: : How about being plain old jerks, SDF -- what's the pyschological pathology behind that?: SDF: LEARN.
Chatting with you is a learning experience.
: : Don't be so goddamned self-righteous.
: SDF: Who is telling us "nonviolence is the only way" while endorsing gratuitous warfare?
I have said that the strong have an obligation to defend the weak, by force if necessary. I have repeatedly said that I do not believe in gratuitous violence, only that necessary to counter violence. Non-violent civil disobedience is the only way a weaker party can defeat a stronger opponent. More to the point, it is absolutely the appropriate method to use when your opponent is not engaged in outright sustained violence against you. Martin Luther Kind, whom I greatly admire, led nonviolent marches in the face of unjust laws and meanspirited people; I doubt he would have used that had the South been engaged in genocide. Gandhi did the same with the British. When the oppressor escalates to genocidal activities, as in Kosovo, then non-violence becomes a losing strategy -- if their killing you anyway when you resist, they'll kill you when you're not resisting too.
As for the WTO meeting in Seattle, those delegates were not out there punching people. Why do you defend (some thuggish) protesters' completely gratuitous use of violence?
