Because lots of people in the world, including George Bush, Jesus freaks, Mohammed freaks, Moses freaks, and Shiva freaks seem to feel that you would.
But I wouldn't. Hit me, and I will hit you back. Anyone would. So if this is true why on earth would we ever use violence, war, destruction to solve problems? If we are to get out of a cycle of revenge and retaliation, we must negotiate, not be violent. If I listen to you would you listen to me. Isn't TRUE courage not hitting back, but being willing to take it even while resisting in other ways?
2006-08-29 00:31:56 · 9 answers · asked by slyintellectual 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind"
Famous words from Gandhi a man that proved that there are other ways to resolve a problem than violence
2006-08-29 00:36:25 · answer #1 · answered by peter gunn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you remember the Munich Conference in September 1938?
Britain and France negotiated with Hitler over his demands to the Sudetenland. In the end, they all agreed Hitler could have the Sudetenland in exchange for him not demanding anything else in Europe.
Hitler invaded Poland a little less than a year after the Munich Conference. Britian and France declared war and started the Second World War.
Violence is the only thing some people understand. Negotiation just lets them grow stronger while they demand concessions from you.
2006-08-29 09:16:02 · answer #2 · answered by usarocketman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blah. If someone hit me, I would most likely hit them back. I spent a long time not hitting back, and now it's "an eye for an eye" in my book.
p.s - I hate when people use the word freak to describe someone religious. Just because they have faith, and follow their religion doesn't mean they are freaks. Check out some of the other posts on this site, and then think about what freak means. (I am not defending fanatics though!)
2006-08-29 07:37:36 · answer #3 · answered by Me 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So if we don't hit them back what is to stop them from hitting us over and over and over again?
No one dared touch Gandhi because of the repercussions that would have resulted. So even if he did not believe in violence, the threat of it kept him safer.
People who are predisposed to violence have no respect or concern for those who do not resist.
Why do you think the priests had Jesus, who was non violent, arrested at night and tried before morning? Because of the fear of the reaction of his followers.
2006-08-29 07:53:00 · answer #4 · answered by mark g 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pacifism is generally suicidal if it is only done by one side.
If you personally wish to risk your life and your childrens' lives based on the misconception that other people will act in a sane and rational manner, go for it.
But I know human nature better, and understand that there will always be people who will use violence to achieve their ends. And they should be smote. Hard.
2006-08-29 08:20:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I can't say I would obey anyone who whacks me really hard, except for sexual purposes.
2006-08-29 07:37:22 · answer #6 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can whack me anytime? Rowwwwrrr
2006-08-29 08:00:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
someone whacked me really hard and i would kick there a.s.s really bad. screw that crap. get youre guts up and go on a kick a.s.s spree. fight as hard and nasty as you can. punks like that will know not to mess with you after that
2006-08-29 07:38:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
may i have another?
2006-08-29 07:35:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋