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.

 

the rejection of violence in all its forms

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Only violent when it is deserved. My history is perfectly fine, MLK and Gandhi weren't the only figures in those movements. I wasn't putting it to a political view point, I was arguing the case for violent resistance against your pacifist beliefs. Violence can mean unity, violence is not always chaos.

You use your methods. I'll use mine. Let us hope our aim brings us closer than our methods divide us.

reply to post by Unity_99
 


I don't hold the same views on positive energy and stuff it seems but I would like a world in which peaceful methods could thrive. I just don't believe it will happen, the elite will still have the strings connected to the puppets.


the forces of piece stand together, in piece and non violence,
it is not now or ever an option to be violent at heart,
violent of intent,
this violence inherent in all your actions is the problem,
it is ligistically imposable to beat violence with violence,
it is impossable to hate the enemey to death,

you cant fight a machine of hate, with hate,

so you dont fight, you change, people see others changing, it feels good to help others, and in doing so you help your comunity, and in doing so your comunity helps you.

when every body comes from a position of love first,
(some would define it as a group thought)
non violence
love
compasion for others
being a comunity again

then people feel the love,
and they share it.

open your mind for a few minutes
xploder




posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


It's violence through love of the oppressed, not hate of the oppressor. Violence =/= Hate.

Also, stop being so patronising. Your methods don't mean you're any way wiser or foolish than I am.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Sorry, I am not a poet like the OP is, but here is my take on it....

In my life, I have traveled to some of the most troubled countries in the world, and I couldn't help but seeing the unending spirals of violence in those places. f.ex. Somebody gets killed by another group, and the family of the person that got killed need to take revenge, so they kill a member of the other group, who loses a member, and then they take revenge, and so on....
People don't seem to grasp the fact, that to get out of the spiral of violence, you have to break it somewhere. The onliest way to break that spiral is by being a pacifist. If enough people are against violence, sooner or later the whole system of violence would collapse, and the violent people would realize they have nothing to gain by accosting the pacifists, because violence is a kick for them. If they don't get any resistance, it is no fun anymore, and they would rather target another group that is violent to them, and go after them, as for them, it is no fun after a while going after the pacifists.

Maybe I am being to idealistic, but I have seen enough violence in my life to make me realize that pacifism is the onliest answer to violence.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The problem with the notion of a society which is based on non-violence is the same problem which any ideology which veers away from amorality faces; those who refuse to tow the conformist line and who don't willingly confine themselves within the hampering limitations of the moral ideology du jour will have the edge and advantage which will, eventually, lead to control and power.

In this case, 95% of malleable people aiming towards a non-violent utopia will be no match for the 5% who wouldn't impose these unambitious self-limitations upon themselves.


you scratched the surface in your interpretation,
the problem has ALWAYS been INTERFERENCE from outside,
so if this is the first world wide protest how can outside influence come into play?
everyperson is equal in the context of the protests,

no person can in their form of protest endanger another person or knowingly break laws or block access,
ect.

but it is a personal internal protest in favour for world wide piece.

as the planet rotates the sun goes down and we could follow the setting sun around the world through time zones and have a wave live protest around the world in ONE DAY.


in the spirit of many many examples of historical figaurs have done all throughout history,
pieceful non violence with compasion and equality for all

xploder



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
For everything there is likely a season.

My own personal preference is never to use violence if I can at all possibly avoid it and to limit any use only to times of true self defense.

But, too I have not lived and walked in the shoes (comparitively speaking though I can relate) of some of those 'groups' who have been so beat down, so attacked,so mistreated, (at least comparitively) that they may feel they have no other recourse than to 'punch the bully in the nose' to get them to back off. There may be a season for that for some but I hope not.

I hope it never gets that bad here in the U.S., though it does seem to me in many ways America is in a declining phase and that those who cling to wanting to live in a Free Republic are rapidly coming under attack by those that don't.

But just remember The People have the ultimate power and it is NOT recourse by violence first, it is change by NON_compliance, firstly refusing to buy or do business with as much as posssible any company that seeks to undermine the Republic and it's citizens, and secondly non-compliance with any entity that seeks the same. It is 'passive' active resistance and people have this great untapped power if they would only use it in masse.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by XPLodER
 


It's violence through love of the oppressed, not hate of the oppressor. Violence =/= Hate.

Also, stop being so patronising. Your methods don't mean you're any way wiser or foolish than I am.


IMHO
we are equal,
we may differ in opinon,
but we are equal

xploder



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Indeed we are, that is the most important thing.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I don't think people are fully understanding the concept.

No more guns no more weapons. No more armies no more promotion of violence in the media.
No more enforcers and overseers.

Sounds like a plan but as long as people are willing and happy to participate as cops, soldiers, lawyers,judges, politicians, etc they just keep us floored on nosedive. These people these cogs in the machine are what keeps their corrupt agenda afloat. Just like your tax dollars.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 



Maybe I am being to idealistic, but I have seen enough violence in my life to make me realize that pacifism is the onliest answer to violence.


it would astound you the number of peoples accross the world who agree with you,
piece and light my friend, you have by experience come to the same conclusion i have reached by resurch,
"the WILL of the PEOPLES of the WORLD will be pieceful"
from a scientific viewpoint and in my personal opinion



xploder



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
Try overthrowing the oppressors without violence, try it. There has never been a revolution brought upon by peaceful methods, it's all been done through blood. The oppressors won't give over power so easily, they have the weapons and they have the greed to justify themselves to each other. Violence is the only method for real change.


Well, Paulo Freire would argue that the process of taking on the oppressor through violence causes the oppressed to become the new oppressor and the previous oppressor to become the new oppressed. The violent act is transformative and leads to a mere role-reversal.

I think this is exemplified many times over throughout history. Look how many horrible, "native" dictatorships came out of brutal colonial oppression - in the Americas and Africa and Asia, too. The US, even, has arguably been mired in violence that began the day the bloody Revolution ended. Think about it. They fought off the tyrant 2000 miles away and created 2000 tyrants 1 mile away - who subsequently marauded through the indigenous cultures of the Midwest and Southwest, on into Mexico, and the Caribbean, Latin America, the Pacific, and now Africa, the Middle East and South and Central Asia. You can trace all this violence back through the empire, right back to that first shot of the Revolutionary War.

I mean, sure, violence is a method of change. But the only change is in who causes the violence...not the end to that violence.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte
For everything there is likely a season.


This is the truth. The violence that occurs in nature is spontaneous and meaningful. It's a lion killing a gazelle. It's a mother elk trampling a wolf to death for nearing its calves. It's a tree growing full and suffocating other plants in darkness.

These things cannot be avoided. Violence, per se, cannot be avoided. But violent acts must be meaningful and fit their context and moment. When was the last time you saw a lion get done kiling a gazelle, abandon the corpse and kill another? When was the last time you heard of a mother elk crossing a ridge to trample a wolf to death that was minding its own business drinking from a stream? Do you suppose a tree grows to those heights to purposefully kill the other plants?

No, none of that would be meaningful or purpose-driven. The lion needs to eat, nothing more. The elk has to protect her young, nothing more. The tree must compete for the sunshine, but nothing more.

Humans are the only creature on this planet that directly and indirectly, in a meaningless fashion - while ignoring both time (moment) and space (context) - act violently towards other living things, including themselves.

Actually, not all humans, but the "dominant culture," as Derek Jensen would put it.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota

Originally posted by Tea4One
Try overthrowing the oppressors without violence, try it. There has never been a revolution brought upon by peaceful methods, it's all been done through blood. The oppressors won't give over power so easily, they have the weapons and they have the greed to justify themselves to each other. Violence is the only method for real change.


I mean, sure, violence is a method of change. But the only change is in who causes the violence...not the end to that violence.


What, I'm not sure I understand that. Surely the ends of violence are often changed. Ask anyone who has been affected. Often permanently. I'm likely perhaps not understanding your context.

Anyway, violence is not the way, at least not for me and mine, and all the others that choose peace over 'war without end' whether the violence be here or overseas.
edit on 11-2-2012 by Tecumte because: sp.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


What I was trying to say was that violence might "change" a situation, but the violence itself will remain.

In other words, the US might rid the violence of Saddam Husein, but they do so through violent methods of their own creation. In other words, while violence might change who is in power, who wields authority, who is sanctioned to create violence, etc., the violence itself lives on after the so-called change. Again, the change is insignificant, because violence as a "transformative" act cannot create "peace", only more violence.

In reality, these concepts should not be foreign to anyone. Parables like the Hatfields and McCoys exemplify it really well.
edit on 13-2-2012 by Sphota because: repetitive statements.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Tea4One
Try overthrowing the oppressors without violence, try it. There has never been a revolution brought upon by peaceful methods, it's all been done through blood. The oppressors won't give over power so easily, they have the weapons and they have the greed to justify themselves to each other. Violence is the only method for real change.


Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.........................


Pacifism only works when the opposition care about the moral high ground. If Gandhi had tried it against the Nazis, he and everyone with him simply would have been shot; in fact, the German military probably would have been grateful to him if anything, because he would have made their job easier.

Pacifism works as a form of striking; if you have a civil society that wants work done, and people stop doing it, if there is more of an incentive for the government to capitulate, (particularly if they care about PR) then it can work. You also need the people resisting, to outnumber the oppressive party by a factor of at least 10:1, ideally.

It is important to note, however, that Gandhi and MLK were both shot. There is an old saying; "Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter."

The cabal understand that there is literally one Gandhi among billions of people; the majority of humanity are comparitively almost entirely worthless, in moral terms. As a result, all they have to do to shut down a movement that a Gandhi leads, is to kill said leader him or herself. Once they've done that, the entire movement will collapse, because nobody else there will have one tenth of one percent of the equivalent moral fortitude, to succeed said leader and carry on the movement themselves.

In terms of our level of moral integrity, to a very large extent, humanity is not a species that deserves to continue to survive. I believe that very strongly, at this point. The cabal do not win because of their own evil. They win because of the evil of the rest of us.
edit on 13-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


you cant stop a world of pieceful people,
you cant kill everyone if they are gandhi,
a movement of leaders cant be beheaded,
a comunity of leaders cant be distracted
a world of pieceful leaders is unstoppable

you cant threaten and kill us all

piece and light
xploder



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by petrus4
 


you cant stop a world of pieceful people,
you cant kill everyone if they are gandhi,


I quote the Spartans:-

If.
edit on 14-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 

Violence is NEVER unity,it is a mistake a flaw of judgement!How foolish a statement from someone who hasn't seen true violence.It is an infection,a curse to those who perform it.Were it only possible to talk to each other,to help and to give what each needs.Yet someone wants it all.Gold is all that is to them
and they want yours too.I had to do what I could to stop them,as merciful as I could to the innocent and as quickly and fatally as I could to the jackels.It wasn't my choice to be some kind of tool of oppression,Most of that is above the average line dog.But by God I did try,curse me as you should choose.I will not be shamed.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Violence is the 'language' of the biological imperative body you inhabit, non-violence is fine if you are a spirit in an ethereal world.

Within civil society, it is possible to live with 'non violence', so long as you have the police to exercise it on your behalf.

Otherwise OP your ideas are just idiotic half-baked ramblings and comefrom a profound denial of your true nature probably caused by over-socialisation at an early age.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Otherwise OP your ideas are just idiotic half-baked ramblings and comefrom a profound denial of your true nature probably caused by over-socialisation at an early age.


Violence is not an inherent element of non-psychopathic human nature. I understand that we are taught to believe that by virtually every element of contemporary society, so I won't hold it against you. The psychopaths want us to believe that violence is inherent to non-psychopathic humanity, however, because they want us to be more like them.

Violence by itself, isn't the single most crucial piece of the puzzle where our current mess is concerned, despite what MLK thought. The most important issue, is actually personal responsibility. The majority of contemporary humanity (myself included) do not want to be adults. We don't want to have to delay gratification, and we don't want to need to even do basic things like feeding ourselves. When was the last time you cooked? I hardly ever do, although in my own case, it is a combination of both laziness, and the fact that I can never do it in a kitchen that doesn't belong to someone else, which means I am in danger of being screamed at or worse.

I've truthfully given up at this point, trying to come up with or think about, ways in which we as a species might survive. The single main reason why, is because most people (and like I said, me included) do not want to do what is necessary to ensure our survival. You just get given abuse if you try, and nothing else.

The psychopaths are determined to see us dead, and although it isn't everyone, they do have the majority accepting their view of the world. As much as Occupy want to think otherwise, they aren't the 99%. They're the positive 1%. We have 1% positive, 1% negative, and 98% mindless sheep.

We want a mechanised, Capitalist society which is dependent on the rape and murder of large numbers of other life forms (whether animals, plants, or other human beings) in order to continue to exist. We want computers, we want oil, we want all of those things, and if we have to choose between giving them up or dying, 95%+ of us will choose the latter.
edit on 14-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Violence is the 'language' of the biological imperative body you inhabit, non-violence is fine if you are a spirit in an ethereal world.


in your wisdom how do we conclude that i am not violence and yet i have a body and am human,
your OPIONION is that violence is our biological imperitive.
IMHO you have incorrectly defined what a biological imperitive is,
as self preservation is not inherently violent.


Within civil society, it is possible to live with 'non violence', so long as you have the police to exercise it on your behalf.


the public order is kept by the PEOPLE and the POLICE.


Otherwise OP your ideas are just idiotic half-baked ramblings and comefrom a profound denial of your true nature probably caused by over-socialisation at an early age.


lol name calling nice,
i will respond anywhay

you like to pretend to judge my ideas from an superior position, but as you post suggests you dont understand what i ahve said,

a contridiction for sure but do you realise i am not you?
i have asbergers and as a side effect, i dont see humans as inherently violent as i am not,

i see your opinion and insert MLK jr and gandhi

taught about in schools world wide,
i cant say i have heard of you before now

lol

xploder







 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join