Search Results: physical violence

Yay.

First of all, I'm not saying violence is a good thing. It's most definitely a bad thing. What I'm asking is if you're walking down the pacifist path where you're against all use of violence or if you accept that violence might sometimes be necessary to both change or uphold society. The yay above means I believe in the latter and I'm going to try to make a case for it:

I honestly don't think non violent methods have ever achieved anything noteworthy. If you have an example, feel free to present it. Lets take the civil rights movement for example; how much did King really achieve before the panthers took action? Nothing at all really, the necessary catalyst to open up for serious talks was violence. Again and again this pattern repeats itself. You can go to peaceful rallies as much as you want, I don't think it's a bad thing at all, it's a necessary component when working for change - just as I believe violence is. What bothers me is the blanket condemnations on people trying to achieve the same goals through more action oriented means, be it physical violence, destruction of property or whatever method preferred to hurt the opposition. These self righteous pacifists don't just hurt their cause with their ignorance, they also legitimize the people currently in power - directly against their own interests.

So, what do you think? I was going to give you an "I don't know" option but there's no such option in real life so there won't be one here either. Please keep it constructive and back up your arguments rather than just calling me out as a terrorist mmkay?