When you are protesting for anything really, do you believe in violence or non-violence. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed in non-violence because he spoke, let marches, etc. The Black Panthers on the other hand, did not believe in King's ways. They believed that fighting back, killing, and violence would solve the problem. What do you guys think?
I think that violence is necessary sometimes but should not be overused. I wouldn't say go on a killing rampage if someone disagrees with you but I wouldn't say violence should never be used.
Lol I don't think anyone WANTS violence, save for the sadists. As far as protesting goes, obviously words are not only a lot more humane, they're also more effective. Hit the government with a stick and the world will focus on that, not your issue. Expose their wrongdoings in a speech and you have the world in your hands. Anything you do in a protest should be directly related to your cause, otherwise attention is drawn away. Ex) If you're protesting the mistreatment of animals, don't throw buckets of water on people If you're protesting the amount of public pools, throwing buckets of water is ok, because it draws attention to your cause, not away.
In every major human rights struggle there is always the non-violent group and the violent group. The violent group gets news headlines and media attention to whatever cause they are fighting for but obviously it's negative attention and turns people off wanting to reason with them. The non-violent group are always the successful ones they get things done and win rights for their cause. Non-violent is generally the way to be but then again the gay rights movement started with the Stonewall riots where drag queens fought against corrupt NY police and if that hadn't happened who knows what situation the gay community would be in.
Non-violence unless necessary, say in cases of self defense or something - if you're beating up people for the heck of it, that's definitely an inhumane act.
I'm kinda undecided because sometimes, violence and force is needed to do things. But, non-violence is the "right way" to actually take care of a situation so I don't know...it's so hard to determine :O!
I'd be more of a pacifist. We were learning about the pros and cons of war in religion and the terms for a just war. Personally I believe that there has never been a just war and violence just provokes more violence.
Interesting question.. There are many valid points on either side, but.. Its hard to make a decision. The Black Panthers certainly got attention but however as the results im not sure.. I was never really that involved in american history. Did they really change any laws or perception? Did they just confirm societies prejudice of them? So the violent approach's effectiveness is unclear Whilst Martin Luthers on the other hand.. He stasnds above others. His impact is undoubtable, a man that stands above others. However, you cant purely say that the non-violent way is right based on this example. He is just one example, there are countless non violent protestors out there with have had their cause largely ignored.. But i think, it comes down to the cause. If someone is staging a cause for peace, aligning your character to what you want is an honourable way to gain respect.
I'd have to agree with you there. It's really hard to say, because every cause and situation is different but sometimes protesting the non violent way won't give you any publicity or results, you know? If it's really necessary, violence may be the way to go in some cases.
Violence + Violence = Very Violence Violence + Non-Violence = Not too Violence Non-Violence + Non-Violence = "No-no" to Violence That's what I think.
Get ready for one long post... :lol: :arf: (Just kidding) --- Gandhi had his own way for nonviolence, and it worked quite well. He made multiple countries free from the tyrant rule of the British. His methods worked very well. Before we had things like Media and a well established law enforcement force, violence would be the way to go. We (USA) have fought the British, remember now? Actually, now to think of it, we have been in quite a few wars... In the 11th century, France and England (anglosaxon wars, bayoux tapestry) were fighting eachother for a VERY long time. Their way to revolt was VIOLENCE. This was because they didn't have the privlages of things like the media. Anyone here seen the movie Braveheart? Revolting and war and stuff? Anyways, I say for now: nonviolence. For back then, VIOLENCE FTW!
Non-violent, I just get verbal and start yelling in faces. But when a violent person touches me, I instantly turn on the violent side. Violent way can get the word out more directly, non-violent may take some time.
So you are saying that Nonviolent is the way to go? What do you think the problems are of being both violent and nonviolent? Do you get in trouble for turning to the violent side?
If it's me that's protesting, I'd definately prefer non-violence. I guess it's because I'm just a little shy girl who doesn't like fighting :b But I think it might be nescessary with violence in some cases. I mean the war in Iraq (even though I don't approve at all) - they wouldn't get anywhere without violence. - Just an example, probably a very bad one.. but yeah, that's how I feel
I would say non-violence in our everyday lives, even anything to do with religion. I believe though that if someone uses violence against you, you should be able to hit them back. Maybe that is just fighting fire with fire, but on a large scale (9/11, terrorist attacks, etc.) I think that Americans had the right to fight back. I think that things did get out of hand though. I think that violence is sometimes necessary, but not always needed. Today, it is used excessively, with many conflicts that are pointless (I think that religion is a pointless conflict to use violence over, Religious Tolerance FTW.)
Non-Violence, ususally gets you no where. Id say some violence if fine, but taking it to the extreme to kill people is not :/
I think people who preach non-violence should be forced to preach it to the aggressors in a conflict. Oddly enough, that's not how it works when it comes to wars and retaliatory strikes yet it works that way in other cases. For example: A nice boy is getting pummeled by a bully at his bus stop. Do you tell the boy on the ground with a bloodied face who is trying to get up and defend himself not to fight? No, of course not. You tell the bully (i.e. the aggressor) to quit. Our country is bombed viciously, without provocation. We are therefore like the nice boy. We attempt to defend ourselves against the bully. Who do the anti-war squawkers yell at? The nice boy. Now I'm not going to play it obtuse here - I know full well why the bleeding hearts don't preach to or yell at the aggressors in the second case. It's because they know full well that the aggressors don't want to hear what they have to say, would in no way tolerate being yelled at, and they'd end up with their heads lopped off. However, the situation is the same. You don't yell at the person (or country) trying to defend itself. The only reason they're yelling at our government is because they know that we won't lop their heads off. So they can be outraged and noble and safe all at the same time, which is very convenient, easy, and therefore very do-able. It's also bull$***.