Terrorism

admin: 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.

Human history is a long time. We have evidence and documentation going back 10,000 years. I have not found one example to support your position, and you have no presented one.

If your position rests on "what ifs" then it is essentially unsupported and unfounded.

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.

Do you pay any attention at all? I have answered this many times. Violence is what allows us to live in times of peace, while the illusion of violence is used as a preventive measure to stop further subjugation of violence.

Does that sound familiar? I already answered the question half a dozen times, you are the one who has ignored a rebuttal this whole time.

M8, just for the record, I once believed in absolute non-violence. Stop throwing yourself a pity party for trying to defend your beliefs. Using me as an excuse is spineless and pathetic, like a fluffy wet noodle.

Crow: Called it. Told you you're not interested in it because it's a what if. If the quakers hadn't arisen the outcome of the war would have been different, but you don't want to engage with that and put it all down to your violence. This is exactly what I mean. Your position is "what if violence had not happened", and mine is "what if nonviolent resistance had not happened", but since your worldview is myopic it's a foregone conclusion which one you will accept. That's why you made that post a while ago basically doing nothing except calling me an idiot.

It is a debate site, which is why I find it strange you're trying to shut down debate with those kinds of lines.

Your argument for why was that the alternative was idiotic and naive, and that your view was necessary. It's fundamentally an assertion unless you allow yourself to critically examine the alternative. Your assertion that non-violence == grovelling in shit reminds me very much of Dante's Inferno, where non-believers in the church were forced to do just that.

This idea that the world needs violence for peace is your own asserted moral framework you are imposing on history. That would be fine if you could also accept other frameworks but you refuse to.

admin: If the quakers hadn't arisen the outcome of the war would have been different

The outcome is irrelevant. What happened was resolved using violence, and through violence alone there was a desirable peace. You are not contesting that King Charles I was forced from the throne by violence. That says it all.

Your position is "what if violence had not happened"

It isn't. My position is that violence is always going to be subjected (proven) and that further violence has been a speedy and effective end to the subjugation of violence (ignored)

Your assertion that non-violence == grovelling in shit reminds me very much of Dante's Inferno, where non-believers in the church were forced to do just that.


We can actually observe what happens if we use non-violence here on earth, so the church equivalency is irrelevant. It is an absolute fact that without violent retaliation, the world would have endured under the control of totalitarrian and oppressive governments.

This idea that the world needs violence for peace is your own asserted moral framework you are imposing on history.
I have supplemented it with evidence plenty of times now. Maybe you just don't understand that as long as some are violent, there is no chance for the rest of the world to be peaceful, IE VIOLENCE IS SUBJECTABLE

I mean, this point in particular is less of an argument, and more of an established truth on the laws of nature.

Crow: This is all in spite of the fact that every totalitarian and oppressive government has arisen through violence, and almost every liberal change in human history has been non-violent. Genocides etc cannot happen in a non-violent world.

You are not contesting that King Charles I was forced from the throne by violence.
Violence contributed but it was not the main factor. You're missing the bigger picture.

My position is that violence is always going to be subjected (proven)
(asserted)

and that further violence has been a speedy and effective end to the subjugation of violence (ignored)
Yet you claim violence is necessary, so you can't also claim violence stops violence. I offered an explanation of that, that violence breeds more violence (ignored) but this isn't really what you're arguing.

It is these reassertions that everything you say is proven, everything I respond to in principle is ignored, everything else is conceded, and even when I refute you it is naive or stupid, because of course you are always self-evidently correct. Based on these is where I draw the comparison with the church. This is exactly how medieval churches operated. If you read somebody like the heretic and warmonger Savonarola, who ruled Florence, I think you'll find much in common.

Maybe you just don't understand that as long as some are violent, there is no chance for the rest of the world to be peaceful
So then you have to question why are people violent, rather than assuming they will be. You say it's an established truth, well, I question that truth. You know why I think it is already.

admin: This is all in spite of the fact that every totalitarian and oppressive government has arisen through violence, and almost every liberal change in human history has been non-violent.
Untrue. Many totalitarian and oppressive governments had mass support or had taken power through peaceful processes. King Leopold inherited the throne, the PM of Italy abdicated to Mussolini without a fight, and Hitler came to power in a democracy.

Also wholly irrelevant, because no one is contesting that violence can be a means for evil. It can also be a means for good (stressing once again that evil is one half of a perfect stick)

You need to stop framing this as a violence vs peace debate. If you think that is my position, then you have displayed poor comprehension.

Violence contributed but it was not the main factor. You're missing the bigger picture.

Even though you are wrong, it is irrelevant. The job was finished using violence, and that says it all.

(asserted)

Nope, you argued several times admitting that violence was subjected. In those cases you didn't need to actually say it.

I offered an explanation of that, that violence breeds more violence (ignored) but this isn't really what you're arguing.


Violence does breed more violence, and I argued that this is a necessary cycle. No matter what you do, there will always be an instigation of violence that is simply apart of our human nature.

So then you have to question why are people violent, rather than assuming they will be. You say it's an established truth, well, I question that truth. You know why I think it is already.

There is evidence since the dawn of human history that humans will be violent for a number of things, the simplest of which being simple robbery. In the stone age, human beings would kill each other for stuff they did not have, and that hasn't stopped today. Therefore violence is in our human nature.

That conclusion is easily reached by anybody but a simpleton.

Crow: Your position is that violence is necessary for peace. It is violence vs peace IF there is an acceptance that violence is not necessary for peace. This discussion is therefore on the necessity of violence to maintain peace.

Nonetheless this idea that violent action need be stopped by violent action is itself an important point. Hitler's Enabling Act was passed with guns in the Reichstag, and it took an awful lot of bravery for the SPD to oppose Hitler with barrels pointed at their faces. Of course they could have made a show and tried shooting at the Nazis, which no doubt would have led to much chaos and bloodshed in Germany and beyond. But they chose the non-violent route of passive resistance and every one of them lived. Not only that, but their courageous action made waves across Germany, and slowed any ability Hitler may have had to engage in conflict. Their speeches, though subsequently banned, had a significant effect on many ordinary Germans, my grandfather included.

Same story with Mussolini marching on Rome. And King Leopold's reign, though inherited, cannot be described as non-violent.

What finished a job one time is beside the point in the context of human history. Society has progressed much through peaceful inventions and policies.
Violence being subjected at one time does NOT mean violence is subjected as an absolute.

You say violence is human nature. Why? Do you think there are genes that force people to be violent? Or do people have a choice? And if so, why would they make that choice?

There is evidence since the dawn of human history that humans will be violent for a number of things
Two things:
1 - there is no evidence of climate change on this scale since the dawn of human history. On that basis would you deny climate change?
2 - there is no evidence edeb8 existed before November 2013. How do you explain edeb8's current existence?
I explained that these instances were 99% of the time due to resource conflicts - exactly as in your example - and talked about how these have become increasingly unnecessary. In other words, suppose there was a world in which marginal accumulation of resources did not increase marginal utility. As resources increase through technology, the marginal utility of each additional resource decreases. That is what the world is converging towards as our technology becomes ever greater.

Calling me a simpleton is a pretty nice ad hom you have there, oh wise one.