Is this statement about violence true?Follow

Depends how much is in the will.

Can we get a little clarity in your sentences please?

Actually, if there is too little water the adult elephants will allow the younger elephants to go dry, because the adults are the ones that can breed more..

technicalities. How do we know waht we'd do in situations like that? It makes sense.


I've heard of elephants carrying around the bones of poached companions for a long time and even returning hundreds of miles to the "graves" of deceased companions.

Maybe we do, but we're too fu[b][/b]cking stupid to realize it.

We'd rather revel in our own fabricated glory like pigs in ****.


God: "I'll be right back dear, got to go slop the humans again"

I get by.

I'd enjoy it alot more if I was never injected into this animated meat-sack and forced to graze with the rest of you glorified primates.

Ever just look at you own hand and see all the veins and blood and flesh and hair and just think "ewwwww"?

Eating is disgusting.
Fu[b][/b]cking is disgusting.

We're a bunch of congealed and mutated *** and blood. Lovely.

So we try to distract ourselves with things such as morals and civility....

Life's one big circle jerk until the balls run dry.

you're as juicy, smelly, and sticky as every other animal.

Everything going on in your mind right now as you read this are just a buncha chemicals, microscopically fizzing and bubbling; making your body move and be able to sustain itself.

Everything else is a chemical bi-product that we call conciousness.



Prove me wrong.

Someone needs a .

What's wrong with being an animal? I rather like animals, even human ones. I refuse to despise my own species. It's rather depressing and self defeating, is it not?

I'd rather be wandering the Chinese countryside as a Kung-Fu hero.

Well, let's examine the list once more. Maybe you're looking at a different one then me. Hard to imagine, since you wrote it.



Lots of hammers and sh[b][/b]it beating down a wall? Seems violent to me. People being shot by wall guards? Very violent.
Let's move on.



On November 8, 1923, SA troops under the direction of Hermann Göring surrounded the place. At 8:30 p.m., Hitler and his storm troopers burst into the beer hall causing instant panic.

Hitler fired a pistol shot into the ceiling. "Silence!" he yelled at the stunned crowd.

Hitler and Göring forced their way to the podium as armed SA men continued to file into the hall. State Commissioner Gustav von Kahr, whose speech had been interrupted by all this, yielded the podium to Hitler.

"The National Revolution has begun!" Hitler shouted. "...No one may leave the hall. Unless there is immediate quiet I shall have a machine gun posted in the gallery. The Bavarian and Reich governments have been removed and a provisional national government formed. The barracks of the Reichswehr and police are occupied. The Army and the police are marching on the city under the swastika banner!"

Link

Reading comprehension is your friend.



WOW.... just....wow.... history was never your strong point, was it?



The working class was exploited, not even having the possibility of defending themselves by launching syndicates, because a law punished those trying to form worker union. The situation was so appalling that between 1935 and 1938, there were several riots in the English speaking islands, though clashes between the police and workers were particularly violent in Barbados and Trinidad.

The revolts, along with the decisions adopted by the British Royal Commission in 1938, contributed to the appearance of the first syndicates. Also new political parties emerged, trying to achieve self-government, which paved the way to the final independence.

Game, set, match.

Edit: Stupid MS Word, changes 's to ?'s
Edit #2: forgot Site for last reference, least I be strung up by my toes for such an atrocious act.



Edited, Fri Jul 8 20:26:51 2005 by Molish

I think the problem you're having with my statement Kelv is that you aren't separating the "ideas" from the "actions".

Sure. Lots of ideas change the world, but very very very rarely do those ideas ever take on real form without some form of violence involved. And no. I'm not talking about pounding a wall with hammers either. Sure. The Wall fell peacefully, but that's just a physical object. The fall of the Soviet Union, while relatively peaceful still required a level of violence to achieve. First, a long and protracted cold war (you do remember that, right?), then numerous rebellions and revolts, then finally a change that resulted in things like the Berlin Wall being removed. It was a succession of violent events that led to that change. Had things been peaceful and quite in the soviet union, there would have been no need to change.


Marx wrote the Communist Manefesto. That wasn't violent. But every single government based on his work that exists today came about as the result of violent revolt. Heck. You'll be hard pressed to find a single government in existence today that did not come about as the direct result of violence.


Remember. I specifically stated "socio-political change". Not "philosophical change". Governments change as the result of violence. People change their opinions almost exclusively as the result of violence. Even the most peaceful seeming changes still had their elements of violence. Everyone talks about Ghandi changing the world through peace, but they forget the decades of armed violence in India that had already gotten Britain into a mindset to remove themselves as best they could. Ghandi gave them a way to do so without making it look like they were surrendering militarily.

MLK worked in a similar way. The majority of the civil rights movement was wracked with violent protest and rioting. That's what made the establishment realize they needed to change. MLK (and others like him) gave them a route to do that. But MLK didn't do or say anything differently then a dozen other spokespeople had been saying for nearly 100 years. Ask yourself what was different at the time period when MLK marched and spoke and the time period when men such as Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, and Marcus Garvey were saying much of the same things? The answer is that MLK was a voice of reason in a sea of violence. Clearly, it was the violence of the civil rights movement that forced a resolution, not just the message of equal rights, no matter how eloquently spoken.


While there are rare examples of true socio-political change that occur without violence of any kind (usually minor shifts in ideas within an existing political structure), those are really the rare exception, and as I stated are usually "minor" changes.


IIRC, I've stated this on several occasions. It's intended to debunk the oft-quoted "violence never solved anything" position. While I'm not a proponent of violent change, it would be silly to bury your head in the sand and assume that violence has nothing to do with change. It's really much more accurate to say that peace never solved anything. We can come up with huge lists of examples of that. Look at WW2 and Mr Chamberlain's approach to foreign policy while German and Italy were expanding their power. While peace is a preferred mode of living, it rarely ever provides a solution to a true opponent. If you show up with words and paper, and the other guy shows up with tanks and guns, guess who's going to get to decide the "solution"? It'll never be the guy working via peace.

sig claimed... ah i love being immature enough to find these things funny.