Author

Topic: Truth backed by violence VS Lies backed by violence, who wins? (Read 1258 times)

member
Activity: 119
Merit: 100
I believe that truth backed by violence, lead naturally to the moral high ground, which may not mean earthly victory over the liars. Anyone cares? 
Any time that violence is used, the message behind it is somewhat distorted and as a result violence is generally not going to be the best way to spread your message.

Using violence to spread your message is very similar to "ruling with fear"
I very much agree with this. The use of fear may get people to publicly agree with you however they will agree with you in private nor will they truly believe in your message.
legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
I believe that truth backed by violence, lead naturally to the moral high ground, which may not mean earthly victory over the liars. Anyone cares?  

Interesting question,
I guess I would interpret that as people truly believe in what they must pay for with Blood Sweat and Tears
Else it is a hollow victory and its true value may not be revealed.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
The truth never sells.

But the mob loves to see "blood and guts".

The truth always sell since it's the closest match to reality available. Those wanting to be in denial will bear the consequences of their choices, since reality is inescapable.

Man longs and hungers for truth and yet dreads the self-discipline that accompanies truth.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 123
"PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank U"
Violence should only be employed as a last resort, basically after all other attempts of non-violent communication have been exhausted. Typically, those acting under the "truth" do not need to resort to violence, except as a reaction to prior violence (aka aggression).

Violence is merely a tool, and like most tools, it should be used properly.

I agree that it's a tool better kept unused. However you forget those 2 doctrines of engagement. I predictive & II preemptive. I don't have to wait for you to exercise violence to stop you from harming me, otherwise it would be too late. It's called alternatively: better safe than sorry or shoot first discuss later.

Truth always prevails. Always.


Of course because truth only get closer to reality, when lies always move to unreality or fiction.

The truth never sells.

But the mob loves to see "blood and guts".

The truth always sell since it's the closest match to reality available. Those wanting to be in denial will bear the consequences of their choices, since reality is inescapable.

There is no such thing as truth which means there is no lie either. The powerful dictates what 'truth' is. 
To answer your question, 'they' both 'lose'.
It should also be noted that, if there is no way to differentiate between the 2 sides, it means that it's one entity fighting itself  Cheesy

you are in absolute denial. Truth = best useful narrative of reality. If I tell you there is the shade of a tree behind this rock... How could untruth be told? Reality is a surface, like a mirror, only an inspiration can match all of its asperities, living it rather than seeing it. Once that is achieved sides become like un ending reflections of the same lies with no emprise on reality since it can't be conquered but lived in a singular harmony whose sole complexity can match reality. And there you breath.

Now we're pretty much building an entirely new economy that is separate from the state and the church, running entirely on mathematics so hopefully history won't end up repeating itself at least as far as any of us cryptocurrency users are concerned.

Are mathematics in line with reality? there is one apple and a pineapple. How many fruits there are? The answer is when? Now? 2.

Violence backed by violence wins. Truth or false are just excuses.

Violence is self backed. However truth is the closest thing available to reality and lies are the farthest. There is no way to "excuse" reality. it is.

Any time that violence is used, the message behind it is somewhat distorted and as a result violence is generally not going to be the best way to spread your message.

Using violence to spread your message is very similar to "ruling with fear"

I didn't said used, I said backed.


When a saw cuts into the heart of a tree, trust me, it is quite violent.

We really need to differentiate between "violence" and "aggression" in these simple political discussions.


That's why it's better to use dead wood, and all trees die, you just have to be patient.

How would you differentiate between "violence" and "aggression", I prefer to think in the term of anything that may risk to cause a damage.

lol aggression is the same, I guess if you want to be that specific I'm against all forms of violence towards sentient beings capable of free and intelligent thought.

Why not extended it to all living beings? Against trees being among the livings?

Clearly lies backed by violence, aka government, has won.

I like the words of jet lee, rephrased in bring ty enemy closer to thy, so that thou may win over him, and ultimately from your worst enemy to your best friend, if he can overcome his lies... I agree it may seems to an untrained eye as a temporary weak position, but it's wanted, a trained eye will say that the edge is just being deployed. Slow motion battle. One leaf a time, the grass conquered the Earth. It's impossible to win against reality. it is or it isn't. it's dual. y or n. 1 or 0.

They haven't won, they just control a building and a few countries, all that is meaningless in the long run when you are vying for an entire planet.

you can't control reality. but you can leave in truth.

yoohhoo full answer  Shocked  Roll Eyes

legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
They haven't won, they just control a building and a few countries, all that is meaningless in the long run when you are vying for an entire planet.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
Clearly lies backed by violence, aka government, has won.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
lol aggression is the same, I guess if you want to be that specific I'm against all forms of violence towards sentient beings capable of free and intelligent thought.
full member
Activity: 206
Merit: 100
I believe that truth backed by violence, lead naturally to the moral high ground, which may not mean earthly victory over the liars. Anyone cares? 
Any time that violence is used, the message behind it is somewhat distorted and as a result violence is generally not going to be the best way to spread your message.

Using violence to spread your message is very similar to "ruling with fear"
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Violence backed by violence wins. Truth or false are just excuses.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
I'm against all forms of violence but I'm not so pacifist that I won't defend myself if somebody tries to oppress me using violence themselves and yes as others have said, truth always wins in the end even if lies may win the assholes using them gain a short term victory. I do believe that even though he didn't win the presidency people like Ron Paul has had quite an affect on people in America and elsewhere because of the way he told the truth about how the whole banking system works. Now we're pretty much building an entirely new economy that is separate from the state and the church, running entirely on mathematics so hopefully history won't end up repeating itself at least as far as any of us cryptocurrency users are concerned.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000
There is no such thing as truth which means there is no lie either. The powerful dictates what 'truth' is. 
To answer your question, 'they' both 'lose'.
It should also be noted that, if there is no way to differentiate between the 2 sides, it means that it's one entity fighting itself  Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
The truth never sells.

But the mob loves to see "blood and guts".
legendary
Activity: 1267
Merit: 1000
Truth always prevails. Always.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 123
"PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank U"
I believe that truth backed by violence, lead naturally to the moral high ground, which may not mean earthly victory over the liars. Anyone cares? 
Jump to: