Agnostic.com

9 2

Three Questions:

  1. Do you believe responding to violence or oppression with non-violence has any possible advantage over responding with violence?
  2. How far back in human history can this concept be traced?
  3. To what original source can it be traced?
skado 9 Apr 21
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

9 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0
  1. Yes, when non-violence is simultaneously outgunned and not gunned down. There are many circumstances where that strategy would be logical.

  2. 1.8 mya.

  3. When the first hominin exclaimed "Is this a quartzite hand axe I see before me", and promptly decamped Out Of A frican fracas.

Another excellent question of yours and I trust you'll permit me some levity:

This sort of adaptive evolutionary development may go as far back as when arseholes first pointed to the ground and early primates began to sit upon them resulting in the first sit down strike.

The sticks are sharp it's just gone dawn
We're sitting here upon the lawn
Mbobo shrieks attack and we don't go

1
  1. It depends on the situation. Mostly, I endeavor to avoid violence.
  2. I don’t know.
  3. I don’t know.
2

In my opinion:

  1. Responding to violence or oppression with a non-violent yet power stripping consequence has an advantage because often the non-violent approach is more long lasting, makes a point, is a teachable moment and removes the victim from continued violence or oppression in most cases, at least that would be the goal.

  2. Human nature and thoughtful responses have not been documented in writing for all that long, so I'm guessing concepts such as fairness have existed since before history was documented, so maybe wisdom passed down through generations via verbal story telling?

  3. The human mind would be the source, with the sense of fairness and self esteem we all should feel, and can expect as long as society around us supports that thought.

0

I think this belongs in the Philosophy group. I know I don't give a shit about it.

0

GHANDI?
MARTIN LUTHER KING?
Those names ring any bells for ya?

1

@skado

Do your own research.

This is my own research.

If you know of a better way to learn the opinions of my fellow AgnosticDotCom members, I’ll happily look into it. Thanks.

2

I believe that the orginal intent of the oriental martial arts was to block or disable a violent person and not to kill him as in Kung fu practiced by Shaolin Monks.

The earliest example of non violent response that springs to mind is that of Mohandas Gandhi in 1906 at the onset of the South African campaign for Indian rights. However, Ghandi supported an oppressive cast system.

The martial arts in China have a long history and records vary but it seems like they began somewhere around 500 BC.

0

From your #1, remove “or oppression”.

  1. With it removed. When I use tit-for-tat well, I feel a satisfaction I otherwise don’t feel.

  2. I don’t care.

  3. I don’t care.

4

"If you truly loved yourself, you would not hurt another." Buddha

And several others like it, take it back to at least six hundred BCE.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:662055
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.