Nonviolence

Popinjay · #1 07-04-2005, 06:47 AM

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 · #2 07-04-2005, 06:58 AM

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 · #3 07-04-2005, 07:03 AM

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

Darryl_P · #4 07-04-2005, 07:05 AM

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 · #5 07-04-2005, 07:10 AM

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 · #6 07-04-2005, 07:14 AM

[ 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 · #7 07-04-2005, 07:16 AM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know. That is why I asked.

Darryl_P · #8 07-04-2005, 08:01 AM

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 · #9 07-04-2005, 08:02 AM

How can you not be a pacifist when you are as weak as this ?

BZ_Zorro · #10 07-04-2005, 09:00 AM

[ 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.