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.
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.
Evidence is the foundation of all history papers. The responsible historian does not formulate a thesis until the evidence has been studied.
Violence Vs. Non-violence
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.
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
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.
edit on 4-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)edit on 4-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)
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)
Man is always marveling at what he has blown apart, never what the universe has put together, and this is his limitation. -Loren Eiseley-
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.