It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Violently overthrowing governments leaves violent governments in charge.

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


i don't know, now I am not following you. Are you saying that the statement, "there is a possibility that violence can lead to peace" is less hypothetical than the statement, "it is historically proven that violence cannot lead to peace."?


Is history not evidence now? Do scientists not rely on past events to determine if a theory is evidence based or not?

Plus, on top of the scientific/historical evidence I have supplied in backing up my 'theory', I have also supplied philosophical common sense reasoning for why violence can never lead to peace. Please clarify what it is you are saying. Thanks.




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


i don't know, now I am not following you. Are you saying that the statement, "there is a possibility that violence can lead to peace" is less hypothetical than the statement, "it is historically proven that violence cannot lead to peace."?


Is history not evidence now? Do scientists not rely on past events to determine if a theory is evidence based or not?

Plus, on top of the scientific/historical evidence I have supplied in backing up my 'theory', I have also supplied philosophical common sense reasoning for why violence can never lead to peace. Please clarify what it is you are saying. Thanks.


i'm not saying any of those statements. go back to my first post. i'm saying that one thing does not lead to the other and you can't claim they do because it's not possible. and i have no idea what you're talking about, i'm not sure how something can be less or more hypothetical than another. although the first statement would eventually come true because you have to know what is wrong to avoid it.

and no, history is not evidence. it gives a good idea of what to expect but what's written in stone isn't sealed in the future and is irrelevant. i'm talking about logic. you aren't being logical or open minded, you're looking at everything that's happened and expecting the exact same outcome. i understand your point of view and it's a good one and i don't disagree with it at all, but it also isn't a law and can't be expected to be infallible truth. it's intention makes sense, but it's not logical. a still equals a, and so on. violence begets peace, a bad example is a good example.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


"and no, history is not evidence. it gives a good idea of what to expect but what's written in stone isn't sealed in the future and is irrelevant."



Evidence is the foundation of all history papers. The responsible historian does not formulate a thesis until the evidence has been studied.

Historical Evidence


"i'm talking about logic. you aren't being logical or open minded, you're looking at everything that's happened and expecting the exact same outcome."

Not being logical or open minded? I would say the very premise of understanding the power and sustainability of non-violent resistance shows the level of logic and reasoning being used. And as far as me expecting the same nonproductive outcome from violence, that is funny, because 'you' are continuously repeating the same mistake (violence) and expecting a different result (peace), which has never once happened in history. Someone once said that is the very definition of insanity.

I have giving you logic and reasoning. I have giving you historical evidence. I have backed up my claims that non-violence is the only way to achieve peace. What logic or reasoning do you have to support your notion that violence can work? Where is your evidence? I have seen none, but I will continue to patiently wait.

“I have been practicing with scientific precision nonviolence and its possibilities for an
unbroken period of over fifty years. I have applied it in every walk of life – domestic,
institutional, economic and political. I know of no single case in which it has failed.”
- Mahatma Gandhi




Violence vs Non-Violence? I will briefly end with my own assessment of the violence question. AR extremist groups frequently defend their actions by comparing themselves with other violent liberation movement in history e.g. The French Resistance who fought the Nazi’s in Vichy France. The problem is that the entire argument fundamentally relies on the movement being morally justifiable. If you are willing to murder for your cause then you do so in the belief that you are in the right, that does not make it right. History is littered with examples of reistance/liberation movements who committed murder in the belief it would further their liberation cause – The Red Army Faction (Bader-Meinhof Group) killed many trying to liberate Germany from capitalist oppression, the Black September massacre at the 1972 Munich olympics was an action committed for liberation, recently Russia helped “liberate” South Ossetia from the Georgian Government and in 1945 the Soviet Russian forces liberating Germany raped and killed tens of thousands of unarmed German civillians. The problem is that those animal rights extremists willing to commit arson, grave robbings and other attacks, do so in the belief that they are one of the “good” liberation/resistance movements – the fact that they are a tiny minority of people does not effect them if they believe they have billions of animals on their side (especially if they grant these animals moral equivalence) . There is little we can do to convince these extremists that their actions are wrong and immoral – many of these individuals have given years of their life to the liberation movement – for them to change their mind would be to say that the prime of their life has been wasted – something few people would be willing to accept.
Violence Vs. Non-violence
edit on 4-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


"and no, history is not evidence. it gives a good idea of what to expect but what's written in stone isn't sealed in the future and is irrelevant."



Evidence is the foundation of all history papers. The responsible historian does not formulate a thesis until the evidence has been studied.

Historical Evidence


"i'm talking about logic. you aren't being logical or open minded, you're looking at everything that's happened and expecting the exact same outcome."

Not being logical or open minded? I would say the very premise of understanding the power and sustainability of non-violent resistance shows the level of logic and reasoning being used. And as far as me expecting the same nonproductive outcome from violence, that is funny, because 'you' are continuously repeating the same mistake (violence) and expecting a different result (peace), which has never once happened in history. Someone once said that is the very definition of insanity.

I have giving you logic and reasoning. I have giving you historical evidence. I have backed up my claims that non-violence is the only way to achieve peace. What logic or reasoning do you have to support your notion that violence can work? Where is your evidence? I have seen none, but I will continue to patiently wait.

“I have been practicing with scientific precision nonviolence and its possibilities for an
unbroken period of over fifty years. I have applied it in every walk of life – domestic,
institutional, economic and political. I know of no single case in which it has failed.”
- Mahatma Gandhi




Violence vs Non-Violence? I will briefly end with my own assessment of the violence question. AR extremist groups frequently defend their actions by comparing themselves with other violent liberation movement in history e.g. The French Resistance who fought the Nazi’s in Vichy France. The problem is that the entire argument fundamentally relies on the movement being morally justifiable. If you are willing to murder for your cause then you do so in the belief that you are in the right, that does not make it right. History is littered with examples of reistance/liberation movements who committed murder in the belief it would further their liberation cause – The Red Army Faction (Bader-Meinhof Group) killed many trying to liberate Germany from capitalist oppression, the Black September massacre at the 1972 Munich olympics was an action committed for liberation, recently Russia helped “liberate” South Ossetia from the Georgian Government and in 1945 the Soviet Russian forces liberating Germany raped and killed tens of thousands of unarmed German civillians. The problem is that those animal rights extremists willing to commit arson, grave robbings and other attacks, do so in the belief that they are one of the “good” liberation/resistance movements – the fact that they are a tiny minority of people does not effect them if they believe they have billions of animals on their side (especially if they grant these animals moral equivalence) . There is little we can do to convince these extremists that their actions are wrong and immoral – many of these individuals have given years of their life to the liberation movement – for them to change their mind would be to say that the prime of their life has been wasted – something few people would be willing to accept.
Violence Vs. Non-violence
edit on 4-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)


you're still completely missing the entire point of what i'm saying. just because one thing takes place, DOES NOT MEAN any certain outcome will be the result of that one thing. and i'm not practicing the same mistake, i'm talking about using logic, not using violence, and i'm sorry the einstein quote went over your head the first time i used it, but since you want to misconstrue my post to make it seem like i'm the one who's being insane, i meant that you were to expect to know what's going to happen in the outcome of any situation, especially one as chaoitc as thousands to millions of people fighting for their rights in various ways in a revolution on their government. it doesn't have anything to do with peace or violence, it's absurd to think you know what is going to happen, just like it's absurd to not defend yourself in moments of dire self-preservation. if you lose your life by letting someone control you, you've done nothing for your cause and changed nothing. you learn martial arts to stop and halt violence, not to proliferate violence on others. you can't be purely one thing in life or you'll be easy prey for others who aren't.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


Ok, I feel this conversation is being severely distorted, and by the both of us. I understand the point you are trying to make, trust me I do, but I also feel you are being short sighted and not thinking this through far enough. To say I believe I am omniscient or know all the possible outcomes, because I said there is evidence that proves violence only leads to more violence, is completely misconstruing what I said. Also, I never once said no one should defend themselves. But we are talking about Revolutions, and Revolutions are offensive actions, and although they may be born out of defensive reasoning, they are not carried out defensively, but offensively. Therefore, my premise is that the offensive use of violence will always lead to more violence, not peace.

You say this is a 'know-it-all' attitude, yet I have not based my argument on any opinions, but rather on historical evidence insofar as philosophical reasoning and logic. You have yet to provide either, so what is it you are trying to accomplish here? If you want to prove me wrong and say that the offensive use of violence does not always lead to more violence, then provide me with evidence or at least a sound argument using philosophical reasoning, logic and examples. Can you do this? If not, then your whole premise is purely hypothetical and opinion based. Am I wrong?
edit on 4-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


Ok, I feel this conversation is being severely distorted, and by the both of us. I understand the point you are trying to make, trust me I do, but I also feel you are being short sighted and not thinking this through far enough. To say I believe I am omniscient or know all the possible outcomes, because I said there is evidence that proves violence only leads to more violence, is completely misconstruing what I said. Also, I never once said no one should defend themselves. But we are talking about Revolutions, and Revolutions are offensive actions, and although they may be born out of defensive reasoning, they are not carried out defensively, but offensively. Therefore, my premise is that the offensive use of violence will always lead to more violence, not peace.

You say this is a 'know-it-all' attitude, yet I have not based my argument on any opinions, but rather on historical evidence insofar as philosophical reasoning and logic. You have yet to provide either, so what is it you are trying to accomplish here? If you want to prove me wrong and say that the offensive use of violence does not always lead to more violence, then provide me with evidence or at least a sound argument using philosophical reasoning, logic and examples. Can you do this? If not, then your whole premise is purely hypothetical and opinion based. Am I wrong?
edit on 4-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)


no, you aren't wrong, and no, i have no proof. it doesn't mean the title of this thread or the idea of it is not a linear logical fallacy though. how can you know peace without violence?
violence can lead to peace, in an abstract way. will it? maybe, it depends how willing we are to admit we are wrong. the world will never change until we can do that. so could a bloody revolution (that occured for any reason, it doesn't matter) lead to a peaceful government by acknowledging the blood on it's hands? yes, of course it could. will it? probably not. you still can't say a = b, though.
i have nothing to bring to the table but that simple sidenote.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I like your reasoning, OP. But I think in those cases where people are pressed into the corner and have no other choice that they're aware of that the logical result is violence.

The question is where is that corner. How far do they have to be pushed before they feel there is no other option but to use violence?

I think that it's logical that the violent protesters or revolutionaries defeat the government but then in several generations their descendants turn evil and this proclivity for violence becomes a curse. This is theoretical. Reality says that these things are going to happen and there's no end in sight. But I think it's worth it to speculate about a non-violent world that doesn't just talk about non-violence, but lives it. Maybe it requires a sacrifice.

if you look at sports they're an example of violence. Entertainment is filled with violence. Video games, at least a lot of them, are about either killing things or destroying things. Maybe it's human nature. We learned violence in the past because it helped us. A quote:

Man is always marveling at what he has blown apart, never what the universe has put together, and this is his limitation. -Loren Eiseley-

edit on 7-4-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
You want change. I want change. Everyone wants change.
When a group(s) violently overthrow a government, doesn't that just leave a violent government in charge? What peace does this new government bring, after dripping blood from it's own sword of "peace"?

I'm looking at many facets, many countries, many protests. I'm also trying to see past the "glorious revolution" and trying to look at the new country(s) that may emerge.

This is not a prophetic thread about Egypt, not a veiled one at America. But a general warning, a caution. To what may be coming. What might be expected.

Personally, I think the title says it all, but if you have any thoughts on the issue, would like to hear them.


Exactly.

But accepting tyranny is worse then violence. What we need is to Non-violently(anarchy/libertarian) create another system of society that WE can control. You don't need violence(authoritarian) you need enough people on the same page. The elites are using laws,propaganda,threats,barbarism etc to keep control of thier position. They are very violent and very ruthless. You don't overcome a violent opponent being more violent. You obsolete a system by creating a better more efficient system. Period. We have to create a better more efficient system compared to the current authoritarian fear/control/bullying/mass babysitting system we have now.

Problem is the Marxist statist control addicts that hijacked our government are experts at manipulation,fallacy arguments,propagandising,marketing/PR spin, and distraction/deflection. They are very smart,cold,calculating people that have absolutely no moral limitations. Genocides,murders,theft,brutality,oppression,tyranny,lying...

They feel nothing. God bless thier souls and may they know The Lamb of God. I know satan and the rest of the negative energies are using them to exterminate the human population and cause evil to be glorified.

I hope God opens the nwo's eyes that they can see the Son of God.




top topics



 
28
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join