5 ms·

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
        Sure, and with the vague definition of "issues," you can move the goalposts all day long.
        kafkaesq 11y ago
        90 years of slavery that very likely would have been severely restricted in 1807 and abolished outright in 1833 (based on certain major events relating to slavery in the British empire, which I'm sure you're aware of) might sound "vague" to you, but most likely it wasn't to those affected.
        spacehome 11y ago
        There were also a lot of other conflicts on that list with a promise I could provide more. OK, how about this: The execution of John Wayne Gacy.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
    >> The primary reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims are having trouble solving their problems using violence is that they're not using enough violence. The problem of those groups is that they can't prosper in peace. Violence is not a solution for that. Rather, violence is the essence of their problem. Basically, if you want to be realistic there can never be "enough violence". Reasonable people prosper because they understand this and seek to solve their problems in a peaceful manner rather than to escalate the violence until one side perishes.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    >If we look into History we shall find some nations rising from contemptible beginnings, and spreading their influence, 'till the whole Globe is subjected to their sway. When they have reach'd the summit of Grandeur, some minute and unsuspected Cause commonly effects their Ruin, and the Empire of the world is transferr'd to some other place. Immortal Rome was at first but an insignificant Village, inhabited only by a few abandoned Ruffins, but by degrees it rose to a stupendous Height, and excell'd in Arts and Arms all the Nations that praeceeded it. But the demolition of Carthage (what one should think would have establish'd it in supream dominion) by removing all danger, suffer'd it to sink into debauchery, and made it att length an easy prey to Barbarians.—England Immediately, upon this began to increase (the particular, and minute causes of which I am not Historian enough to trace) in Power and magnificence, and is now the greatest Nation upon the globe.—Soon after the Reformation a few people came over into this new world for Concience sake. Perhaps this (apparently) trivial incident, may transfer the great seat of Empire into America. It looks likely to me. For if we can remove the turbulent Gallicks, our People according to the exactest Computations, will in another Century, become more numerous than England itself. Should this be the Case, since we have (I may say) all the naval Stores of the Nation in our hands, it will be easy to obtain the mastery of the seas, and then the united force of all Europe, will not be able to subdue us. The only way to keep us from setting up for ourselves, is to disunite Us. Divide et impera. Keep us in distinct Colonies, and then, some great men, in each Colony, desiring the Monarchy of the Whole, they will destroy each others influence and keep the Country in Equilibrio. [1] -John Adams So yes, empires do rise and rule for a time but in the end they grow weak from over reliance on luxuries and having no real competition to fight. In the end these empires based on war always collapse. But let's take WW2 for example. WW2 led immediately into the Cold War, and the Cold War led into the War on Terror. It is also worth noting the arbitrary national lines drawn along tribal boundaties after WW1 and WW2 and their direct contributions to the enflamed tensions in the middle east today. >The primary reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims are having trouble solving their problems using violence is that they're not using enough violence. That is M.A.D. What exactly is the issue here, what is the end goal that is achieved through violence? It's survival, right? If we are to ensure survival amidst such increasingly rapid technological proliferation, mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. [1]http://www.masshist.org/publications/apde2/view?id=PJA01d005 http://www.masshist.org/publications/apde2/view?id=PJA01d005
  - conceit 11y ago
    They prosper(ed) rather well despite these minor problems. If that means to you they were using enough violence and a lot at that, I'd agree.
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.

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
        Sure, and with the vague definition of "issues," you can move the goalposts all day long.
        kafkaesq 11y ago
        90 years of slavery that very likely would have been severely restricted in 1807 and abolished outright in 1833 (based on certain major events relating to slavery in the British empire, which I'm sure you're aware of) might sound "vague" to you, but most likely it wasn't to those affected.
      - spacehome 11y ago
        There were also a lot of other conflicts on that list with a promise I could provide more. OK, how about this: The execution of John Wayne Gacy.
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
  >> The primary reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims are having trouble solving their problems using violence is that they're not using enough violence. The problem of those groups is that they can't prosper in peace. Violence is not a solution for that. Rather, violence is the essence of their problem. Basically, if you want to be realistic there can never be "enough violence". Reasonable people prosper because they understand this and seek to solve their problems in a peaceful manner rather than to escalate the violence until one side perishes.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  >If we look into History we shall find some nations rising from contemptible beginnings, and spreading their influence, 'till the whole Globe is subjected to their sway. When they have reach'd the summit of Grandeur, some minute and unsuspected Cause commonly effects their Ruin, and the Empire of the world is transferr'd to some other place. Immortal Rome was at first but an insignificant Village, inhabited only by a few abandoned Ruffins, but by degrees it rose to a stupendous Height, and excell'd in Arts and Arms all the Nations that praeceeded it. But the demolition of Carthage (what one should think would have establish'd it in supream dominion) by removing all danger, suffer'd it to sink into debauchery, and made it att length an easy prey to Barbarians.—England Immediately, upon this began to increase (the particular, and minute causes of which I am not Historian enough to trace) in Power and magnificence, and is now the greatest Nation upon the globe.—Soon after the Reformation a few people came over into this new world for Concience sake. Perhaps this (apparently) trivial incident, may transfer the great seat of Empire into America. It looks likely to me. For if we can remove the turbulent Gallicks, our People according to the exactest Computations, will in another Century, become more numerous than England itself. Should this be the Case, since we have (I may say) all the naval Stores of the Nation in our hands, it will be easy to obtain the mastery of the seas, and then the united force of all Europe, will not be able to subdue us. The only way to keep us from setting up for ourselves, is to disunite Us. Divide et impera. Keep us in distinct Colonies, and then, some great men, in each Colony, desiring the Monarchy of the Whole, they will destroy each others influence and keep the Country in Equilibrio. [1] -John Adams So yes, empires do rise and rule for a time but in the end they grow weak from over reliance on luxuries and having no real competition to fight. In the end these empires based on war always collapse. But let's take WW2 for example. WW2 led immediately into the Cold War, and the Cold War led into the War on Terror. It is also worth noting the arbitrary national lines drawn along tribal boundaties after WW1 and WW2 and their direct contributions to the enflamed tensions in the middle east today. >The primary reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims are having trouble solving their problems using violence is that they're not using enough violence. That is M.A.D. What exactly is the issue here, what is the end goal that is achieved through violence? It's survival, right? If we are to ensure survival amidst such increasingly rapid technological proliferation, mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. [1]http://www.masshist.org/publications/apde2/view?id=PJA01d005 http://www.masshist.org/publications/apde2/view?id=PJA01d005
- conceit 11y ago
  They prosper(ed) rather well despite these minor problems. If that means to you they were using enough violence and a lot at that, I'd agree.

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.