It depends on the situation and there is no definitive answer. In short, your actions should match the threat. If the threat is imminently violent, a concurrent violent response may be necessary. However, acting preemptively with violence is rarely necessary. IE - you don't need to bring guns to a knife fight.
Absolutely: that's why he arranged non-violent protests like sit-ins, marches and boycotts. The whole idea of non-violent protest really comes from Gandhi. Most places where large-scale change has happened on a national scale in the past century, it has come through (primarily) non-violent protest: India, the U.S., and South Africa are some obvious examples.Many think the Palestinians, for example, would have a better chance of getting what they want if they used non-violence.
Yes, but a a scrolled cordon is better.
I am not into law, but I think that if schools offer classes then the violence will increase. One reason is because a lot of fighters want to be better than their opponent, so there will be an increase in fights. Now, I think if collegs started to offer many different fighting classes, the violence would not increase by much. Why? There are usually many good people in college. They SHOULD be mature enough to not pick fights.
there is brute strength and there is spiritual strength. I would say the latter is non-violence in Buddhism, and therefore all buddhist symbols represent strength. Further than that you would have to look into Hindu, or Vedic, symbolism I'm afraid.
This is a subject that scholars and critics have been debating for decades. There is some research that indicates TV violence can be a factor in how kids perceive the world: George Gerbner, a famous media researcher, came up with "Cultivation Theory," which says that the more violence kids watch, the more they come to see it as normal, and further, the more they start to think the world is a violent and dangerous place-- this is known as the "Mean World Syndrome." People who want to blame TV violence for problems in society are probably overstating their case, however. While TV violence can certainly be ONE influence, it is not the only influence-- kids and young adults are also influenced by parents, peers, schools, religion, and other factors. That said, there is ample evidence that parents do need to monitor what their kids are watching, since kids are very impressionable and may think violence is entertaining unless someone explains to them that it is not.
Do it Gandhi style and talk it out!
Non-violence
Love without violence... or better translated love without the use of force. HamrickCE
Yes. Non-violence/pacifism is good. Unfortunately someone has to take a stand against violence, with violence , or the non-violent people will be eliminated by violent people.
In some cities, it seems as if violence is non-stop.
There are different ways to fight with non violence, this may include peaceful protests or marches. The other method of fighting with non violence is petitions.
Islam and quran both are against use violence in any action where violence could have been substituted for non-violent actions there really isn't a better or worse to either one, they are both protests and, according to history, both usually end with getting what they were about.
The continuum of violence is a framework used to explain the range of behaviors that can lead to violence. It suggests that violence exists on a spectrum, with behaviors such as verbal abuse, threats, and intimidation at one end, and physical harm and aggression at the other. By understanding this continuum, we can better recognize the warning signs and intervene to prevent violence.
The noun 'violence' is a mass (non-count) noun; multiples for violence are expressed as incidents of violence, acts of violence, occurrences of violence, reports of violence, etc.
Non violence in Tagalog can be translated to "di-pagiging marahas" or "walang karahasan."
You can get out of of him by Peace and NOn-Violence
non violence...