Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Civil Disobedience

War or Peace?





















Should civil disobedience be violent or non-violent? Do you believe in a peaceful, demonstrative resistance? Or do you believe in an aggressive, revolutionary resistance? Leave a comment of at least FIVE sentences.

34 comments:

  1. Civil disobedience should be both violent and nonviolent. I believe this because sometimes people have to be rough to get their point(s) across. I believe in both a peaceful, demonstrative resistance and an aggressive, revolutionary resistance. People can start out being peaceful about their beliefs/opinions, but if no one listens, then I think they have the right to become aggressive so other people will listen. but people should not start out aggressive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think If possible civil disobedience should be handled in a non-violent manner, but sometimes it may requires violence. I believe that aggressive matters should only come about if there is no peaceful way left. Some situations don't need violence while others definitely do it just depends on the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree with this because I believe no matter what the situation is violence is never the way to solve situations, it only makes things worse instead of better.

      Delete
    2. Most situations don't require violence but some do very few occasions, if peace was always a successful option then there wouldn't be as many wars

      Delete
    3. Sometimes there just is no other way. We live in a world where smart people, capable of resolving things non violently, are not the majority.

      Delete
  3. One should always trying to be peaceful first. Never start off with violence. One must start with peace and try to solve the issue. If and only if the issues not solved by peace, then one must result to an organized violence rather than just a rage. But this should be one's last resort. never start off with violence, because this could only make the issue escalate to a much more complex state.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe in a non-violent civil disobedience. most problems that people have today can be resolved in talking things out, not jumping up and hurting someone. If violence is the only thing that will help then I think the person should do whatever needs to be done but nothing more. I think that it should be talked through first though and to try everything else before turning to violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What if there is no other way left that requires peace and being the nice guy?

      Delete
    2. Then you turn to violence, they are trying to say violence should be a last resort.

      Delete
    3. There always is a way. If someone tries to be violent, mean, and rude about things, kill them with kindness.

      Delete
  5. I believe in a peaceful, demonstrative resistance because everything should not be solved with violence or harsh words. Problems can be solved in a manner that is calm and peaceful rather than just jumping into violence or using harsh words towards others. Peacefulness is the mature way of handling problems or conflicts so you can get your point across without being interrupted or getting beat up for anything you have said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree because when you try to reason with someone there are always going to be people that will tempt you into violence

      Delete
  6. I believe that civil disobedience should always be tried in a peaceful, demonstrative way at first. Sometimes, doing it that way works; an example being the Greensboro sit-in. That method, however, does not always work. In certain situations, violence is the only way that will get something done. If the cause is important enough, I believe that violence is acceptable; that is if peaceful demonstrations have failed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But violence won't help anything, ever. So, yeah.. I mean you can only get in trouble if you're violent.

      Delete
    2. Well if we were not violent when we were under English rule then this country would not exist today.

      Delete
  7. I think that to lead a protest there must be a mixture of both non violent and violent types of protesting. Only using one of these types will not will as well as both. If you only protest peacefully people may not think you are serious. If you protest to violently no one may agree with you. With just the right blend of peace and violence any problem should be able to be solved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree it doesn't have to consist of non violent and violent protests it could be just one it just depends on the situation.

      Delete
    2. I disagree because if you ARE serious about your protest, people will take you seriously without the protest having to be violent.

      Delete
    3. I don't agree with this because you can't really have a mix of peace and violence. Having violence in any way makes it a violent protest. The only way I could see it as having some peace is by having an organized violent protest, but even then, it's not peaceful.

      Delete
    4. Why would you want to be violent right from the start? Wy not be nice at first and see if that would work.

      Delete
    5. I disagree because u can have peace and violence

      Delete
    6. I disagree because you can't have peace and violence

      Delete
  8. Yes I think that there a way to disagree with someone and not be mean about it . Just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean that you have to argue with that person. Everything is not always right so there are going to be times when you disagree with someone. You don't have to disobey someone just to tell them that they are wrong about whatever it is they are saying or doing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only time in history when things have actually been changed is when violence is added. I disagree.

      Delete
  9. Civil disobedience should be peaceful, because violence won't help solve a problem, just make it worse. If civil disobedianse becomes violent, people won't listen because they're too busy wanting to kill ya. Peacefull disobedience hurts nobody, and gets your point across more effectively, even if it's fun to kill people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what happens when the non-violence doesn't work? And the people that you are protesting against are violent towards you? How are you supposed to handle that situation?

      Delete
  10. I believe civil disobeidence should be non-violent. There should be peaceful, demonstrative resistance instead of aggressive resistance. Once people start getting aggressive, innocent bystanders and the ones trying to be peaceful and non-violent get hurt too. Also, the government gets involved when things get violent. And some people can get fatally hurt and even killed when things get violent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think there should be aggressive revolutionary resistance because they have tried peaceful and it seems not to work so they should try aggressive revoultionary resistance. Civil disobedience should be non-violent because we have war and they are violent and we still have problems today.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you think it should be aggressive?

      Delete
    2. Thats not always true everyone is not the same.... Just because u tried to be civil with one person and the other person didn't that doesn't mean everyone is going to be like that

      Delete
  12. I believe that it should be a peaceful, demonstrative resistance because it should be peaceful instead of having a bunch of commotion going on. It's just better in general. There wouldn't be as much fussing going on as there would be in the aggressive. Another reason why it should be peaceful is because violence isn't the answer in trying to tell someone they are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Non violence never works until something tragic happens to the person disobeying non violently; most of the time it has been death.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think it should be peaceful and nonvolant. Using words and peaceful protest to get their point across. But, when necessary, the protesters may need to be violent in a way to make others respect them and their beliefs. Although sometimes needing force, civil disobedience should be handled peacefully if possible. Most of the time, there is no reason to bring violence into something that can be very easily handled non-violently.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe that the type of protest depends on the topic at hand. If it is something that can be handled with a peaceful protest it should stay at a peaceful protest. However if the subject at hand is to large to be handled with a peacefull protest, such as being under another country's rule and bring treated harshly, should be responded with aggressiveness.

    ReplyDelete