Terrorism

Basically my main point is that doing nothing and choosing to do nothing are virtually the same thing, and can only be expected to achieve absolutely nothing.

Crow: And you didn't listen that:
1) "supporting the fight" need not be violent, and
2) there is no need for a right

When I look at history, I see violence has destroyed more people than peaceful technology. If I had to hedge my bets, I'd say mankind would be sooner wiped out by war than peace.

You say violence is required for peace, I say it's not. It's simple. You don't attack me, I won't attack you. There you go, peace without violence. Easy.

Violence need not be subjected, and that's why nobody is forced to respond. Violence is always a choice. You can choose to act non-violently. I would refer again to any one of the non-violent activists, who often believed they would die. Where Malcolm X advocated violence for the preservation of blacks, MLK saw that all that was required was peace. I have no doubt that America is much better off because of MLK.

You might expect the same outcome. I, for one, don't. History has numerous examples of me being right on this.

The bit about states is probably off topic. To be brief, punishment need not be violent by nature. Perhaps in a retributive justice model but even there I'd distinguish between a restraint and a harm. Grabbing somebody to immobilize them is fundamentally different from slapping them across the face.

admin: "supporting the fight" need not be violent, and

I never said it did. The fight itself must encompass violence to actually be effective.

When I look at history, I see violence has destroyed more people than peaceful technology. If I had to hedge my bets, I'd say mankind would be sooner wiped out by war than peace.

Due to mankinds natural inclination to enact violence, the foundation of peace can only exist upon the bloodshed of war.

Remember this too; Just because humanity is not killing does not mean the world is at peace.

Violence need not be subjected, and that's why nobody is forced to respond.

It always will be subjected.

Imagine if I said "The sun need not shine bright."

You can choose to act non-violently.

When being subjected to violence, this results in injury, death, or a life lived in fear. Through retaliation, this is no longer a truth.

I have no doubt that America is much better off because of MLK.

No one cares about you hypothesizing on alternate timelines.

To be brief, punishment need not be violent by nature. Perhaps in a retributive justice model but even there I'd distinguish between a restraint and a harm. Grabbing somebody to immobilize them is fundamentally different from slapping them across the face.

So you do support the use of force? Whether you want to consider all forms of force violent or not, the two things are barely distinguishable in practice.

Crow: Mankind has no such inclination. Do not blame mankind as a whole for the violent actions of a few.
The world is certainly more peaceful when people are not killing each other than when they are.

I think world peace isn't a pipe dream. People are slowly starting to recognize that war benefits nobody.

Sure I support the use of force, just not violent force. And it's true that many states, if not all, are much too violent even today. In practice I'd say they're very distinguishable. A shield is the use of force (to stop a bullet), a gun is the use of violence (to fire a bullet). In practice you can very much tell the difference if I shoot you with a gun vs block your attack with a shield.

None of injury, death or fear is so powerful as peace. People have tried to quash peaceful movements even more than they have tried to quash anarchist ones because some people like to profit from bullying and hurting others.

admin: Mankind has no such inclination. Do not blame mankind as a whole for the violent actions of a few.

The existence of states and armies proves that the institution of violence is not due to just the actions of a few. Do not distinguish between a supporter and an actual fighter in this regard.

I think world peace isn't a pipe dream. People are slowly starting to recognize that war benefits nobody.


World peace practically exists now. The reason it does is because violence came before it. The peace we have now will be tested again, and the world's commitment to violence is what will determine whether we will be at peace again.

As long as violence is subjected, peace can only be maintained through further violence. This is a law of nature.

Sure I support the use of force, just not violent force. And it's true that many states, if not all, are much too violent even today.

Violence refers to all intentional attempts to cause harm to another person. Seizing assets like taxes and property, and putting people in jail, is an example of violence.

Consider this too. It doesn't even matter if there is a difference between violent force and hypothetical regular force, both actions would be done with the same mindset that the enforcer is superior to the forced.


None of injury, death or fear is so powerful as peace. People have tried to quash peaceful movements even more than they have tried to quash anarchist ones because some people like to profit from bullying and hurting others.

That isn't true for anarchist movements (tens of thousands of deaths in two conflicts alone) , and it certainly isn't true for violent movements as a whole.

Violent movements throughout history have been obliterated by armies. Rightfully so , because they are 9000 times more effective, and you know this to be true. .For some reason you would like to continue disconnecting yourself from all forms of reality.

I cannot think of one peaceful movement that was the main contributor for major change. I cannot think of one peaceful movement that has stopped a genocide or military crimes against humanity.

During WW1, it wasn't the hundreds of peace movements that brought an end to the great war. It was a strategic breakthrough by the allies on several fronts.

During WW2, with Nazi Germany instigated the holocausts, if the ally peace sympathizers were to be listened to, the Jewish race in mainland Europe would of been totally eradicated.

During the Khemer Rogue, it was not the naive idiots across the ocean that stopped the hundreds of war criminals operating under the Cambodian state. It was a combination of violent internal dissenters, Vietnamese militia groups, and the US airfoce that finally brought down Pol Pot's regime.

During the Rwandan Genocide, with just a bunch of naive idiotic protesters on their side and no military support, the RPF alone managed to prevent the total extermination of several million Tutsi people in their country and in the Congo.

It needs to be accepted that violence is an effective solution, while peaceful protest is at best a minor source of awareness.

@admin

A psychopath traps 20 people in a room. He lines his victims up, and clearly plans to execute all of them. One of the victims has a concealed weapon which he can attempt to use. Should he use it, and if not, then why?

I am curious if you will recognize this as being an opportunity for violence to be a solution. If you do not, then you are definitely a mental case.

Crow: He should not use it because then he'd be a killer. Killing is immoral for the psychopath, so should it also be immoral for the victim.
Calling the alternative a "mental case" is hardly constructive dialogue.

The existence of armies only shows how historically, the few have oppressed the many and conscripted them into conflict with either force or lies. Whole populations have been indoctrinated into this principle that if we didn't keep killing each other we could not survive. That is not a reflection on those soldiers who, upon coming into battle, found they immediately longed to return home. New Zealand's unofficial national anthem, Pokarekare Ana, was written by a Maori Battalion soldier about precisely this, the longing to return home during war, and more symbolically, peace.

I'm using violence specifically in the narrow sense of violating another through death, injury, torture, forced medication of any sort etc. More general practices like the seizure of property or confining somebody to a cell would not, in my view, be deemed violent. I am perfectly ok with these measures. The reason being that although society has every right to all that it has contributed to me (ie my rights and freedoms) these do not override my basic human rights to my person. Those are inviolable even to the point of death. Nobody has the right to violate my bodily integrity, much as I should not have the right to violate anyone else's.

The only reason peace movements didn't end the world wars is that armies on all sides opposed them. Peace activists in less liberal nations were routinely shot, and those in more liberal nations were sent to prison. All wars have only one opponent, and that is peace. The Quaker "Preparing for Peace" study has a very good overview of how peace movements, previously undermined by such command structures, have again been enabled through technology. It's a great book.

admin: He should not use it because then he'd be a killer. Killing is immoral for the psychopath, so should it also be immoral for the victim.

You are using faulty logical reasoning to justify a clearly retarded position.

Circumstances matter. Using a weapon to indiscriminately kill is one thing, but using a weapon to kill an indiscriminate killer for reasons of self preservation are another thing all together.

What do you base this morality on also? Is it immoral simply because you say so? I'll remind you that you are an atheist, and to my understanding, have promoted no metaphysical stance in the past. Acts of self-preservation should naturally be more important than pointless displays of principal. Especially when that principal is knowingly stupid and designed only to make you feel good about yourself.

The existence of armies only shows how historically, the few have oppressed the many and conscripted them into conflict with either force or lies.

Not jumping down this rabbit hole, because it is beside the point. Violence was subjected, and responses to that violence were met rightfully with further violence. Stick to that.

Whole populations have been indoctrinated into this principle that if we didn't keep killing each other we could not survive.

Indoctrination is a charged word here.

I would not contest that we would not survive without violence, but there is such a thing as an undesirable peace (which is not really peace at all) . Life should be about more than surviving, and your position does not reflect that.

It is a double-standard that you argued that the cause of non-violence is worth dying for, but oppose the individuals who would fight for any other cause.

I'm using violence specifically in the narrow sense of violating another through death, injury, torture, forced medication of any sort etc.

Youu

The only reason peace movements didn't end the world wars is that armies on all sides opposed them

Beside the point. They didn't work, and had they worked, a peace would of been arranged that furthered crimes against humanities that were committed by the occupying Germans in both world wars. Both conflicts started with initial aggression, and were ended by further aggression.

What about the other examples I brought up, and the dozens more I could of brought up too. What did the peace movements accomplish when mass genocides were occurring and oppressive military dictatorships were coming to power?

You need to face that this is a naive and idiotic position designed to make you feel good about yourself, and move on to the world of reality. You have your head so far up in la-la land, I believe you might be beyond helping.

I'm using violence specifically in the narrow sense of violating another through death, injury, torture, forced medication of any sort etc.

You still fail to acknowledge how the same evil mindset you reproach is being used through both actions. I know tons of people would prefer the death penalty to a life in prison.

You need to redefine your position too. What you believe is not total non-violence. You still believe in the violence that does not cause injury or death.

Crow: You say circumstances matter. Don't outcomes matter too? Hitler justified his policy of killing Jews because, and I quote, "we are at war." It was a circumstance and to him, killing seemed a good idea at the time. Personally I don't accept that the end of genocide can be justified. People generally don't want to die regardless of the circumstance and it is fair to treat people that way.

I base my morality on the naturalistic principle that people ought to care for one another. Personally I believe empathy is actually an evolved trait, not a mindset, because it makes us stronger to work together and care for each other. You say "Acts of self-preservation should naturally be more important than pointless displays of principal" but you don't actually establish the principle of self-preservation either. Self (1 person) is considerably less important than others (many people) because many is greater than one. God has nothing to do with it.

Violence is not met rightfully with violence. It's like saying the rightful response to rape is to rape somebody. It honestly makes no sense.

You claim life is about more than surviving. I'll tell you what it isn't about - killing other people.

Any cause, including non-violence, is not worth killing others for. Any cause, including non-violence, is worth putting your own life in danger for. The more you believe in a cause, the more danger people are prepared to accept. But killing others is an active decision to do something immoral.

I don't think there's anything inherent to the "evil" mindset of locking people up that inherently warrants the death penalty. If there is, stop being so vague and enlighten people.
You can define the terms however you please. I'd say I oppose violence but support certain forms of retributive justice enacted by the state, while your position opposes all retributive justice enacted by the state but not by individuals.

admin: You say circumstances matter. Don't outcomes matter too?

The outcome of the first scenario is always the same. 20 people dead and a killer alive.

I base my morality on the naturalistic principle that people ought to care for one another.

To truly care for each itself, humanity must use violence as a means of preserving its basic dignity and its very survival.

My arguments have been that violence, at times, is meritted. The human element needs to be fully connected with violent acts, I do agree, but absolute on-violence is betraying parts of the human element itself.

You never seem to get the metaphor that evil is one half of a perfect stick. You cannot have one without the other.


You claim life is about more than surviving. I'll tell you what it isn't about - killing other people.

No, and I would never claim it was.

To reject violence as a tool though, can subject humanity to a state of organized oppression and disrepair.

Any cause, including non-violence, is not worth killing others for. Any cause, including non-violence, is worth putting your own life in danger for. The more you believe in a cause, the more danger people are prepared to accept. But killing others is an active decision to do something immoral.

Yes, but we already know your position is naive and idiotic, so why are you reiterating it?

I am catching almost entirely strawman and reiteration in this last post.

I don't think there's anything inherent to the "evil" mindset of locking people up that inherently warrants the death penalty. If there is, stop being so vague and enlighten people.

I didn't bring up the evil mindset. You are the one that expunged it earlier, and due to your narrow vision, you cannot see how what you believe in and what you do not believe in are principally undergone with the same malice.

@admin

You very clearly weaseled out of answering this...

What about the other examples I brought up, and the dozens more I could of brought up too. What did the peace movements accomplish when mass genocides were occurring and oppressive military dictatorships were coming to power?

Crow: At this point I'm fairly convinced you're not saying anything substantive anymore. You're just repeating that my position is evil or idiotic, and that yours is necessary.

You'd fit right in with a medieval church. Worship is necessary and anything else is evil or idiotic. No constructivism at all.

Crow: For what it's worth - plenty, but you wouldn't accept them as successes because you have a skewed, short-term view of success. Plenty of genocides never happened because of peace movements but since you say nobody cares about my "what ifs" the question is just a troll.

admin: M8, you cannot be serious.

You glazed over most of my points, and the things that you did respond to were met with strawman about human compassion and other bs that I wasn't arguing we should not have.

This is a total cop-out, especially since you were the one who was using la-la arguments rather than realistic impacts (you basically conceded the practicality of non-violence as opposed to violence, which led to you just reiterating a bunch of nonsense this whole discussion).

Instead of acting like a fluffy wet noodle, and walking away just because you are upset, you could try answering one of the tougher questions you so readily ignored.

What about the other examples I brought up, and the dozens more I could of brought up too. What did the peace movements accomplish when mass genocides were occurring and oppressive military dictatorships were coming to power?

admin: Plenty of genocides never happened because of peace movements but since you say nobody cares about my "what ifs" the question is just a troll.

Yes, what ifs are totally unacceptable in any intellectual discussion.

Name one warring totalitarian government, mass genocide, or organized campaign of warcrimes, that were stopped through a peace movement? Let's count.... none , which you admitted.

Now the real question is, why do you expect people to have so much confidence in something that has proven completely ineffective in the past?

Crow: You're saying I admit it anytime you assert something. Quote me the passage where I admitted it.

I'll give you one, the English Civil War opposing an oppressive government was ended by the Quakers. Now you're not going to believe that and are going to argue the example. You're going to keep calling me naive and stupid and evil because your real intention isn't to go after my arguments but after my person.

You can't accept that others have a moral disagreement with you and are sick of the holier-than-thou attitude others hold. It's pretty damn obvious. So you feel like you need to win this discussion, whatever that means, and me refusing to engage with some of your "arguments" (because they are moral assertions you keep claiming I concede anyway) doesn't allow you to do that.

Even if non-violence were a totally new idea that wouldn't mean it is morally incorrect. Morality is always a priori. Again I'd point to vegetarianism as an example. But again, you don't really care about my answer, you'll probably just say I conceded it was pointless in 3 posts or so.

Crow: My point is this - if what ifs are unacceptable, your only acceptable standard of morality is whatever you believe people before you have correctly executed. It's like the ultimate unimaginative conservatism, where you are unable to see any other points of view, regardless of how actually historically correct. The reason you set that standard is because you don't want to engage with the question of whether the world could function without violence. Probably, my guess is, because you're afraid of the answer.

admin: I'll give you one, the English Civil War opposing an oppressive government was ended by the Quakers.

Absolutely false. The parliamentarians won the war through numerous *violent* battles, culminating in a final campaign in which the Kings army was destroyed. The king was then captured and executed after refusing to the demands of the parliament. I studied this all years ago, so I knew right away that this was a nonsense claim.


You can't accept that others have a moral disagreement

Did you forget this was a debate site, and we are on a discussion forum? You tell me, I didn't invent the place.

Even if non-violence were a totally new idea that wouldn't mean it is morally incorrect.

I argued why as a universal policy, non-violence was an affront to humanity. Most of those points have been completely ignored. Maybe you did not understand them? I am unsure, but your position is that humanity should grovel in shit to maintain an abstract and unfounded belief in absolute non-violence.

You seem to be showing little desire in representing what you believe, which makes me believe we are debating self taught lies, rather than strong convictions. Sure, I find your arguments ridiculous. So what?