4 ms·

Dr. King was considered a radical by the system but I will still leave this here: >The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetti

Dr. King was considered a radical by the system but I will still leave this here: >The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Where Do We Go from Here : Chaos or Community? (1967) http://www.amazon.com/Where-Do-We-Here-Community/dp/0807000671 http://www.amazon.com/Where-Do-We-Here-Community/dp/08070006...

spacehome 11y ago
Much love for King, but he was wrong as a point of fact. Violence has by far resolved more issues than anything else.
- iBzOtaku 11y ago
  Do you really think that this violence will not come bite western world in the ass one day? West is allowing killing of innocents, including the "fun sized terrorists" kids. Thousands of them. Do you really think they will just grow up and forget about it?
- alanwatts 11y ago
  Could you provide some notable examples where violence has resolved issues in the long term and did not lead to more issues/violence? This thread is in relation to the religious wars currently going on in the middle east. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been trying to use violence to resolve their issues in the middle east for thousands of years now to no avail.
  - spacehome 11y ago
    A few notable ones off the top of my head: WW2 American Revolutionary War The Roman-Carthaginian wars Genocide of the Ainu in Japan Genocide of the Neanderthals by Homo Sapiens in Europe (Maybe; it's theorized at least) The Gombe Chimpanzee War I'm sure I can come up with more if you like. The primary reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims are having trouble solving their problems using violence is that they're not using enough violence.
    - kafkaesq 11y ago
      American Revolutionary War Which led to the perpetuation of slavery for another 90 years (which the British were in the process of abolishing throughout their holdings), among other "issues."
      - Houshalter 11y ago
        That's irrelevant, and massive hindsight bias. If the British still held the South, they might have kept slavery too. And if they did try to abolish it, the civil war/revolution probably would have happened anyway and they might have won.
      - spacehome 11y ago
        Wut? The American Revolutionary War resolved the conflict between the two parties rather satisfactorily. I did not claim that it ended all violence.
        kafkaesq 11y ago
        Could you provide some notable examples where violence has resolved issues in the long term and did not lead to more issues/violence? Was the original question. The point is that while it solved one conflict, it deferred and prolonged another (quite major) one -- which might well had been resolved had the colonies not seceded from the Crown.
        redblacktree 11y ago
- Houshalter 11y ago
  "The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi's non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an entirely different beast. Gandhi would have gone to the ovens had he attempted non-violent resistance against the Nazis. When one encounters Evil, the only solution is violence, actual or threatened. That's all Evil understands." -- Robert Bruce Thompson
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    >[President George W. Bush] has a vision which can be described with two other words: Manichaean paranoia... the notion that he is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil, that in that setting, the fact that we are morally superior justifies us committing immoral acts. And that is a very dangerous posture for the country that is the number one global power. ... The fact is he squandered our credibility, our legitimacy, and even respect for our power. -Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, March 14, 2007 Cultural side note: "For Hindu thought there is no Problem of Evil" -Alan Watts, The Way of Zen There is great anxiety among the Western Judeo-Christian tradition about "Evil winning out over Good" that is not so much felt by far Eastern cultures (Hindu, Zen, Taoist etc.). For instance, the concept of Yin and Yang and how they define each other and rely on each other. St. Thomas Aquinas actually paralleled this concept quite briefly in The Summa contra Gentiles, though such an idea is quite taboo among many fundamentalist Christian traditions today: >There are in the world many good things which would have no place unless there were evils. Thus there would be no patience of the righteous, if there were no ill-will of the persecutors; nor would there be any place for a vindicating justice, were there no crimes; and even in the physical order there would be no generation of one thing, unless there were corruption of another. Consequently, if evil were entirely excluded from the universe by the divine providence, it would be necessary to less the great number of good things. This ought not to be, since good is more powerful in goodness than evil is in malice, as was shown above. Therefore evil should not be utterly excluded from things by the divine providence.

spacehome 11y ago

Much love for King, but he was wrong as a point of fact. Violence has by far resolved more issues than anything else.

iBzOtaku 11y ago
Do you really think that this violence will not come bite western world in the ass one day? West is allowing killing of innocents, including the "fun sized terrorists" kids. Thousands of them. Do you really think they will just grow up and forget about it?
alanwatts 11y ago
Could you provide some notable examples where violence has resolved issues in the long term and did not lead to more issues/violence? This thread is in relation to the religious wars currently going on in the middle east. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been trying to use violence to resolve their issues in the middle east for thousands of years now to no avail.
- spacehome 11y ago
  A few notable ones off the top of my head: WW2 American Revolutionary War The Roman-Carthaginian wars Genocide of the Ainu in Japan Genocide of the Neanderthals by Homo Sapiens in Europe (Maybe; it's theorized at least) The Gombe Chimpanzee War I'm sure I can come up with more if you like. The primary reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims are having trouble solving their problems using violence is that they're not using enough violence.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    American Revolutionary War Which led to the perpetuation of slavery for another 90 years (which the British were in the process of abolishing throughout their holdings), among other "issues."
    - Houshalter 11y ago
      That's irrelevant, and massive hindsight bias. If the British still held the South, they might have kept slavery too. And if they did try to abolish it, the civil war/revolution probably would have happened anyway and they might have won.
    - spacehome 11y ago
      Wut? The American Revolutionary War resolved the conflict between the two parties rather satisfactorily. I did not claim that it ended all violence.
      - kafkaesq 11y ago
        Could you provide some notable examples where violence has resolved issues in the long term and did not lead to more issues/violence? Was the original question. The point is that while it solved one conflict, it deferred and prolonged another (quite major) one -- which might well had been resolved had the colonies not seceded from the Crown.
        redblacktree 11y ago
Houshalter 11y ago
"The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi's non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an entirely different beast. Gandhi would have gone to the ovens had he attempted non-violent resistance against the Nazis. When one encounters Evil, the only solution is violence, actual or threatened. That's all Evil understands." -- Robert Bruce Thompson
- alanwatts 11y ago
  >[President George W. Bush] has a vision which can be described with two other words: Manichaean paranoia... the notion that he is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil, that in that setting, the fact that we are morally superior justifies us committing immoral acts. And that is a very dangerous posture for the country that is the number one global power. ... The fact is he squandered our credibility, our legitimacy, and even respect for our power. -Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, March 14, 2007 Cultural side note: "For Hindu thought there is no Problem of Evil" -Alan Watts, The Way of Zen There is great anxiety among the Western Judeo-Christian tradition about "Evil winning out over Good" that is not so much felt by far Eastern cultures (Hindu, Zen, Taoist etc.). For instance, the concept of Yin and Yang and how they define each other and rely on each other. St. Thomas Aquinas actually paralleled this concept quite briefly in The Summa contra Gentiles, though such an idea is quite taboo among many fundamentalist Christian traditions today: >There are in the world many good things which would have no place unless there were evils. Thus there would be no patience of the righteous, if there were no ill-will of the persecutors; nor would there be any place for a vindicating justice, were there no crimes; and even in the physical order there would be no generation of one thing, unless there were corruption of another. Consequently, if evil were entirely excluded from the universe by the divine providence, it would be necessary to less the great number of good things. This ought not to be, since good is more powerful in goodness than evil is in malice, as was shown above. Therefore evil should not be utterly excluded from things by the divine providence.