Does Truth = Peace?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
An innocent person is a person who has not initiated violence or stolen/damaged the property of another.

If you can logically justify why initiating violence against such a person is good, then you can refute my logic.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yes, if a person sees that an accident is about to cause harm to another, they are legitimately entitled to use force to prevent that accident from occurring if possible.

It appears as though, you answered your own question……….I’ll be damn…… that’s convenient.

reply to post by mnemeth1


If lies rule the world, would you not use violence to overthrow the lies? What is lie and what is truth?

Yesterday's truth can become lies today. Yet the people would cling to the lies, because of the habit or to keep the staus quo. How can you abandon your way of life for the truth overnight?

I may sound like defending the lies, but the truth can be destructive sometimes. And people may think the truth is harmful, which is not true in the long run.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


Under the non-aggression principle, people are entitled to defend themselves as well as others from the initiation of violence.

Whether or not the violence is intentional or not is immaterial, unless that violence was voluntarily agreed to before hand, such as sports.

The use of force to protect oneself from harm is a given in any situation and does not violate the non-aggression principle.

I must say it is fun to watch all of you in here defending the initiation of violence as being legitimate.

I didn't expect this big of a turn out.

reply to post by IAMIAM


Jesus died because he caused resentment among the authorities of the time. The contemporary authorities of Jesus’ time were regarded as representing the truth by the people. But they were threatened because Jesus revealed that those were false authorities with evil inside. Before Jesus, no one could discern those authorities were hypocrites. The truth is like that.

You have to have someone who can tell you what is the truth who is not necessarily one of the contemporary authorities.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

Under the non-aggression principle, people are entitled to defend themselves as well as others from the initiation of violence.

Whether or not the violence is intentional or not is immaterial, unless that violence was voluntarily agreed to before hand, such as sports.

The use of force to protect oneself from harm is a given in any situation and does not violate the non-aggression principle.

That contradicts what you posted earlier.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If they did not intentionally initiate violence, then whatever they did that resulted in harm to another was an accident. Unless the person was grossly negligent in their actions, then they are innocent of intent.
....................
Bottom line is that it would be irrational for the person who was harmed to initiate violence against the other over an accident, so the non-aggression principle still applies.

If they did not intentionally initiate violence, then they are innocent.
There is no justification for initiating violence against an innocent person.
You can defend your/other people life/lives from someone’s actions using violence.
Even if it is an accident……………….

That is contradiction if I have ever seen it.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I didn't have to read any further than the title of your thread to fully back what you're saying. How can peace and understanding be a bad thing? War used to be for "land and resources." If that isn't what war is about today, then that means war is only about senseless killing. How could working together be a negative thing? Working in unison humanity can cause amazing things to happen. Of course being a single state globe with one language would require people to accept sacrifices. If there was no war, and we solved our energy problems and food problems then at the current rate there *could* and most likely *would* be overpopulation issues. That would be of course if we were utilizing current tech to maintain human civilization.

There is technology today that would allow for many billions more people to live on this planet easily. There is no need for tens of thousands of humans to starve to death each day. There's no reason for humans to live in stick huts with dirt floors. The reason the world is like it is today is because people pursue their wants. Happiness should be one of the few goals of life if any, however you don't need what you think you need to be happy. If one person can be happy just to be alive and experience a fraction of a second of consciousness with which to view this magnificent universe, then anybody can be happy with that. I would give my life for ANYONE. I don't care how many "crimes" they've committed. My life is unimportant, and upon your deathbed perhaps you will realize the same. How many people willingly go to war only to regret it as they try to hold their intestines inside their belly, bleeding out on the battlefield? Survival of the fittest is how humankind came to be but we have to evolve beyond our petty differences and come together as a whole. We work in unison or we work alone. And die alone.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Suppose someone tells you the truth but you don't believe them and it leads to violence? I think a person's perception of truth can alter the mind's state into believing a lie as truth. Happens all the time. Especially here!

The truth will not always set you free........

reply to post by mnemeth1


So the reality that is played out in this world isn't real because it doesn't fit what your say reality is.

I think you are the one choosing not to belive in reality.

reply to post by daskakik


Everything that happens does so because of what has happened before. Were you raised to believe that you're better than someone because of skin color or because they are richer/poorer than you? (That's a question to all of humanity). We've evolved out of the need for violence. You might pull the trigger against someone who is about to fire upon you, but why are they choosing to end your life? Why should they believe that killing you is a positive thing? Why did our ancestors kill each other? Killing another person for any reason only perpetuates violence which has spread across humanity through out known history. Only love can conquer hate but love has to be taught, just in the same way hate is taught. When confronted with our basic necessities it is in our genetics to survive regardless of the cost. A human can't willingly drown themselves if escape is possible. A human can always choose whether or not to end a life.

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac


I can only guess that your response was to the post about killing another human being for gain. Don't get me wrong I don't condone violence but it does exist and I could imagine a person rationalizing their taking of a life if they think they or theirs will gain a better shot at survival. As you have said it seems to be in our genes.

Of course what mnemeth brings up is a great idea (although he thinks it's more than that) but it does not eliminate or change those that will rationalize in that way. Why would it? All around we can see the despots living a far more comfortable life than the working man.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

Under the non-aggression principle, people are entitled to defend themselves as well as others from the initiation of violence.

Whether or not the violence is intentional or not is immaterial, unless that violence was voluntarily agreed to before hand, such as sports.

The use of force to protect oneself from harm is a given in any situation and does not violate the non-aggression principle.

That contradicts what you posted earlier.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If they did not intentionally initiate violence, then whatever they did that resulted in harm to another was an accident. Unless the person was grossly negligent in their actions, then they are innocent of intent.
....................
Bottom line is that it would be irrational for the person who was harmed to initiate violence against the other over an accident, so the non-aggression principle still applies.

If they did not intentionally initiate violence, then they are innocent.
There is no justification for initiating violence against an innocent person.
You can defend your/other people life/lives from someone’s actions using violence.
Even if it is an accident……………….

That is contradiction if I have ever seen it.

Initiating violence is not the same as using it defensively and being innocent of intent does not mean devoid of responsibility.

A person is never justified in initiation violence. Defending oneself from immediate harm by defensively using violence is not initiating violence.

There is no contradiction.

What is truth is the first step in finding, the truth of your reality, If you are in your reality and society and society is a concept how will you know what is in truth. you have many facts supporting a concept of society in reality.

What will you use to find the base of truth in your reality, if you are born ignorant and feed secondhand information about a concept based on facts from others who also are ignorant.

Who knows the orginal truth, if the originals are all dead. What is in truth and what is in a concept of truth.
The orginal truth is long lasting it is durable and is "trustworthy", Things that have this quality are usally "realiable" they can be used over and over retaining quality of "consistancy"
Now you have 3 words can you triangluate to find truth, can you build a filter using 3 words to find the orginal truths too form a base to generate thinking thoughts.

Since we are dealing with people what is the orgional truth about people, it will proceed written language
what is the orgional observed reality of people.Since people are born ignorant today as they were 20,000 years ago ignorance is in truth, conclusive that evolution has not occured in people. If people are born ignorant and learn through ignorances what will be the observed reaity of people learning ignorances 20,000 years ago vs today.
Old wise tales, wisdom, it follows ignorance around, part of the learning curve for knowledge, the more one understands in knowlede the less ignorance one has. The learning curve desends ignorance and raises intelligence, it's a predictable curve over one's life time.
To know is faster than thinking for one who has experienced wisdom.

Is peace truth and does peace bring truth. Is there wisdom about truth and have you experienced it? what is your knowledge about peace.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

Under the non-aggression principle, people are entitled to defend themselves as well as others from the initiation of violence.

Whether or not the violence is intentional or not is immaterial, unless that violence was voluntarily agreed to before hand, such as sports.

The use of force to protect oneself from harm is a given in any situation and does not violate the non-aggression principle.

edit on 23-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

What if the violence is initiated because the person is experienced with such situations and can see an attack coming before it's started? There are many little clues to an attack coming from untrained people, they step back, they tighen up, they twitch, their mannerisms become more pointed etc etc. In such a situation i would use a pre emptive attack to end the situation because if i wait for the attack my defense might fail or i might have to be far more violent and do more damage to defend myself.

So i would be initiating the violence to reduce total damage by interrupting an atttack that's about to happen. Would this still be covered as an act of self defense under your principles even though i'm the initiating party? Because i consider myself a peaceful man but under your principles maybe i wouldn't qualify.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The truth will set you free. But first the truth has to be realized.
Truth has nothing to do with logic and reason. Logic and reason are man made descriptions of a thing that can not be described. Truth is not something that can be debated, it just is.
Truth to me is faith.
Faith that everything is unfolding exactly as it should.
When this truth is seen, this equals peace.

reply to post by mnemeth1


truth may be subjective so the key to peace should be not so much finding and accepting a universal truth but finding our own truth and accepting that the others do the same. This should lead to a mutual respect based on the path to the truth and not the truth itself.

peace should arise from knowledge, trust and respect. and not so much on finding a common ground for conclusions.


my two cents

reply to post by mnemeth1

The non-aggression principle says the initiation of violence is immoral.

This statement is also flawed, morals are subjective and can differ greatly from one person to the next. Truth is also not the same for everyone. How can we know ever really know what the truth is? Your truth is not my truth.

I think it is possible that there is no truth. Maybe that is why violence never ends? Since there is no truth there can never be peace.

Just a thought, (and a quote i think..)

''If you tell the truth then you don't have to remember anything''
M.Twain...


Regards

PDUK

It seems to me that people are either intentionally missing the OP's point or are truly lost. I think that every individual is responsible for their own behavior and thus the thoughts that influence that behavior. Violence does not bring about good in any forseeable conjecture. I read someones post about protecting your mother from being attacked and thus bringing violence upon the person attacking your mother, what i don't think that poster is understanding, and what I think the OP would agree with me on, is if you follow my self-responsibility principle there would be no attacker in the first place.

Instead of trying to imagine scenarios in which you could advocate violence and thus prove the OP wrong, how about some actual thought on the subject?

How does this logic apply to defending oneself if non-violent aggression is initiated?

Say a woman has been mentally--but not physically--abused by her husband for decades. Mental abuse can be just as pernicious as physical abuse.

What if her only defense is physical harm in return?

She's initiating violence to justify a non-violent event.