time, the Ayatollah would go away, and cause us no more problems…..when asked what to do if that didn’t work, he held up his hand, mimed a pistol being fired, and said “BAM!, problem solved.” We both cracked up laughing, with a bunch of bead-wearing, patchouli scented, Buddhist, pacifist hippies (the religious studies department was full of them) looking at us incredulously.

Violence does solve problems.

My father always said that quoting scripture without context is pretext, and it’s true-but that’s what I did. The quote from Luke was delivered to the Apostles after the resurrection, and what Jesus was saying was , hey-you’re going out into the world now, and there are people who will try to kill you. You should be prepared to do some violence to stay alive.

The modern-day cases of Gandhi and King are also kind of special cases: they both succeeded through a variety of means that presented a mirror for their adversaries to be shamed in, but there was always an implied threat of violence that-while not nedcessarily intentional on their part-had a great deal of influence. In both countries there were riots and deaths taking place in various parts of the country, and the power structures were frightened of the possibility of organized violence, especially since there was already organized resistance, however non-violent it was. One also should remember that many people were killed on the “non-violent” side of the struggles, including the leaders;one would have a hard time convincing the friends and relatives of dead freedom riders, or lynching victims, or those four little girls bombed in Sunday school that the end result of non-violent action was achieved without violence.

Although King spoke of “nonviolence,” his actions were designed to elicit violence. King once said, “Negroes will be mentally healthier if they do not suppress rage but vent it constructively and its energy peacefully but forcefully to cripple the operations of an oppressive society.” Notice how his apparent contradiction is utilized: He told African-Americans that they should “not suppress rage but vent it” so that it would “cripple the operations of an oppressive society,” yet this “forcefully” crippling of society was to be done “peacefully” and “constructively.”

Louis Waldman, a prominent black-labor lawyer, described King's methods as follows:

“The philosophy and purpose of Dr. King's program . . . is to produce `crisis-packed' situations and `tension.' Such a purpose is the very opposite of nonviolence, for the atmosphere-of-crisis policy leads to violence by provoking violence. And the provocation of violence is violence. To describe such provocation as `nonviolent' is to trifle with the plain meaning of words.”

The U.S. government found that King's actions were causing violence, racial problems, and the destruction of property. Although Martin Luther King, Jr., often said, “I have a deep commitment to nonviolence,” his actions could hardly be considered nonviolent.

On May 4, 1963, police dogs and firehouses were used to quell a demonstration by lawbreakers in Birmingham, Alabama. There had been violence plain and simple. Martin Luther King Jr. and his right hand man, Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth, threatened that these demonstrations would continue. . . . There was, they said, `no intention of relaxing pressure without such action. We negotiate from strength' and `will consider' calling off the demonstrations after the action. This was the mood of the well-known nonviolence of Dr. King.

The day following action by police dogs and firehouses, the New York Times reported that residents of Birmingham heard from the lips of King, the man who preached peace in the streets but led the lawless bands: `Today was D-Day. Tomorrow will be double D-Day.'

One seldom hears Martin Luther King Jr.'s name without `nonviolent' slogans coming in successive breaths,but quite often the nonviolence of King leads to violence of riot proportions

The following is an account of Gandhi’s trial in India in 1923, from William Shirer’s biography of Gandhi. Please note the Mahatma’s statements, and note that they were in no way sarcastic or facetious:

And Gandhi broke in: "I plead guilty to all the charges."

And the Advocate-General argued that the accused was guilty of launching a campaign to spread disaffection openly and systematically, to render the government impossible and overthrow it. The accused, he said, was a man of high educational qualifications and evidently from his writings a recognized leader. His writings were those of an educated man, and not the writings of an obscure man, and the court must consider to what the results of a campaign of the nature disclosed in his writings must inevitably lead. They had examples before them in the last three months, the tragedies of Bombay and Chauri Chaura leading to murder and destruction of private property. It was true that in the course of his articles the accused preached non-violence. But what was the use of preaching non-violence when he preached dissatisfaction toward the government or openly instigated others to overthrow it? These were the circumstances which he, the Advocate-General, asked the court to take into account in sentencing the accused, and it would be for the court to consider those circumstances, which certainly involved sentences of severity.
And the judge said: "Mr. Gandhi, do you wish to make a statement on the question of sentence?"

Mr. Gandhi: "I would like to make a statement.

"Before I read my statement," Gandhi said, "I would like to state that I entirely endorse the learned Advocate-General's remarks in connection with my humble self. I think he was entirely fair to me in all the statements he has made, because it is very true, and I have no desire to conceal from this court the fact, that to preach disaffection toward the existing system of government has become almost a passion with me, and the learned Advocate-General is also entirely in the right when he says that my preaching of disaffection did not commence with my connection with Young India but that it commenced much earlier.
..........it is impossible for me to dissociate myself from the diabolical crimes of Chauri Chaura or the mad outrages of Bombay. He is quite right when he says that as a man of responsibility, a man having received a fair share of education, having had a fair share of experience of this world, I should have known the consequences of every one of my acts. I knew that I was playing with fire, I ran the risk, and if I was set free I would still do the same. I have felt this morning that I would have failed in my duty, if I did not say this.

"I wanted to avoid violence....Non-violence is the first article of my creed....But I had to make my choice. I had either to submit to a system which I considered has done an irreparable harm to my country, or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting forth, when they understood the truth from my lips.

I know that my people have sometimes gone mad. I am deeply sorry for it, and I am therefore here to submit not to a light penalty but to the heaviest penalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not plead any extenuating act. I am here, therefore, to invite and cheerfully submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.

"The only course open to you, the judge, is, as I am going to say in my statement, either to resign your post, or inflict on me the severest penalty, if you believe that the system and law you are assisting to administer are good for the people. I do not expect that kind of conversion, but by the time I have finished with my statement, you will perhaps have a glimpse of what is raging within my breast and which has made me run this maddest of risks which a sane man can run."


It is worth noting, as I said earlier, that those sterling examples of “non-violence” in action all died horribly violently. In the end, I do think that peace is achievable without violence, but only with a massive, worldwide change in consciousness. As long as violence remains a means for one person, it must remain an option for all others to defend themselves.