All he was saying, was "Give Peace a Chance !"

I am talking about John Lennon

The deal is this:

Everyone who is pro peace comes out in favour of non violence

All those who are pro peace lay down their arms and give up all ideology other than non violence.

All those who are pro peace refuse to accept any 'pro peace ideology' which includes violent means to achieve the end.

All those who are pro peace mark and identify the enemies of peace solely by their violent behaviour, and label them as the enemies of humanity.


Let's do it Now!!!

It's called Give Peace a Chance.



[edit on 24-7-2005 by John bull 1]

Imagine all the people living for today.
War is over, war is over if you want it to be.



And then you are shot in the back and killed. This is how the world works, in its cruel way.

World peace is something that may not be achieved until the bombs are depleted.

War and terrorism will not end until everyone refuses to use violence.

Start now

Give it up

This means give up justifying it

It also means identify the enemy as anyone who kills.

exactly... Nowdays poples shoot first and ask the questions later...

The problem is that wars have always been fought for peace...

There's no other reason to fight, other than a sincere hope for lasting peace at the end of the conflict.

The problem has always been universal adoption. If EVERYONE adopted a policy of non-violence, we would be straight, no worries. The problems arise when some groups adopt a policy of non-violence, and the rest continue on with their violent ways.

That leaves the first group at a terrible disadvantage, evolutionarily, and in order to close the gap they too must engage in violence.

It's a very nasty cycle, but its not without its merits.

For example, have you any idea why man has come so far so fast? Because of men like Charlemagne who mated and murdered in spades, because of Khans and Kings who spilled the blood of those too weak or stupid to protect themselves.

It's cruel, it's sick, but it's effective.

Mankind evolves mostly through sexual selection, this is a useless, dead-end street, evolutionarily speaking. Without the constant explosions of violence, I'm not sure we'd have much of a frontal lobe to speak of, and I'm fairly sure we wouldn't have half the technology that we do.

It's not as easy philosophically as some would have you believe.

What if peace meant stasis, and stasis meant death for our species? Would you still want peace?

I'm really playing devil's advocate here, for the sake of discussion. It's obvious that most people WANT peace. I'm just not sure we were designed with that eventuality in mind, yaknow?

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
All those who are pro peace mark and identify the enemies of peace solely by their violent behaviour, and label them as the enemies of humanity.

This one here almost falls out of step with the rest of your steps toward peace. You may want to consider dropping the stuff about "marking and labeling" things, especially if it's done to brand them as "Enemies". Peacemakers don't go around finding enemies. People looking for War on the other hand do. This could very well be the seed of destruction for your whole Peace Movement if you're not careful. Identifying a situation for what it is would be fine, but once again, only if it's not with the intention of classifying someone as your enemy. Other than that I'd say you got it spot on!!

"Hear not ill of a friend, nor speak any of an enemy." - Benjamin Franklin

"I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." - Abraham Lincoln

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." - Mother Teresa

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The problem is that wars have always been fought for peace...

This hasn't worked

There's no other reason to fight, other than a sincere hope for lasting peace at the end of the conflict.

A contradiction. A myth. Violence does not beget peace.

The problem has always been universal adoption. If EVERYONE adopted a policy of non-violence, we would be straight, no worries. The problems arise when some groups adopt a policy of non-violence, and the rest continue on with their violent ways.

That leaves the first group at a terrible disadvantage, evolutionarily, and in order to close the gap they too must engage in violence.

The non violent people do not have to engage in violence to 'close the gap'. . . .this is another myth and is the only thing which prevents the vast majority from joining the peace movement.

Non violent people will win through sheer weight of numbers and they have one great advantage . . . . the moral highground. Having the moral highground ensures that once the movement gains momentum then most people will join it because it is truly a better way.

It's a very nasty cycle, but its not without its merits.

War is a very nasty cycle and is entirely without merit

It's not as easy philosophically as some would have you believe.

Yes it is. . . . just give up violence and shun those who use it.

It's obvious that most people WANT peace.

Then they can have it, by giving up violence.

Give Peace a chance!

Give up violence!

Refuse to fight!

Shun all murderers!



[edit on 24-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
All those who are pro peace mark and identify the enemies of peace solely by their violent behaviour, and label them as the enemies of humanity.

This one here almost falls out of step with the rest of your steps toward peace. You may want to consider dropping the stuff about "marking and labeling" things, especially if it's done to brand them as "Enemies". Peacemakers don't go around finding enemies. People looking for War on the other hand do. This could very well be the seed of destruction for your whole Peace Movement if you're not careful. Identifying a situation for what it is would be fine, but once again, only if it's not with the intention of classifying someone as your enemy. Other than that I'd say you got it spot on!!

"I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." - Abraham Lincoln

Good point, the 'enemy' is violence, not the person who is being violent.

It is important to realise that all violent behaviour is to be opposed, and none 'justified'.

And what did any of that have to do with what John Lennon was saying himself? Stand on the shoulders of lesser giants and have some respect for the great and dead.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The problem is that wars have always been fought for peace...

This hasn't worked

Actually it has, in several places. China's unification war put a stop to perpetual violence. They've had many centuries of peace thanks to a century of war. Europe is another example. Japan is another. Partially due to the actions of the US, and partly due to shame arising from their own atrocities, Japan now has a policy against using violence to dictate foreign policy.

History has shown that, indeed, the only remotely effective way to achieve peace is to make war.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
There's no other reason to fight, other than a sincere hope for lasting peace at the end of the conflict.

A contradiction. A myth. Violence does not beget peace.

But it does. Life is full of paradoxes like this one. Peace is the only good reason to make war. The idea behind war is to settle greivances and put a stop to conflict.

This is really a very basic concept. Why else would one choose to fight against another nation except in the hopes that by fighting, peace may be achieved?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The problem has always been universal adoption. If EVERYONE adopted a policy of non-violence, we would be straight, no worries. The problems arise when some groups adopt a policy of non-violence, and the rest continue on with their violent ways. That leaves the first group at a terrible disadvantage, evolutionarily, and in order to close the gap they too must engage in violence.

The non violent people do not have to engage in violence to 'close the gap'. . . .this is another myth and is the only thing which prevents the vast majority from joining the peace movement.

The facts surrounding evolution will not be denied. If I kill you because you would not resist, and I continue to breed, whose genetic information will be best represented in the coming generations? Mine, obviously.

How can you deny the fact that getting killed while failing to kill your enemy puts you at a disadvantage evolutionarily speaking? If I keep breeding, and you're dead, how can you possibly have won?

This is the fallacy of non-violence. It's a moral solution to a natural problem. Of course nature couldn't care less about our manufactured morality. Nature has its own laws, and we're no less subject to them now that we were half a million years ago.

Non violent people will win through sheer weight of numbers and they have one great advantage . . . . the moral highground. Having the moral highground ensures that once the movement gains momentum then most people will join it because it is truly a better way.

The moral high ground is good for one thing and one thing only, justifying violence.

As I said before, if everyone joined, you'd have instant success. In a society where everyone shares and nobody cheats, reciprocity reigns supreme. However, in such a society greed flourishes, because of the glut of easy targets. This is another one of those marvellous paradoxes.

Originally posted by WyrdeOneIt's a very nasty cycle, but it's not without its merits.

War is a very nasty cycle and is entirely without merit

I'd be interested to know how you can say that, when war has very clearly played an important role in the evolution of our species.

[edit on 24-7-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
And what did any of that have to do with what John Lennon was saying himself? Stand on the shoulders of lesser giants and have some respect for the great and dead.

John was saying, literally, "Give Peace a Chance". Notice he didn't say "Bring about some Peace, or Fight for Your Right to Peace" or something along those lines. The difference that he's pointing out is that for Peace to be, it must be allowed, it must be "Given the Chance" to be. It's not something that we can "Bring on" and is not found within the goals of War or Fighting. It's along the same lines as "The Tao that can be spoken is not the constant Tao" or for those unfamiliar with Tao Philosophy you could say "The great gate is open, but travelers seek everywhere."

Keeping that last idea fresh in your mind, read the lyrics:

Give Peace A Chance
John Lennon & Paul McCartney

Two, one two three four
Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m.

All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

C'mon
Ev'rybody's talking about Ministers,
Sinisters, Banisters and canisters
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.

All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Let me tell you now
Ev'rybody's talking about
Revolution, evolution, masturbation,
flagellation, regulation, integrations,
meditations, United Nations,
Congratulations.

All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary,
Tommy Smothers, Bobby Dylan, Tommy Cooper,
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer,
Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Hare, Hare Krishna

All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

etc.

EDIT:
Maybe we should add:
Ev'rybody's talking about
Terrorism, Feminism, Patriotism, Corporatism,
Medication, Education, Immigration, Liberation,
Wellfare, Healthcare, Toll Fare, I don't care...

All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

[edit on 24-7-2005 by mOjOm]

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
And what did any of that have to do with what John Lennon was saying himself? Stand on the shoulders of lesser giants and have some respect for the great and dead.

Grumpy!

The message is Peace!

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


History has shown that, indeed, the only remotely effective way to achieve peace is to make war.

What a weird thing to say on the eve of WW3!


Peace is always the absence of war.

War does not cause the absence of war.

Thus war cannot cause peace!

answer me this Roy....

worst case senario.....your trying to reason with a man carrying a bomb whos going to execute you, yor family, yor friends, your kids..etc....all you have to do is keep his finger off the trigger of the bomb by slotting him in the head with a pistol......the greater good....this bomber has put you in a position where you have only one choice...the right choice...the moral choice of peace loving, free people everywhere........id give you a pat on the back for your actions.....you didnt have any choice.........if you decided to let him blow every one up for the greater love of "peace and non violence" id be disgusted with what i see as a cowardly action.

your confusing the facts that people forced to commit violent acts must enjoy violence?......this isnt true......are you the sort of person that would allow an innocent member of the public to be violentley mugged instead of having the balls to intervene?.......you make peace by fighting for it any way you have to.

[edit on 24-7-2005 by optimus fett]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
How can you deny the fact that getting killed while failing to kill your enemy puts you at a disadvantage evolutionarily speaking? If I keep breeding, and you're dead, how can you possibly have won?

This is the fallacy of non-violence. It's a moral solution to a natural problem. Of course nature couldn't care less about our manufactured morality. Nature has its own laws, and we're no less subject to them now that we were half a million years ago.
[edit on 24-7-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Just because one chooses not to kill his enemy does not mean he autoatically allows himself to be killed. "Enemies" can be avoided. I could even argue that it was our pacifistic nature that allowed us to survive, and continue on the planet, and not our capacity for violence. It definitely was not any natural inclination towards violence.

Since humans are at a disadvantage with the animal kingdom(physically) it is widely accepted that evasion was how we survived long enough to develop mental abilities that would eventually enable us to make tools to "conquer" the natural world with. For a very signifigant portion of our history, evasion and not confrontation was what was responsible for our survival. IMHO.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
[
Peace is always the absence of war.

War does not cause the absence of war.

Thus war cannot cause peace!

TextOptimus - your example isn't perhaps trying to allude to the recent events in London, is it? The one where a completely innocent invidivual was killed by bullets after being subdued? If we try to cure a symptom without looking for the disease, we're simply prolonging the illness. We need to find and cure the cause - not the symptom.

yes mate....its relevent to another thread i replied to one of Roys posts.......and if we can just clarifiy....the 'innocent' man as you put it, was running after being told "STOP ARMED POLICE"....he is guilty of failing to conform to a direct command from an armed police officer on a state of the highest alert british police officers have ever been on in the UK.

Right, right...so it's ok for plainclothes officers to shoot a foreign national because he didn't stop when asked.

This man was innocent, optimus - whether or not you wish to believe such.

Anyone ever stop to think of the dead guy's point of view?

You're a foreign national. Sure, you speak the language. But in your home country, if a couple of guys who are not in uniform are chasing you, there's a pretty strong chance they're not police - even if they say they're police. What would you do?

Try to see it from all sides.

And then perhaps explain to me how this act in particular will stop terrorism?

What we've done - whether or not it was intentional - is simply added more fuel to that particular fire.

Originally posted by optimus fett
....the 'innocent' man as you put it, was running after being told "STOP ARMED POLICE"....he is guilty of failing to conform to a direct command from an armed police officer on a state of the highest alert british police officers have ever been on in the UK.

Ok, so even with that in mind, he is an "innocent man" in that he's completely innocent of terrorist activity.

As you put it though, he is guilty of failing to obey on order by Police while in an elevated state of emergency. So that brings us to the main question which is, "Should Panic be considered a crime punishable by death?"

You see, it's actually fairly common for people to do things totally contrary to their typical behavior when they are in a state of panic and fear for their lives. Some people Freeze Completely, others Run, some start crying or wet themselves, others might even faint or pace back and forth speaking gibberish. The point is, it happens all the time and it's called Panic and while it certainly isn't always the best reaction, it certainly isn't a capital crime and also usually falls outside the line of being considered a willful act and into the area of temporary insanity.

If there is still any doubt that such Panic Attacks are valid and worthy of consideration, simply look back to the example you gave between this Innocent "Running Man" and the Police. In that example you specifically point out that this guy disobeyed a command by an armed officer, (which, BTW may have actually helped elevate the Panic and Fear at that peticular moment). But also you point out that he disobeyed that order "on a state of the highest alert british police officers have ever been on in the UK." So, the idea of a High Alert raising tension levels during rescue and police operations is in fact well known and even taken into consideration when evaluating the performance and responce of the Police & Rescue Teams themselves.

Well, if it's "understandible" that under such conditions Officers may react in unexpected ways without any fault being placed negatively against them, then why shouldn't that also be considered "understandible" for any others who are caught in the situation??