Comment Re:Those who join will become killers. (Score 1) 524
OK. Sorry for the late response. I do not read much /. any more!
The short response is that you have assumed a claim or a conclusion that I never made: I never said that responding to conflict in a nonviolent way would increase violence. I also never said war or killing was necessary. I think maybe you meant to respond to a different poster?
I am arguing against the statement that "communication is the only way to stop violence." Your counterpoint examples *support* my argument. But I do not see how the challenges in your follow-up clarification counter my arguments in any way...
Here's the longer response:
My original point was simply that communication alone cannot resolve undebatable disagreements-- some of which lead to conflict. I did not at any point argue that wars and killing are necessary. I was merely pointing out that if you and I (for example) disagree about something worth killing each other over, all communication does is define the points of our disagreement. But it does not have to lead to violence as you seem to have wrongly concluded from my post.
My response to your counter examples was to agree that Jesus, Ghandi, and Dr. King did not use violence, but I noted that they were still killed. Again, I did not ever suggest that their nonviolent methods led to more violence in the large-- only that they were killed by people who chose to remain their enemies. This is exactly what I was arguing originally-- that communication and "other methods" are not guaranteed to stop the killing. Repeat: A nonviolent or peaceful response to conflict does *not* necessarily end the killing or violence. You can be 100% peaceful and still have enemies that want you dead or want to do you harm. Your three murder victims illustrate that point very clearly and support my point very, very, very well.
The other methods: lying, appeasement, bribery-- none of them are solutions for the points of conflict. They are all nonviolent options, but there is no reason why your enemy can't still hate you--or you him for that matter. The last option, "everyone on earth in agreement" is plain unrealistic, though some seem to think that it is possible on some issues.
I think I see where you are headed in your original response, but I really think that you should re-read my original post. Your arguments are based on conclusions and arguments that I never made-- which is why I found your post confusing.
If you are in fact responding to my post, then you have severely misinterpreted my arguments and have drawn the wrong conclusion. I was never arguing about the necessity of violence, nor did I try to justify violence and war. I was arguing against the statement that "communication and other methods" were the "only answer" to the killing. Since "the killing" can happen on both sides of the fight, one party responding nonviolently does not prevent the other side from continuing the violence or killing. Again, Jesus, MLK, Ghandi and their respective killers are perfect examples of this point.
In response to your clarifications: Since I never laid any framework suggesting that nonviolence leads to violence, or that violence is necessary, and since I never introduced any language related to world peace, I do not understand what you are asking me to argue. You have asked me to support conclusions that I didn't make and that are not even relevant to my original post...
The short response is that you have assumed a claim or a conclusion that I never made: I never said that responding to conflict in a nonviolent way would increase violence. I also never said war or killing was necessary. I think maybe you meant to respond to a different poster?
I am arguing against the statement that "communication is the only way to stop violence." Your counterpoint examples *support* my argument. But I do not see how the challenges in your follow-up clarification counter my arguments in any way...
Here's the longer response:
My original point was simply that communication alone cannot resolve undebatable disagreements-- some of which lead to conflict. I did not at any point argue that wars and killing are necessary. I was merely pointing out that if you and I (for example) disagree about something worth killing each other over, all communication does is define the points of our disagreement. But it does not have to lead to violence as you seem to have wrongly concluded from my post.
My response to your counter examples was to agree that Jesus, Ghandi, and Dr. King did not use violence, but I noted that they were still killed. Again, I did not ever suggest that their nonviolent methods led to more violence in the large-- only that they were killed by people who chose to remain their enemies. This is exactly what I was arguing originally-- that communication and "other methods" are not guaranteed to stop the killing. Repeat: A nonviolent or peaceful response to conflict does *not* necessarily end the killing or violence. You can be 100% peaceful and still have enemies that want you dead or want to do you harm. Your three murder victims illustrate that point very clearly and support my point very, very, very well.
The other methods: lying, appeasement, bribery-- none of them are solutions for the points of conflict. They are all nonviolent options, but there is no reason why your enemy can't still hate you--or you him for that matter. The last option, "everyone on earth in agreement" is plain unrealistic, though some seem to think that it is possible on some issues.
I think I see where you are headed in your original response, but I really think that you should re-read my original post. Your arguments are based on conclusions and arguments that I never made-- which is why I found your post confusing.
If you are in fact responding to my post, then you have severely misinterpreted my arguments and have drawn the wrong conclusion. I was never arguing about the necessity of violence, nor did I try to justify violence and war. I was arguing against the statement that "communication and other methods" were the "only answer" to the killing. Since "the killing" can happen on both sides of the fight, one party responding nonviolently does not prevent the other side from continuing the violence or killing. Again, Jesus, MLK, Ghandi and their respective killers are perfect examples of this point.
In response to your clarifications: Since I never laid any framework suggesting that nonviolence leads to violence, or that violence is necessary, and since I never introduced any language related to world peace, I do not understand what you are asking me to argue. You have asked me to support conclusions that I didn't make and that are not even relevant to my original post...
