Violence vs Non Violence

[MaineShark]

I give up, Joe.  Where are you getting this idea that people who are shown the light will start killing themselves?  You pulled it out of your ass, and now you've established it as fact in your fantasy land.

You imagine that a human being could tolerate the memory of brutalizing innocents?

I continue to be amazed that you cannot see the parallels between your statement that people who aggress against other people (under pretext of law) are subhuman animals and the mentality of the NAZI's.  [HINT: both attitudes use a mistaken premise that people are not really people as a justification for slaughtering people.]

Shall we call Godwin?s Law on that?

In any case, there is no comparison between subhuman monsters and human beings.

The Nazis believed that some were subhuman because of race.  I say that those who choose to forgo humanity are subhuman because of that choice.  They make their choice, and are responsible for the consequences.  They do it.  Not I or anyone else.

Your comparison of violence vs nonviolence as in any way similar to a choice between raspberry or custard pie really takes the cake. (No pun intended.)

It still fits, though.  Russell would not approve of violence being used on his behalf, ergo I would not condone any such violence.

Debate has a time and a place.  But this is a serious topic about the need for all of us to avoid giving even the appearance of violence so as to avoid undermining what we are doing here.

This isn?t debate.  This is the real world.  The real world is a bloody and violent place.

Joe

[Tom Sawyer]

Avoiding legal traps
by Massad Ayoob

Backwoods Home Magazine

This article seemed especially appropriate...  Massad is well known and respected in the firearms world. It starts off talking about the havoc that an ATF informant caused, and then continued...

Don't run your mouth

Big talk, some folks believe, is proof that testosterone may be a substance of abuse. Folks who shoot their mouth off and swear they'll do big, scary things can actually be convincing enough to look big and scary. This calls in those authorities who are in charge of protecting the rest of society from big, scary things. It really shouldn't be hard to understand.

... Now, if you hang out with folks who do bad things, or talk as if they're planning to do bad things, but you don't have any intention of doing bad things yourself, does that mean you're not guilty of conspiracy? In ethics class, yes. In court, as Metcalf found out, not necessarily.

... "Birds of a feather flock together." ...If you hang out with people who threaten bad things, don't be surprised if other folks conclude that you endorse those bad things, at the very least, or are even planning to join those people in doing those bad things. Soon, the People In Charge of Dealing With Those Who Do Bad Things will come into it. What do you expect their conclusion will be about your involvement?

At this time, there is a very real (and, just in my opinion, a very frightening) chance that Hillary Clinton may become the next President of the United States. Throughout the land, you'll be able to hear Angry White Males utter words like, "Somebody oughta pop her one!"

Now, words like that tend to be overheard and reported, bringing in the Secret Service. The investigators will soon know who else was present when such a statement was made. Could an aggressive prosecutor who wanted to make a name for himself make life unpleasant for those who listened to such things and voiced no disagreement? Well, can you spell c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y?

If someone voiced such feelings in my presence, my reply (loud enough for anyone listening to the conversation to hear) would be, "Don't even joke about something like that!" It ain't political correctness. It's just common sense.

(He goes on to conclude)
...I'm in my 34th year as a sworn police officer, my 19th year as a certified "police prosecutor", and I know for a fact ...we DO have the right to ask you under penalty of perjury, wether you post on any internet forum, and under what name, and we DO have the power to subpoena any posts via your IP from the Internet hosts, who under law have no choice but to "give you up." Don't let the seeming anonymity of the Internet delude you: when things get serious, you won't be anonymous anymore.

An alternate reality is a lonely place. People who can't tell the difference between "how the think things should be" and "how things are" have little credibility when push comes to shove, and they have a very bad history insofar as getting themselves and people they love in trouble....

(I would also add, just so people can decide what they want to go through) That a Grand Jury is a place I don't think many of us would like to be dragged into...   all so someone can shoot their mouth off. This goes beyond "ruining it for the rest of us." This goes into the realm of unnecessarily risking other peoples liberty. No one as that right.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Debate has a time and a place.  But this is a serious topic about the need for all of us to avoid giving even the appearance of violence so as to avoid undermining what we are doing here.

This is a debate.  I don't know who it is that you are afraid will see this.  I think you mean be non violent, not, just give the appearance.  What you Russell, and many of us do is undermining what the political Porcs are doing here.  Don't you see how hollow that claim is?

[cyberdoo78]

I'll be honest, ever since joining this movement, that I think, of a people dedicated to seeing the liberties established by our founding fathers in their own lifetimes. I was on one side of this debate.

Then I educated myself to the realities and possibilities of a society where true liberty exists. The right to be able to do whatever you wished, so long as it didn't harm another's equal right.

Today, I believe, I stand on the other side. I do not wish to harm anyone. However what recourse do I have when someone decides to take my right of liberty away through force? I agree with the other side that if we stuff the jails with enough non-violent individuals like Russell that the jails will have to let those who committed lesser crimes like his go.

The problem is that there isn't enough Russells to fill our jails. More people talk the talk and don't walk the walk. I for one would follow the other side if I knew that what I did meant something, if I could see that we were effecting change. However the peace movement of the 60's was a failure, it turned the tide of Vietnam, but did nothing to stop things like Vietnam to happen in the future. To me this is two steps foreward and three steps back.

Please don't spout issues of morality to me, I don't believe in them. From what I see, morality has allowed children to be rounded up into compounds and then left to the will of crazy people to shoot at them. Morality has allowed people who believe in a one world government to trash the rights of the individual. While I don't believe this was the intent, it is the outcome that is more important then the intent.

'Let every man be armed, for the purpose of protecting himself and those around him.' I believe was the message of our founding fathers, and regardless if you believe this is right or wrong, it just is. Our founding fathers believed that people are at their best when they are thinking of themselves first and others next.

If you choose to act non-violently that is your right to choose that path. However since the garden of Eden(or time if you don't believe the story of Creation), evil has existed. Evil doesn't believe in playing by the rules. Evil doesn't stop acting violently when confronted by non-violent means.

If you choose to act violently in defense of yourself of others then that is also your right to choose that path. Both paths exist and can lead to the same end. All that is different is how that path follows. If evil changes the rules, which rules do you follow? Those that are set in pen, or those set in pencil? Evil doesn't start acting non-violently when confronted by violent means.

In the end, we must look at what is in our hearts and take the path we believe leads to the end as we believe. We must respect those who don't believe our path is the best path and support them as well. Remember we are all friends here because we are united together for the same goal, even if we choose different paths. There are no wrong or right answers in the game of Life, only different ones.

Lloyd, a question if I may?

What you Russell, and many of us do is undermining what the political Porcs are doing here.

Are you saying is that those who believe that using defensive violence(as apposed to initiating violence) are not welcomed among those who believe that no violence at all is the best path? I'm asking because I want to know if I am welcomed here or not, because I believe, like the founding father's believed, that the use of violence against another in defense is justified.

I'll move to New Hampshire either way. I believe in what others are trying to do there, regardless of how it is done.

Tom, a question if I may?

(I would also add, just so people can decide what they want to go through) That a Grand Jury is a place I don't think many of us would like to be dragged into...   all so someone can shoot their mouth off. This goes beyond "ruining it for the rest of us." This goes into the realm of unnecessarily risking other peoples liberty. No one as that right.

If someone feels a certain way, should they not be allowed to voice their opinion? It would seem to me that your entire point is, as I have read it through this thread, is that we ought to use non-violent means to accomplish change, and that the use of violence in any capacity ought not to be use or allowed to be used. Please correct me if I am wrong, and if such, please ignore my following because its based one that I am correct.

By merely voicing change you are risking liberty. If you don't want to risk liberty, be quiet and accept whatever anyone else decides for you. The action of voicing one's opinion doesn't harm anyone. Specifically shouting at the top of one's lungs, 'kill them all', individually, doesn't harm anyone. Shouting such within a group of people doesn't make it the opinion of that group and specifically doesn't harm anyone within or without that group.

If you want to distance yourself from him, don't post, or delete your posts, or shout 'I don't believe that' at the top of your lungs. I think to suggest, please correct me if I'm wrong on my assumption, that any action by anyone in a free society dictates that everyone in that society holds the same opinion. That such an opinion of believing 'kill them all' means we will all be called before the Grand Jury to face charges is a statement of poor choice.

In reference to the previous paragraph, I don't believe in 'kill them all' as a "general rule". I do believe 'kill them all' if they initiate lethal force against me or others, again as a "general rule".

[error]

Lloyd, a question if I may?

What you Russell, and many of us do is undermining what the political Porcs are doing here.

Are you saying is that those who believe that using defensive violence(as apposed to initiating violence) are not welcomed among those who believe that no violence at all is the best path? I'm asking because I want to know if I am welcomed here or not, because I believe, like the founding father's believed, that the use of violence against another in defense is justified.

Don't you see how hollow that claim is?

It seems that you took the statement out of context.

What you Russell, and many of us do is undermining what the political Porcs are doing here.  Don't you see how hollow that claim is?

There are people of both persuasions here. The work of each builds on the work of the other.

[Tom Sawyer]

cyberdoo78

There is alot of content in past threads that would cover most everything you might want to know along these lines.

I'm sure I'll regret even entertaining to become someone's teacher. Well here goes.

A reasonable man would work towards change before killing.

Here is a little test for the validity of the course you might take. Ask people that you know and share respect with, how they would view you after your act. If you can't get support from people that already have faith in you how will that act carry with people that don't know you.

We need to make friends and allies not enemies.

If you could get enough people together to counter the opposition through force you wouldn't need to use force.

What would rise out of the ashes of the violent revolution, the thugs that led it. How would they behave once in power?

Google, the term Nonviolent Revolution and take the time to read some of the excellent works that have studied the successful efforts to topple totalitarian regimes. I would suggest you read the alternatives to the violent course before you put your faith in "leaders" who if they really had the answers would have many more people on their side than they do.

Next do a little study on what powers a Federal Grand Jury have. In this efforts infancy what might be the results of something like this happening. I have known people that where subjected to this process, it isn't pretty and the people they went through it with don't even talk to each other anymore much less work for the cause.

Some hard facts that people need to face if they want to keep their sanity.

We might not get the to the level of freedom we might like in our lifetime. The process of human efforts to move along the road to freedom and hope has taken thousands of years. Many men much more capable than you or I have worked their entire lives to move towards this goal. I do it for the hope of the next generation to take it, refine it and move it forward.

Most everything else is looking for instant solutions, which there are none.


I like having fun with like minded folks and enjoying the process.     I believe getting mad and all is unsustainable, you'll burnout and not move toward the goal.

[Lloyd Danforth]

There are people of both persuasions here. The work of each builds on the work of the other.

I know. I work with the entire  spectrum of Porc activists.  The 'ruining' thing is a running joke. Tom & Caleb knew what I meant.

[MaineShark]

(I would also add, just so people can decide what they want to go through) That a Grand Jury is a place I don't think many of us would like to be dragged into...   all so someone can shoot their mouth off. This goes beyond "ruining it for the rest of us." This goes into the realm of unnecessarily risking other peoples liberty. No one as that right.

Why should that matter?  They can kidnap you and toss you in a cage somewhere, any time they want.  They don't need to use "due process" to do it.

If I let them silence me with their threats, then they have won.

A reasonable man would work towards change before killing.

On the other hand, "reasonable men" rarely change the world.  I wouldn't call Russell "reasonable," either.  Russell is quite remarkable.

Joe

[error]

There are people of both persuasions here. The work of each builds on the work of the other.

I know. I work with the entire  spectrum of Porc activists.  The 'ruining' thing is a running joke. Tom & Caleb knew what I meant.

I know. The person to whom the post was addressed did not.

[Pat K]

I think you guys should settle this in a manly way.

Pillow fights at dawn.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Dawn put up a big stink about that last time

[Lloyd Danforth]

There are people of both persuasions here. The work of each builds on the work of the other.

I know. I work with the entire  spectrum of Porc activists.  The 'ruining' thing is a running joke. Tom & Caleb knew what I meant.

I know. The person to whom the post was addressed did not.

I stood confused.....and now.. I stand corrected

[dalebert]

If you could get enough people together to counter the opposition through force you wouldn't need to use force.

That's a point worth repeating.

[cyberdoo78]

cyberdoo78
A reasonable man would work towards change before killing.

Agreed. I believe I made it clear I'm willing to try if everyone else is willing to step up and make their lives uncomfortable in doing so.

Here is a little test for the validity of the course you might take. Ask people that you know and share respect with, how they would view you after your act. If you can't get support from people that already have faith in you how will that act carry with people that don't know you.

As a matter of fact, I have stated my opinions and of the 10 or so people I have disclosed my intentions, 2 disagreed with me, 1 decided to stay neutral, and the rest agreed what I had said had some merit.

We need to make friends and allies not enemies.

Agreed, but if the enemy would rather take you to prison the allow you have your peace then whats the next step?

If you could get enough people together to counter the opposition through force you wouldn't need to use force.

Agreed in principle. In actuality people don't like change and will resist violently to change even if shown that it is a better way. Couple hundred thousand Muslims prove this point.

What would rise out of the ashes of the violent revolution, the thugs that led it. How would they behave once in power?

I believe the answer would be, The United States of America is what would happen. It worked once, why not again? I ask you what non-violent effort has ever toppled a government like the then English Empire?

Google, the term Nonviolent Revolution and take the time to read some of the excellent works that have studied the successful efforts to topple totalitarian regimes. I would suggest you read the alternatives to the violent course before you put your faith in "leaders" who if they really had the answers would have many more people on their side than they do.

I'll agree to do that, if you agree to read War and Peace and The Art of War. Point of note, I am a leader, not a follower, I listen to what people have to say and then make my decisions based on fact and not fiction like some 'other leaders' might do. I don't claim to have all the answers. I do claim to have an answer, however flawed or perfect it may be.

Next do a little study on what powers a Federal Grand Jury have. In this efforts infancy what might be the results of something like this happening. I have known people that where subjected to this process, it isn't pretty and the people they went through it with don't even talk to each other anymore much less work for the cause.

Done, basically the power of the grand jury is supreme in that if found there is sufficed evidence to the charges that the prosecution may proceed in taking you and stuffing you in to a 55 gallon drum, if the law allows it.

Some hard facts that people need to face if they want to keep their sanity.

Alot of people never let hard facts get in the way. I point out the founding fathers and you proceed to say, it was a failed attempt or to ignore it.

We might not get the to the level of freedom we might like in our lifetime. The process of human efforts to move along the road to freedom and hope has taken thousands of years. Many men much more capable than you or I have worked their entire lives to move towards this goal. I do it for the hope of the next generation to take it, refine it and move it forward.

And if we stand around with our fingers up our butts while we let a bunch of under-educated people decide what our life, liberty, and property is worth and take it from us. Then what?

Most everything else is looking for instant solutions, which there are none.

Agreed.

I like having fun with like minded folks and enjoying the process.     I believe getting mad and all is unsustainable, you'll burnout and not move toward the goal.

Agreed, that's why I decided to mess with you and act all angry and upset while addressing you considering you basically called me a idiot. And further to claim that you called me an idiot by stating I needed to educated, rather then to ask questions as to the extent of my knowledge and educate me where the gaps exist.

The biggest problem I have with the whole non-violent revolution is this. If there are so many of you, why hasn't there been change? Perhaps one of the flaws in the non-violent revolution, at least that I see(which is only half reliable), is there are alot of believers of concept and not enough doers. I say if you -really- are a believer in your non-violent revolution, then you ought to be in jail right now. At least Russell has the balls to put his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, if you aren't going to practice what you preach, stop preaching, I'm tired of the whining.

I on the other hand, once I get to New Hampshire, will in deed practice what I preach. That being that violence is only acceptable when confronted with violence. Why wait till I get to New Hampshire? Because more people believe similar things to what I believe then they do where I live.

[Lloyd Danforth]

If you could get enough people together to counter the opposition through force you wouldn't need to use force.

That's a point worth repeating.

You can replace the word force in that sentence with 'Civil Disobedience' and probably a number of other things.