Alternatives to violence.

[Neserk]

I had a lot of time on my hands at work today. I picked up this magazine. It was interesting because they had an article that talked about what I had said on a thread about the people of Israel and how they differ from the government. Check it out

http://www.yesmagazine.org/20spirituality/20toc_main.htm

[Voltron]

I had a lot of time on my hands at work today. I picked up this magazine. It was interesting because they had an article that talked about what I had said on a thread about the people of Israel and how they differ from the government. Check it out

http://www.yesmagazine.org/20spirituality/20toc_main.htm
Sorry it doesn't work versus suicide bombers.

[blackfox]

Sorry it doesn't work versus suicide bombers.
Sly, you get a 'F' in reading comprehension...thanks for the link, Neserk...I found it a very interesting read...

[Neserk]

thanks for the link, Neserk...I found it a very interesting read...

You are welcome. I plan on subscribing. I also want that particular issue (issue #20) The stories have helped restore my faith in humanity. Now why can't the news report *those* kinds of stories?

[mactastic]

Now why can't the news report *those* kinds of stories?Oh that's easy. It's because of the leftist media bias in this country. You know, if it supports leftist ideas publish it till the presses explode or melt down or something, and if it supports conservative ideals bury it. Kinda like this one. Oh wait, this was buried.... Wait a minute, does not compute....

[Desertrat]

Neserk, I follow Wink's points. To a certain extent I agree with the interpretations of Jesus' meanings in the Pacifism vs. Passivity argument; in some ways I've done that sort of "misbehavior" myownself.

On a personal level I'm gonna respond with violent force if gratuitous violence is offered to me. Here, I'm talking about the rare event that could occur, like mugging or robbery. Absent force, I'm quite happy to seek peaceful resolutions to conflict.

The Israelis have never, ever, had an opportunity to try Wink's version of Pacifism. Never. From Day One, there has been an unending Arab effort at genocide. It is being taught even now, in many madrassahs, as reported in many news sources.

For most, Pacifism only works in the absence of direct force; in the absence of active violence. By "work", I mean that one lives through the episode.

I dunno. One thing that stands out through history is that "It takes two to not fight. It only takes one to start a fight."

But according to Wink's treatise, we are the Romans, and the Iraqis are the ones who should be practicing Pacifism...

'Rat

[mactastic]

It's been a good long time since the world has seen the successful use of pacifist resistance against severe violence.... :(

[Abstract]

The success rate of using such methods is never reported because it never sells newspapers. Someone getting attacked after an argument....now THAT is news.

[Desertrat]

We used to work this subject over back in my own college daze. I think the consensus was that as an ideal, Pacifism is good. The reality of the hardwired biology of "Fight or Flight" precludes Pacifism as any sort of survival method.

I ran across an article about the murder rate in Los Angeles. Among other things, an interview with a gang member who was in prison for murder indicated he was fearful of the younger crop of teenagers now coming into the gangs. No morals or standards, by his view of morals and standards.

How can Pacifism work when the gangbangers are sniping at police, just because they're police?

'Rat

[jelloshotsrule]

i've often wondered... what would the world have thought if we had had a huge peace rally, a hands across america type of thing in response to september 11th, similar to the peace rally after the madrid bombings...?

it's interesting to ponder if nothing else.

[Desertrat]

I imagine "the world" would have thought we'd gone nutzoid.

Note that the world was favorable toward our early efforts in Afghanistan. It's the "Phase II", there, plus the WMD/Iraq/prisoner abuse that's stirred up the furor.

En passant note that when you look at the interactions of the various tribes in Afghanistan and the three primary factions in Iraq, Pacifism looks like a highly desirable way to end one helluva lot of bloodshed. It would then be a piece of cake for us to "Get the hell out of Dodge."

'Rat

[mactastic]

IMHO it takes more guts to put your life on the line without attacking or defending yourself than it does to put your life on the line taking a weapon into battle. But Pacifism as a strategy only works if the resistance is visible to the general public, and if the attackers are able to be shamed into stopping. That isn't always the case though, and there are definetly times when violence is the more appropriate course of action.

[skunk]

But Pacifism as a strategy only works if the resistance is visible to the general public, and if the attackers are able to be shamed into stopping. That isn't always the case though, and there are definetly times when violence is the more appropriate course of action.
Isn't pacifism a belief rather than a "strategy"? You can't commoditize it. Either it "works" in all circumstances or it doesn't. Saying pacifism is a strategy is like saying vegetarianism is a strategy.

[mactastic]

Isn't pacifism a belief rather than a "strategy"? You can't commoditize it. Either it "works" in all circumstances or it doesn't. Saying pacifism is a strategy is like saying vegetarianism is a strategy.

It can be both. Think Ghandi and MLK for examples of using it strategically.

[mcfudd]

I had a lot of time on my hands at work today. I picked up this magazine. It was interesting because they had an article that talked about what I had said on a thread about the people of Israel and how they differ from the government. Check it out

http://www.yesmagazine.org/20spirituality/20toc_main.htm

What a bunch of wimps. Violence is an excellent alternative to getting stepped on.

Take natural selection for example. You do not see many lions surviving who "take care" of sick zebras. No.

The sick get eaten so the strong of the species can continue on.

[mcfudd]

How can Pacifism work when the gangbangers are sniping at police, just because they're police?

'Rat

Perhaps more police and more prisions are not the answer. There is a deeper problem that needs solving.

[skunk]

Perhaps more police and more prisions are not the answer. There is a deeper problem that needs solving.
I recommend Regime Change...

[mcfudd]

I recommend Regime Change...

It may take longer than that. We may have to wait until the children of the baby boomers are in power before real change occurs.

Even the boomers know the war on drugs is a bunch of crap ... but the us government is trying to control the debate by restricting freedom of speech.

I just go to Amsterdam when I want to smoke. Their country has not fallen apart after nearly 20-30 years (???) of coffee shops.

[skunk]

I just go to Amsterdam when I want to smoke. Their country has not fallen apart after nearly 20-30 years (???) of coffee shops.
Their soccer team has... :D

[Desertrat]

Okay, mcfudd, what's the deeper problem? What are some of your proposals to solve it?

'Rat

[Frohickey]

It can be both. Think Ghandi and MLK for examples of using it strategically.

The reason that Ghandi and MLK used pacifism is that they did not have any other means. Even Ghandi said "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

MLK used pacifism because he knew that if he were to turn militant, that would give the opposition the excuse to use violence against him.

If the militant Iraqis/terrorists were to not use violence, what would they gain? I would bet that they would lose everything since it would be status quo and back to the established governments and order in the Middle East. That is not something they want. What they want is to topple/change the existing power structure in the Middle East, and they have invested too much in using weapons to suddenly change.

[blackfox]

Their soccer team has... :D
That's a low blow...BTW I saw that England tied w/ Japan recently? :D I root for England every World Cup, and I am always dissapointed....to tie this into the thread topic, perhaps some soccer fans should heed the advice given...

[mcfudd]

Okay, mcfudd, what's the deeper problem? What are some of your proposals to solve it?

'Rat

I must run so I cannot do justice to this reply.

But, I was refering to the unemployment, lack of educational opportunities, racism, drug abuse, and institutional/sociological barriers that keep members of gangs down (and cause them to join in the first place).

I think these are some of the underlying problems that lead these individuals to violence. The guns do not make them act-out. The guns are just the way they are expressing the rage that already exists.

We could go a long way in solving these problems if we spent less money on wars, and a little bit more on education, job training, drug treatment programs, etc. Again, it is a big problem, one that will not be solved here.

[mcfudd]

Their soccer team has... :D

hey, I read that Beckham is the new Gillette spokesperson.

[skunk]

But, I was refering to the unemployment, lack of educational opportunities, racism, drug abuse, and institutional/sociological barriers that keep members of gangs down (and cause them to join in the first place).

I think these are some of the underlying problems that lead these individuals to violence. The guns do not make them act-out. The guns are just the way they are expressing the rage that already exists.

We could go a long way in solving these problems if we spent less money on wars, and a little bit more on education, job training, drug treatment programs, etc. Again, it is a big problem, one that will not be solved here.
Indeed. Funny how you could apply all this equally to Gaza, Baghdad, etc. ;)

[Desertrat]

"But, I was refering to the unemployment, lack of educational opportunities, racism, drug abuse, and institutional/sociological barriers that keep members of gangs down (and cause them to join in the first place)."

Hokay. Gotcha. But for starters, let me offer a few comments to factor into this "equation".

Some of the problems are cultural, in the sense that this general group is referred to as a sub-culture.

For instance, after the Watts riots of, what, 1962-ish?, the various aerospace companies around LA tried to work with the city of LA and the various community leaders of Watts.

The obvious problem was a lack of readily usable skills. Even so, efforts were made for on-job training. Problem: These people had never thought in terms of being at work every day at 8AM or staying every day until 5PM. Next, after a Friday payday, they didn't see why they should return to work until they were out of money.

Unless some effort is made to get these folks past these ideas, it seems to me to be hopeless, so, how? This is a self-discipline problem for folks who've rarely had any experience with that. The instant gratification thing. Next question, what percentage will stay with some jobs program? Those who don't will remain a problem.

"Lack of educational opportunities": Huh? No schools in the parts of town where there are gangs? Seems to me reality is that we're back to the old cliche about leading the horse to water. In this case, seems to me, it's the parents whose duty it is to induce a thirst for knowledge. We already know from experiences across the nation that "more money for schools" isn't the answer. In some few cases, sure, but not as a generality.

"Racism"? Nobody denies its existence, but I note that census figures tell us that 2/3 of all blacks are in the economic middle class or better, so racism per se doesn't seem to be that much of a factor.

In summary, without going on and on, it seems to me that external forces can do little until there is some sort of self-starting impetus from within these communities, these ghettos. I naturally agree with Bill Cosby's comments, based on my similar but more limited observations...

'Rat

[themadchemist]

Oh that's easy. It's because of the leftist media bias in this country. You know, if it supports leftist ideas publish it till the presses explode or melt down or something, and if it supports conservative ideals bury it. Kinda like this one. Oh wait, this was buried.... Wait a minute, does not compute....

It's fun when conservatives make baseless claims about a so-called leftist media bias! Note that no evidence is provided. That the left has a monopoly over the media has been ingrained in our minds by constant right wing rhetoric.

Consider this. How has "left wing media bias" become such a popular, common term? Perhaps it was because discussion of it was broadcast to large numbers of people through mass...mass...what's the word, again?...Yeah, that's right...Mass MEDIA!

It's funny how much airtime and print budget conservatives use to complain about how little airtime and print budget they get. If the leftists really had a monopoly over the press, then I don't think we'd hear these protests quite as much.

This, less partisan, idea seems more logical:


The success rate of using such methods is never reported because it never sells newspapers. Someone getting attacked after an argument....now THAT is news.


I think that's a chief fact in this situation.


What a bunch of wimps. Violence is an excellent alternative to getting stepped on.

Take natural selection for example. You do not see many lions surviving who "take care" of sick zebras. No.

The sick get eaten so the strong of the species can continue on.


What a thoughtful and discerning treatment of the topic at hand! :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

The reason that Ghandi and MLK used pacifism is that they did not have any other means. Even Ghandi said "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

MLK used pacifism because he knew that if he were to turn militant, that would give the opposition the excuse to use violence against him.

If the militant Iraqis/terrorists were to not use violence, what would they gain? I would bet that they would lose everything since it would be status quo and back to the established governments and order in the Middle East. That is not something they want. What they want is to topple/change the existing power structure in the Middle East, and they have invested too much in using weapons to suddenly change.

Indeed, and if you look closer you'll find I never said Pacifism was the appropriate response in every situation. But I think even your NRA-addled mind would have to agree that it worked in both situations I cited, and you even agreed that MLK would have made things WORSE if he'd resorted to violence. So thanks for proving my point for me.

You keep swinging with that spankin' arm and coming up empty every time! Whiff! :eek: :D :p

[Desertrat]

Now, now, mac. Let's not get all knotted up with the "NRA-addled" stuff. I've probably been a member since before Frohickey wuz borned. :D

You'll note that I've basically stated that the efficacy of Pacifism is conditional. Some situations, it's THE answer; others, it's merely a way to die more quickly...

Ghandi was dealing with British rule, dealing with people who basically lived by a benevolent code. Contrarily, the Jews had to deal with Hitler.

MLK was fighting against people who could be made to feel ashamed.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Now, now, mac. Let's not get all knotted up with the "NRA-addled" stuff. I've probably been a member since before Frohickey wuz borned. :D

You'll note that I've basically stated that the efficacy of Pacifism is conditional. Some situations, it's THE answer; others, it's merely a way to die more quickly...

Ghandi was dealing with British rule, dealing with people who basically lived by a benevolent code. Contrarily, the Jews had to deal with Hitler.

MLK was fighting against people who could be made to feel ashamed.

'Rat

Lol, did you read my original post? I basically stated that Pacifism is only useful in some situations. Sometimes it's THE answer. Other times it ain't. I think there was something about shaming the opposition into stopping, and something else about it having to happen in a public way such that the deaths aren't seen. Reading your post contradicting me with my own points was like deja vu all over again. ;)

[Frohickey]

Indeed, and if you look closer you'll find I never said Pacifism was the appropriate response in every situation. But I think even your NRA-addled mind would have to agree that it worked in both situations I cited, and you even agreed that MLK would have made things WORSE if he'd resorted to violence. So thanks for proving my point for me.

You keep swinging with that spankin' arm and coming up empty every time! Whiff! :eek: :D :p

NRA-addled mind? I think you are the one with the NRA-in-the-brain. :eek:

If you reread the post, I explain the reasons why pacifism was used in both situations. If India was under Turkish rule, or Chinese rule, or Mongol-under-Khan rule, pacifism would have turned into a massacre.

Same thing would have happened if the only people MLK were dealing with are Robert Byrd's weekend buddies.

I think the nerve endings on your rump are dead from all the spanking. :p


Seems that you are the one that has an addled brain. If you read my both, there was no disagreement with your post, and mine added and expanded upon the reason that pacifism worked in Ghandi's and MLK's cases. It also explained how pacifism will not work in the fundie-Islam case, but in your addled brain state, everytime you see a Frohickey-reply that quoted your post, you see red. :eek:

[mactastic]

NRA-addled mind? I think you are the one with the NRA-in-the-brain. :eek:

If you reread the post, I explain the reasons why pacifism was used in both situations. If India was under Turkish rule, or Chinese rule, or Mongol-under-Khan rule, pacifism would have turned into a massacre.

Same thing would have happened if the only people MLK were dealing with are Robert Byrd's weekend buddies.

I think the nerve endings on your rump are dead from all the spanking. :p


Seems that you are the one that has an addled brain. If you read my both, there was no disagreement with your post, and mine added and expanded upon the reason that pacifism worked in Ghandi's and MLK's cases. It also explained how pacifism will not work in the fundie-Islam case, but in your addled brain state, everytime you see a Frohickey-reply that quoted your post, you see red. :eek:


Now both you and 'Rat are trying to contradict me with my own points.... :D :eek: ;)

[Desertrat]

mac, I wsn't trying to contradict your earlier comment to Frohickey, so much as tease about the NRA dig. The NRA as a group has damn-all to do with such philosophical concepts as Pacifism; we're all over the map on personal views of lifeitsownself...

Same words? Well, great minds think alike. :D:D:D

I dunno. The concept of Pacifism is quite appealing to me, since I just really never have liked to fight. Certainly not as a "just for fun" thing. I've seen the aftermath of combat zones, in Manila and South Korea. I've been to Dachau. "Man's inhumanity to man" really chaps my tail.

The notion that I might have to wound or kill somebody in self-defense is a whole 'nother deal; that doesn't bother me enough to notice. Going back to the link, those who wouldn't deal with their own self-defense are passivists, not Pacifists. I've known a fair number of passivists; they give me a serious case of the rants, after I get over the urps.

:), 'Rat