Where Were Non Violence Principles Applied ?

[Monk-Eye]

" Where Were Non Violence Principles Applied ? "

* Long Rant Some Pie *

By definition , illegitimate aggression is violence , which cedes that not all aggression is illegitimate , and which also cedes that self defense against illegitimate aggression is legitimate aggression .

Em am was spatting online responding to article comments from a fictional ishmaelism pakistani bemoaning public proscriptions to acquire live beef for sacrifice in hindu india communities is being repressed .

Ultimately , a respite made light that hindus have their own reasons for vegetarianism , or for not killing tenet ; and , an attempt was made to explain reasons where cattle limits affect the global ecology , hence quasi , passively , ceding validation for the aggression set for by the hi-n-du edict .

* Introduction Of Multiple Parallels *

An ethical question of this thread is this , " Is a proscription of law by hindus thereby preventing cattle from being killed , even for sacrifice , illegitimate aggression and therefore violence ? "

An answer to the ethical question might consider whether hinduism is entitled to the aggression of self defense against illegitimate aggression from fictional ishmaelism i slam or from any demanding that the killing cattle proscription be removed by communities of india .


* Sore Did History Tenets Presuming Universal Application *

How is this not railed as hate speech ?

https://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Quran - Saheeh International Translation .pdf
9:5. And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakāh, let them [go] on their
way. Indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.

...

9:28. O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Harām after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, God will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, God is Knowing and Wise.

9:29. Fight those who do not believe in God or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e., Islām] from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.


* Public Narratives Commandeering Eisegesis Exegesis Authority Four Religious Polity *
The ninth sura ( ~sermon ) from qurayn was written one hundred and thirteen of one hundred and fourteen , as accepted .

Among the public at large are potentates disputing interpretation and purporting piety for pomp in perspectives and distributing propaganda that only their perspectives are valid to call it fate .

The distinction between torahnism , qurayshism , antinomianism and fictional ishmaelism is purposeful for evaluating the scope of implications where a doctrine includes tenets or edicts for illegitimate aggression , for violence .

The genetic religion of torahnism includes edicts that lineal descendants of isaac immigrate to the geographic region of israel and establish a nomian religious polity to assure the genetic continuance of a haploid from that eponymous patriarch ; at issue are the limits of scope within which illegitimate is tenable .

The genetic religion of qurayshism includes edicts that lineal descendants of ishmael immigrate to the geographic region of hejaz and establish a nomian religious polity to assure the genetic continuance of a haploid from that eponymous patriarch ; at issue are the limits of scope within which illegitimate is tenable .

Antinomianism is an antithesis of legalism disavowing a necessity for any nomian religious polity , which is both utopian and dystopian leading to a contradiction , hence it is a paradox .

Now fictional ishmaelism is a debase pretense that qurayshism would apply outside of hejaz and at issue are the limits of scope within which illegitimate aggression is tenable .

At issue with fictional ishmaelism are directives to emigrate and establish a nomian religious polity whereby the limit of scope from doctrine prescribing illegitimate aggression is no longer bound by geography or by name .


* Fourteen Centuries Of Aggression By Doctrine Scrutinized As Violence *

Part of surah 2 describes ramadan , where adherents are told only to issue self defense only , to only fight those who fight them , but the self defense rule only applies for the month of ramadan , as otherwise surah 9 prevails .

The surah 9 founds part of a militant manifest illegitimate aggression that expects compliance with a nomian religious polity from the presumption of mu ham ad to " to manifest it over all religion" ,

An issue of for qurayshism from fictional ishmaelism is that fictional ishmaelism implicitly includes the militant manifest for illegitimate aggression of qurayshism .

Thus , why would any celebrate the eid al adha as a end to a temporary armistice for illegitimate aggression by edicts and tenets of creed by fictional ishmaelism i slam ?


* Hindus Follow Thousand Years Tradition While Constantine Imposes Uniform More All It Tee *

As volumes by comparison occur , hindus are content with a numerous avatars by which to personify life experiences by comparison .

It is similar with Iconologia, or, Moral emblems : Ripa, Cesare, fl. 1600 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive .

A compelling question is this , " Why would hindu option a panorama of traditional avatars in exchange for an over simplified apologue about good versus evil , which is based from syncretism with lore of nomadic astrologer observations and personifying celestial bodies as deities controlling fates ? " .

The simplified apologue about good versus evil has been related through the earth moon in sin mythology and the planet venus in luciferianism .

Syncretism - Wikipedia
Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia
Luciferianism - Wikipedia
Sky deity - Wikipedia
Apologue - Wikipedia

Cosmogony - Wikipedia
Cosmogony can be distinguished from cosmology, which studies the universe at large, its existence and does not inquire directly into the source of its origins. Yet, there is little ambiguity between cosmogony and cosmology in terms of the humanities. For instance, the cosmological argument from theology regarding the existence of God is an appeal to cosmogonical rather than cosmological ideas. However, in practice, there is a scientific distinction between cosmological and cosmogonical ideas.[17]


* List Of Credible Examples Where Natural Reflex Imposes Fated Consequences *

Some notes of consequence to clear cutting land for cattle include : methane is 75 times more heat absorbent than an equal mass of carbon dioxide ; and , the shade canopy is lost that includes a natural ability to create oxygen and compact carbon dioxide by metabolizing it from the atmosphere , which many have levied over time as contributing to a global warming of this biome .

 

[ding]

Stop right there. Defense is not aggression. It is a response to aggression. Yes, defense can involve a physical response, but it is the initiation of a physical response which distinguishes the two.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Fleshing Out "

* Inn Deed Knot *

Stop right there. Defense is not aggression. It is a response to aggression. Yes, defense can involve a physical response, but it is the initiation of a physical response which distinguishes the two.

Your assertion that " Defense is not aggression . " is emphatically false .

Self defense is legitimate aggression ; and , not all aggression is illegitimate ; save it to state , where aggression is legitimate or illegitimate may be contentious .

There is a conflagration in the application of terminology and language that is resultant from emphatic error and missed perceptions in an understanding for non violence principles and non aggression principles .

The following thread elaborates errors and resolves the disparities between the two theories - Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ? .

In short , the founders of non aggression principles were taking a nap for failing to define a difference between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression in the theory .

With a presumption that not all aggression is illegitimate , a direct application of language remands a theory termed non aggression principles to reject aggression which would necessarily imply passivity .

The history of contributions towards theory of non aggression principles sought to define individualism and liberty in the context of legitimate versus illegitimate aggression , but failed to include the terminology .

Alternatively , the history of non violence principles has been forwarded by many as passivity and its theorists have seldom sought to define individualism and liberty in the contest of legitimate versus illegitimate aggression .

It may be that theorists of non violence principles have not ever included a definition that illegitimate aggression is violence .

 

[ding]

" Fleshing Out "

* Inn Deed Knot *

Stop right there. Defense is not aggression. It is a response to aggression. Yes, defense can involve a physical response, but it is the initiation of a physical response which distinguishes the two.

Your assertion that " Defense is not aggression . " is emphatically false .

Self defense is legitimate aggression ; and , not all aggression is illegitimate ; save it to state , where aggression is legitimate or illegitimate may be contentious .

There is a conflagration in the application of terminology and language that is resultant from emphatic error and missed perceptions in an understanding for non violence principles and non aggression principles .

The following thread elaborates errors and resolves the disparities between the two theories - Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ? .

In short , the founders of non aggression principles theory were taking a nap for failing to define in its theory a difference between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression .

As such , a direct application of language remands the theory of non aggression principles as necessarily rejecting aggression which would necessarily imply passivity .

The history of contributions towards theory of non aggression principles sought to define individualism and liberty in the context of legitimate versus illegitimate aggression , but failed to include the terminology .

Alternatively , the history of non violence principles has been forwarded by many as passivity and its theorists have seldom sought to define individualism and liberty in the contest of legitimate versus illegitimate aggression .

It may be that theorists of non violence principles have not ever included a definition that illegitimate aggression is violence .

The fact that you have to make the distinction of legitimate says otherwise. It’s just another way of saying defensive.

So if party A attacked party B and party B defended themselves and then later attacked party A in retaliation, party B would be the aggressor in the 2nd attack.

There’s no need to assign a moral behavior in describing who is and isn’t the aggressor.

 

[ding]

If someone believed in non-violence as a practice then they would never be the aggressor or the defender. They would take what they got and never have any physical response at all no matter what.

Because to do otherwise would be hypocritical.

I don’t really understand the whole vegetarian thing as a moral position as plants are living things too and you must eat something.

 

[Oddball]

Not non-violence principle, non-aggression principle.

There's nothing immoral or fattening about reciprocal force against initiators of aggression.

 

[ding]

Not non-violence principle, non-aggression principle.

There's nothing immoral or fattening about reciprocal force against initiators of aggression.

Agreed.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Paradigm Shift "

* Aggression Buy Example *

Not non-violence principle, non-aggression principle.
There's nothing immoral or fattening about reciprocal force against initiators of aggression.

Aggression that is not illegitimate is not necessarily immoral .

Is free speech intended to be adaptive , because it is perceived to be offensive , not aggression ?

Facts are that society has deemed all aggression to be illegitimate aggression ( violence ) and that is emphatically false .

Takeover - Wikipedia
Management of the target company may or may not agree with a proposed takeover, and this has resulted in the following takeover classifications: friendly, hostile, reverse or back-flip.

 

[ding]

" Paradigm Shift "

* Aggression Buy Example *

Not non-violence principle, non-aggression principle.
There's nothing immoral or fattening about reciprocal force against initiators of aggression.

Aggression that is not illegitimate is not necessarily immoral .

Is free speech intended to be adaptive , because it is perceived to be offensive , not aggression ?

Facts are that society has deemed all aggression to be illegitimate aggression ( violence ) and that is emphatically false .

Takeover - Wikipedia
Management of the target company may or may not agree with a proposed takeover, and this has resulted in the following takeover classifications: friendly, hostile, reverse or back-flip.

The problem is now you need a standard for moral.

If you have no standard it’s just an opinion.

 

[ding]

Opposing sides always see their actions as legitimate.

And there in lies the flaw in the OP.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Comedy Of Quixotic Attempts To Dispatch Opening Post "

* Deriving Schema For Best Advantages Given Relativism *

The problem is now you need a standard for moral.
If you have no standard it’s just an opinion.

To begin , advocates for contemporary " natural law " are pandering a pretentious bad joke , so hopefully that absurdity remains dormant , else see perspectivism .

It is proposed that self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents ) are foundations of individualism .

It is proposed that threats or acts of physical force against the self ownership or self determination of an individual are illegitimate aggression , hence violence .

Thus , murder , assault , rape , etc . are illegitimate aggressions against self ownership ; and , theft , vandalism , etc . are illegitimate aggression against self ownership .

In addition , one cannot surrender self ownership to settle a debt from self determination , meaning that enslavement is illegitimate aggression against self ownership .


* Aggressive Arena *

Opposing sides always see their actions as legitimate.
And there in lies the flaw in the OP.

The theorists for non aggression principles seek to establish a difference between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression ; however , they err by failing to define illegitimate aggression as violence ; rather , they suppose that any aggression is illegitimate .

The perspectives discerning whether aggression is legitimate or illegitimate are often contentious , which is why civil court dockets are full ; however , that detracts neither from theories to determine the difference nor from the OP .


Perspectivism - Wikipedia
There are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations.[1] Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes.[2] Rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[3] "Truth" is thus created by integrating different vantage points together.

 

[ding]

" Comedy Of Quixotic Attempts To Dispatch Opening Post "

* Deriving Schema For Best Advantages Given Relativism *

The problem is now you need a standard for moral.
If you have no standard it’s just an opinion.

To begin , advocates for contemporary " natural law " are pandering a pretentious bad joke , so hopefully that absurdity remains dormant , else see perspectivism .

It is proposed that self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents ) are foundations of individualism .

It is proposed that threats or acts of physical force against the self ownership or self determination of an individual are illegitimate aggression , hence violence .

Thus , murder , assault , rape , etc . are illegitimate aggressions against self ownership ; and , theft , vandalism , etc . are illegitimate aggression against self ownership .

In addition , one cannot surrender self ownership to settle a debt from self determination , meaning that enslavement is illegitimate aggression against self ownership .


* Aggressive Arena *

Opposing sides always see their actions as legitimate.
And there in lies the flaw in the OP.

The theorists for non aggression principles seek to establish a difference between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression ; however , they err by failing to define illegitimate aggression as violence ; rather , they suppose that any aggression is illegitimate .

The perspectives discerning whether aggression is legitimate or illegitimate are often contentious , which is why civil court dockets are full ; however , that detracts neither from theories to determine the difference nor from the OP .


Perspectivism - Wikipedia
There are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations.[1] Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes.[2] Rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[3] "Truth" is thus created by integrating different vantage points together.

Only if you believe in absolute truth.

 

[ding]

The beauty of the argument for moral relativity is that proponents of moral relativity only believe the beliefs of others are relative. They believe their beliefs should be universally known and accepted.

Thus negating their argument for moral relativity.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Absolution Alternatives Adventure "

* Subjective Versus Objective Evaluation *

Only if you believe in absolute truth.

Is that reference may to the comment about contemporary reference to " natural law " ?

* Reviewing An Explanation Of Perspectivism *

The beauty of the argument for moral relativity is that proponents of moral relativity only believe the beliefs of others are relative. They believe their beliefs should be universally known and accepted.
Thus negating their argument for moral relativity.

Perspectivism - Wikipedia

" This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid. "

" Rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[3]

" "Truth" is thus created by integrating different vantage points together. "

" Truth is made by and for individuals and peoples.[4] This view differs from many types of relativism which consider the truth of a particular proposition as something that altogether cannot be evaluated .... "

 

[ding]

" Absolution Alternatives Adventure "

* Subjective Versus Objective Evaluation *

Only if you believe in absolute truth.

Is that reference may to the comment about contemporary reference to " natural law " ?

* Reviewing An Explanation Of Perspectivism *

The beauty of the argument for moral relativity is that proponents of moral relativity only believe the beliefs of others are relative. They believe their beliefs should be universally known and accepted.
Thus negating their argument for moral relativity.

Perspectivism - Wikipedia

" This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid. "

" Rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[3]

" "Truth" is thus created by integrating different vantage points together. "

" Truth is made by and for individuals and peoples.[4] This view differs from many types of relativism which consider the truth of a particular proposition as something that altogether cannot be evaluated .... "

Standards exist for reasons.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Traditional Versus Contemporary Alternative Standards "

* Political Science Adequately Defined *

Standards exist for reasons.

One standard is to define illegitimate aggression as violence .

On the other note , the contemporary theory of " natural law " is primarily theistic and fails to present a sufficient explanation for how a " divine law against murder " would either prevent the act or issue a judgment of immediate death to the perpetrator , rather conjecture for a " final judgment " of an immortal soul is levied .

The principles of non violence proposes that adultery is illegitimate aggression :

i ) Private property and willful intents from self determination would be included in the marriage contract .

ii ) Progeny from self ownership is dependent on both resources and time , adultery includes deceit against informed consent and is a breach of contract .


* Useful Political Science Terms To Delineate Individual Liberty *

" Disregard For Authoritarian Histrionics "

* Advanced Topics *

Less tyrannical constitutions are devised in terms of negative and positive wrights , where negative wrights are phrased as proscriptions against government , and where positive wrights are phrased as prescriptions for government action .

From negative wrights and positive wrights , negative and positive liberties for individuals arise , where negative liberties are freedoms of individuals to act without interference from government , and where positive liberties are endowments to individuals from government .

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia
Negative liberty - Wikipedia
Positive liberty - Wikipedia

Natural law - Wikipedia