Non-violent activism proves best

[GregAndrsn]

Egypt's situation is a landmark in history - a non-violent regime to over throw the existing government

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2011-02-11

I know most of us dislike our current governmental situations at home, but violence against anyone only spreads a problem. If anyone is to change anything, we must do it in a peaceful manner, but with our full will and intent.

 

[ophiuchus]

"proves best", what a biased statement. :roll:

i believe "full will and intent" also includes the notion of violence, yeah? or else "full will and intent" by logic means "limited will and intent". not that i condone violence in particular, but to erase it as an option makes ones stance appear about as firm as a wet noodle. "a pushover" in some's eyes.

don't get me wrong, im all about settling things with nonviolence, actually i abhor violence in all forms. but i would be foolish to prepare myself to go against a bunch of bloodthirsty warriors with only simple clothes and a pen.

"hope for the best. prepare for the worst."

"live free or die trying."

 

[GregAndrsn]

Thanks for your unbiased input, it is really valued.

 

[Crimzen]

i agree with allusion

and im pretty sure i saw a video from egypt recently of a bunch of civilians driving a bunch of riot police back (with violence)
it wasnt like they were blood thirsty and using weapons or anything, just beating on a cop or two lol

you should never limit your own weapons when your opponent refuses to do the same

 

[GregAndrsn]

Violence deepens a problem, not relieves it. Instead of fixing the problem, now you have two:
The starting disagreement
and
Violence.

I don't understand the vantage point where violence would ever work, unless you intended to kill or imprison your opposition, which again I don't agree with.

I'm not sure I can empathize with you guys on this.

 

[ophiuchus]

Violence deepens a problem

I don't understand the vantage point where violence would ever work, unless you intended to kill or imprison your opposition, which again I don't agree with.

I'm not sure I can empathize with you guys on this.

lets see... the idea is not to use violence, like i said.

i agree that violence can make a problem worse. but the idea is not to to kill or imprison anybody, or else all one would have done is taken the position from those killing and imprisoning, and put oneself in that seat... which, i don't think many others would agree with either.

so the idea is that, one has an opposable force against violence, but, it doesn't necessarily have to be the exact same kind of force, (ie an "army") and should not be used in the same way as such. the force is used(if necessary) to neutralize, cancel out the other force, preferably in a nonviolent way, (not using the force at all) not to dominate. the only thing i can think of to equate it to atm would be the cold war (the aspect that no one was really "fighting") but even the overly violent aspects of developing weapons better than the others does not really agree with my point.

look into the philosophies of tai chi or other asian martial arts philosophies to get an idea of the kind of force i mean. force with mercy, empathy, to (inaccurately)simplify it, i suppose... :|

 

[Crimzen]

it should never be 'THE' solution to anything
violence is only natural really, its just that its most often used to attack others offensively
for a cliche example: what do you do when someone breaks into your house and threatens you with violence? try to negotiate?

it should be a last resort and only used when absolutely necessary
what if you try to stage a political protest and you are constantly dogged by violent police, beating peaceful protesters?
i say fight back
dont start the fight, just finish it, you know?

(i agree with allusion about the force with mercy)

 

[GregAndrsn]

Well, I think we're looking at two different situations.

The original post was to proclaim that violence shouldn't be used to initiate a rebellion (i.e. egypt) although, they did break property and vandalize.............

I don't think comparing a robbery to overthrowing a government gets us very far in this discussion, unless we change the subject to violence in general.

I think, following the cliche ghandi approach, that non-violent resistance overwhelms a government much more so than violent rebellion.

Like the article said:

"How long do you think this uprise would have lasted had the rebels taken to guns and weapons?" I think it is pretty clear that they would have been mowed down by the military fairly quickly, and the regime wiped out. There would be an excuse for such a slaughter - they were using violence.

So by peacefully stating your opposition, I think there is a far greater chance to get what you want (on the level of politics) than by blowing up bridges and shooting senators. Although, I am not completely against blowing up bridges (as long as no one is hurt)...

 

[Crimzen]

it should be a last resort and only used when absolutely necessary

^^

it all depends on the regime, its control over the media and how much it cares about its appearance
for example no one in north korea would stand a chance with non-violent protest, they'd be squashed in minutes
china used to be the same and im sure if there was a big enough protest to the government itself it would wipe out the protesters

 

[ophiuchus]

i dont know if anyone is going so far as suggesting shooting senators...

"Thanks for your unbiased input"

no input is unbiased