Nonviolence

[Popinjay]

Say you are sitting in a bar and an angry man comes up to you. He calls you a piece of [censored] and slaps you. You reply, "I will not fight you. Let's resolve this through peaceful discussion." You are saying this because you subscribe to a doctrine of nonviolence. You believe responding to violence with violence only creates more of the same. Your words only anger the man further and he starts punching you. Whilst he lays down each blow you only repeat the above. He keeps attacking you until you are dead.

Is this stupid? How would have Gandhi handled the situation?

[TStoneMBD]

unless gandhi was able to escape or someone helped him i assume he would have died. keep in mind that its pretty easy to kill someone if you really want to, so its not like fighting back reduces your chances of being murdered by much anyway.

[Popinjay]

You are escaping the question. I will add that Gandhi would be able to win the fight if he so chooses.

[Darryl_P]

IMO it is stupid. Despite propaganda to the contrary, violence or the threat thereof is the way things get settled on planet Earth in 2005.

We are brainwashed to believe that power is a bad thing. And for those who don't succumb to that there is secondary brainwashing to suggest that power can be achieved without violence at least on the potential threat level.

A thinking man knows that this is hogwash. Those who spew the "violence is bad" propaganda are simply telling you that they particularly fear it and want to pacify you to make themselves feel more secure. They are not cool-headed logicians who have come to that conclusion objectively by removing their own personal interests. They have a deep personal interest and are doing their best to manipulate your mind.

[Darryl_P]

How would I handle the situation? If I'm in a western civilisation in which his actions are against the law, I'd get help from security and then police and let them use their violence against him. Naturally I would want to have overwhelmingly superior chances before fighting.

If I felt my chances were not superior and there was no help, I'd probably run.

Please enlighten me...what would Ghandi do?

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO it is stupid. Despite propaganda to the contrary, violence or the threat thereof is the way things get settled on planet Earth in 2005.

We are brainwashed to believe that power is a bad thing. And for those who don't succumb to that there is secondary brainwashing to suggest that power can be achieved without violence at least on the potential threat level.

A thinking man knows that this is hogwash. Those who spew the "violence is bad" propaganda are simply telling you that they particularly fear it and want to pacify you to make themselves feel more secure. They are not cool-headed logicians who have come to that conclusion objectively by removing their own personal interests. They have a deep personal interest and are doing their best to manipulate your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

What separates propaganda from a coherent argument? Propaganda presents statements but does not logically support them, while a coherent argument does. It seems to me that your post is similar to propaganda in this respect.

You say "violence is bad" is wrong but do not say why. Also, what is violence, and why? Please Darryl_P, xlb (expound).

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
Please enlighten me...what would Ghandi do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know. That is why I asked.

[Darryl_P]

There is more to propaganda than just how much logical support the statement has IMO. There is also an element of how much effort is expended to spread the word for manipulation purposes. Typically the message is short and catchy and intended for the masses. I'd say posts on this forum fall short of that mark yet messages sent by politicians, other prominent world figures and the media do qualify in many cases.

I have indicated that "violence is bad" statements contain an element of manipulation, often intentional IMO. To prove whether something is intentional requires going inside the mind of the person making the statement which is a daunting if not impossible task. Still, a rational person is wise to make conjectures about things which cannot be proven, at least in probabilistic terms. You watch a person, his words, his actions etc. and if you are experienced, intelligent and do your best to remain objective (something which again is impossible to achieve perfectly), a picture starts to form about how his thought processes work. Then being a good scientist you make sure you leave room for doubt but when in a situation in which you are forced to act, you are best off using your best estimate at the time, even if it can never be proven.

The media and other power centres of society work very hard and spend lots of money to make people question themselves and believe only what they can prove, especially if could lead to violence. My purpose for posting my opinion here is not to attempt to prove the unprovable but to appeal to those who say "hey yeah, he's right" to be more of a doubting thomas when they are exposed to the various slogans in the media.

I'll be back soon with a Unabomber quote...he's analyzed this violence issue deeply and has put together some eloquent material on the subject...

[Cyrus]

How can you not be a pacifist when you are as weak as this ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Mohandas_Gandhi_resized_for_biography.jpg/280px-Mohandas_Gandhi_resized_for_biography.jpg

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
You believe responding to violence with violence only creates more of the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but stopping and preventing violence with a show of strength is not violence.

What you're describing is being a vegetable.

Gandhi may have stopped it by saying something wise/insightful/funny, which is a show of strength. Not everyone respects this kind of strength though.

[Darryl_P]

I couldn't find the Unabomber quote I was looking for. It was from a letter he wrote to one of his admirers and the website that had the letter appears no longer accessible...

The following excerpt of his manifesto deals only tangentially with the question of violence but it does illustrate the primality of the system's own needs above that of the individual, which is the gist of the missing text in any case....

---------------------------------
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

4. (Paragraph 28) There are many individuals of the middle and upper classes who resist some of these values, but usually their resistance is more or less covert. Such resistance appears in the mass media only to a very limited extent. The main thrust of propaganda in our society is in favor of the stated values.

The main reasons why these values have become, so to speak, the official values of our society is that they are useful to the industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it disrupts the functioning of the system. Racism is discouraged because ethnic conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the talent of minority-group members who could be useful to the system. Poverty must be "cured" because the underclass causes problems for the system and contact with the underclass lowers the moral of the other classes. Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents are useful to the system and, more importantly because by having regular jobs women become better integrated into the system and tied directly to it rather than to their families. This helps to weaken family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they want to strengthen the family, but they really mean is that they want the family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children in accord with the needs of the system. We argue in paragraphs 51,52 that the system cannot afford to let the family or other small-scale social groups be strong or autonomous.)

[KaneKungFu123]

the unabomber wrote that?

[Darryl_P]

Yes...it's from his manifesto:

http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm

Paragraph 28 and footnote 4.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Say you are sitting in a bar and an angry man comes up to you. He calls you a piece of [censored] and slaps you. You reply, "I will not fight you. Let's resolve this through peaceful discussion." You are saying this because you subscribe to a doctrine of nonviolence. You believe responding to violence with violence only creates more of the same. Your words only anger the man further and he starts punching you. Whilst he lays down each blow you only repeat the above. He keeps attacking you until you are dead.

Is this stupid? How would have Gandhi handled the situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure Ghandi advocated nonviolence under all circumstances. I believe he was in favor of Indian support of the WWII British war effort. He did insist on nonviolent but active resistance to British rule of India. The story is probably a lot more complicated than what I saw in the movie, but the British did finally get out.

How Jesus might respond is another question, considering his "turn the other cheek" instruction. He didn't seem to mind getting a little physical when he overturned the tables in the Temple though.

It sounds to me like you're setting up a straw man to knock down. I doubt anyone here is fanatical enough about nonviolence so as to make your argument work. Just because nonviolence is not applicable to all situations doesn't mean the principle doesn't have merit for some.

PairTheBoard

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]
How would have Gandhi handled the situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people sometimes do not fully understand the efforts of Ghandi and assume his strategy can be applied in any situation (which I am not saying the poster is trying to do).

Ghandi's strategy worked because of the nature of the situation. Britain, despite being aggressively colonial at the time, was (and is) generally averse to outright violence. They seemed to think taking advantage of people could be justified, but they definitely didn't like killing. When things got violent in some of their African colonial interests there was widespread criticism, from the British at home, of brutality against native peoples. Likewise when there was killing of Indians.

So, the reason Ghandi was able to be successful was that he faced an enemy which was unwilling to use the kind of bloody force that would be necessary to crush his peaceful rebellion of non-cooperation. He understood his enemy and used a strategy that worked. If violent rebellion was necessary Ghandi probably wouldn't have been the man for the job and somebody else would have had to step up.

So, if you're up against a Britain-of-the-first-half-of-last-century type of enemy you'll probably do okay with the Ghandi approach. Otherwise, you may have to re-evaluate the situation.

[RicktheRuler]

[ QUOTE ]
keep in mind that its pretty easy to kill someone if you really want to, so its not like fighting back reduces your chances of being murdered by much anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF

[RicktheRuler]

[ QUOTE ]
the unabomber wrote that?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should give his manifesto a read Kane.

[A_C_Slater]

I do not know what Gandi would do in this situation. But I think you make a mistake is assuming that death is as big a deal to Gandi as it is to most people.

It is not inconceivable that someone would choose death over engaging in violence just as it is not inconceivable that someone would choose death over saving the life of a loved one. Maybe Gandi loves non-violence enough to be willing to die for it. Even to die in agony.


I think Gandhi would fight back in this situation. I do not think his message regarded attacks made by someone incapable of reason. This would be like saying you shouldn't try to fight off a rabid dog that was trying to kill you because you don't like violence.


Gandhi did fight for the British in WW1. He was a medic, but still, he did take part in war.