violence vs non-violence

India
January 25, 2007 12:56pm CST
which one do u prefer?? do u think that we can win over others by being a hitler or gandhi??
2 people like this
4 responses
@sanjeev9 (115)
• India
25 Jan 07
well now in today's world it is absolutely very wrong if we are thinking that we can win by non voilence ... because in today's world each of us thinks that he is stronger .. so we can win by voilence... i mean to say by hitlers way...
1 person likes this
• India
26 Jan 07
so if it was hitlers way then why do ppl hate hitler so much?? when we know that our future is full of voilence then why was hitler sacked ??
1 person likes this
@vthluv (40)
• India
25 Jan 07
I personally prefer non-violence. The answer to anything can be got peacefully without violence. Violence is short lived when compared to non-violence. Violence is chaotic.
1 person likes this
• India
26 Jan 07
if non-violence is the answer to all the questions then why do wars occur? what do u call the jingo's?? when the rebels are emerged from the ground of impeccable innocent ppl who are on a rage to distory......who can stop them?? and if they go non-voilently then what do u call the voilence that occurs during peacefull protests??
1 person likes this
@Lydia1901 (16351)
• United States
2 Feb 07
I think being a Ghandi will do more good than damage. I do not believe in voilence and I think people should try to talk things out more oftenly than trying to fight about them.
• United States
25 Jan 07
In the short term, voilence can control people, but in the long term, peace will slowly win people over and keep them happy enough to follow.
1 person likes this
• India
26 Jan 07
do u think the non-voilence moment of gandhi still has the effect on present generation??..