Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To avoid being hypocritical, one must use a better response, not more of the same. Violence is used because of a perceived threat. Animals use violence. But men have the ability to reason and communicate deeply. If we want violence to stop, we have to be the first ones to stop using it. Otherwise it is hypocritical to say that we are against violence if we use it ourselves.
peace,
brian
Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam, and the list goes on and on and on and on.
To avoid being hypocritical, one must use a better response, not more of the same. Violence is used because of a perceived threat. Animals use violence. But men have the ability to reason and communicate deeply. If we want violence to stop, we have to be the first ones to stop using it. Otherwise it is hypocritical to say that we are against violence if we use it ourselves.
peace,
brian
have you ever noticed that predators always go after the sick and young animals? they rarely if ever go after healthy animals. why? because they dont want to get hurt themselves.
the same thing is true with humans as well. non violence has been tried through out the centuries and to what result? the non violent people have always been enslaved or killed by those who are willing to use violence to get what they want. hitler, mussolini, pol pot, mao tse tung, stalin, ghengis kahn, alexander the great, napoleon, and on and on. when others stood up to these people, the violence ultimately stopped.
one more thing, predators also dont attack other predators either for the same reason they dont go after the strong healthy prey animals.
To avoid being hypocritical, one must use a better response, not more of the same. Violence is used because of a perceived threat. Animals use violence. But men have the ability to reason and communicate deeply. If we want violence to stop, we have to be the first ones to stop using it. Otherwise it is hypocritical to say that we are against violence if we use it ourselves.
peace,
brian
You and I are smart enough to use reasoning and communication. Criminal elements on the other hand generally cannot be reasoned with! Now as far as your thoughts on going into Iran with a pre-emptive strike. I am against meddling over there, and the constant nation building. Now, should Iran attack us over here, I'm all for defending this country, and would expect retaliation to be harsh, and carried out immediately. Defense is acceptable. And going back to fighting fire with fire, I'm not going to let anyone physically assault me without giving something back! Nor am I going to let someone harm a family member, as they are also under my umbrella of defense.
have you ever noticed that predators always go after the sick and young animals? they rarely if ever go after healthy animals. why? because they dont want to get hurt themselves.
the same thing is true with humans as well. non violence has been tried through out the centuries and to what result? the non violent people have always been enslaved or killed by those who are willing to use violence to get what they want. hitler, mussolini, pol pot, mao tse tung, stalin, ghengis kahn, alexander the great, napoleon, and on and on. when others stood up to these people, the violence ultimately stopped.
one more thing, predators also dont attack other predators either for the same reason they dont go after the strong healthy prey animals.
On the surface, it would seem true that man must carry weapons to defend himself from others. But realistically speaking, countries go to war for personal gains, wealth, etc. Not for survival. As a race, mankind can survive well into the future if it stops pandering to the few who always want more, who make money off of wars and weapons building.
The "standing up" to violence needs to be done by the masses, rather than giving into it. When the government tells you to go to war, there needs to be a clear "no" rather than jumping right in. The question I once heard: "what if there was a war, and nobody showed up?"
People need to be clear about their values, and not hypocritical. It's not enough to go to church on sundays. If we truly want peace (and many political leaders do not), then we need to stand for it. It's not easy, but it is, I think, a road to evolution.
On the surface, it would seem true that man must carry weapons to defend himself from others. But realistically speaking, countries go to war for personal gains, wealth, etc. Not for survival. As a race, mankind can survive well into the future if it stops pandering to the few who always want more, who make money off of wars and weapons building.
this is true, to a point. but for the most part the nations that start the wars tend to be monarcies, dictatorships, and other totalitarian regimes. democracies and representative republics tend to avoid war as much as possible.
Quote:
The "standing up" to violence needs to be done by the masses, rather than giving into it. When the government tells you to go to war, there needs to be a clear "no" rather than jumping right in. The question I once heard: "what if there was a war, and nobody showed up?"
sounds good on the surface, but if your country was being invaded by another, would you defend your country? or would you decide to not fight?
Quote:
People need to be clear about their values, and not hypocritical. It's not enough to go to church on sundays. If we truly want peace (and many political leaders do not), then we need to stand for it. It's not easy, but it is, I think, a road to evolution.
personally i am very clear about my values. i prefer to leave well enough alone. live and let live as it were. however, if someone decides to mess with me, my family or my friends, they will incur my wrath.
this is true, to a point. but for the most part the nations that start the wars tend to be monarcies, dictatorships, and other totalitarian regimes. democracies and representative republics tend to avoid war as much as possible.
You've GOT to be kidding! The US "tends to avoid war as much as possible????"
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
sounds good on the surface, but if your country was being invaded by another, would you defend your country? or would you decide to not fight?
No, I wouldn't defend "my country." Where I was born was not decided by me, I just happened to be born there. But I feel no "obbligation" to kill others who want to live there as well. It would be just more animal behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
personally i am very clear about my values. i prefer to leave well enough alone. live and let live as it were. however, if someone decides to mess with me, my family or my friends, they will incur my wrath.
Peace,
brian
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
