is the practice of non-violence an absurd principle?

Depends on ones objective...

Non-violence which inconveniences the folks that you're trying to reach will do more to enlist support for the opposition than to raise awareness of your side of an issue... assuming that people are able and willing to actually comprehend what you're trying to get across.

If the objective is to create a newsworthy event (protest) then it's probably a good idea to consider the nature of media sources that you'd hope to get to cover whatever is being staged. Most mainstream media sources are corporate owned... "free press" as they interpret it grants them latitude in what not to cover as well as how to cover what they choose to. Anyone still operating on the premise that the news is unbiased is probably living under a rock... there are numerous ways to cover a protest to abet the issue/entity being protested against... photos can be taken to create whatever impression the editorial staff wishes... perhaps that a protest was poorly attended for example. Carefully selected attendees used to depict the entire event can take away a good chunk of credibility and brand a cause in whatever manner that the news entity sees fit.

Non-violent classic protest as an opinion changing tool is completely absurd as far as I'm concerned- because most people have already made up their minds- and the "free press" is given leeway to suppress the message. However, participation in an event can be somewhat useful in keeping people engaged in a cause by reinforcing the notion that they are not alone and impart some sense of community... assuming enough people show up.

 

:smilielol5: buwahahahahaha

You are kidding, right?

No? Oh. Sorry.

 

Seems like an exercise in stupidity. Any reasonable person can settle a dispute with words. I can't imagine punching someone in the face because I don't agree with their opinion, or killing them for that matter.

Unfortunately, I do think to a point it's like fighting fire with fire. Words can only get so far when you're dealing with a violent, irrational person.

 

Violence can only be a reaction when you are attached to something. To the extent that I believe in non-attachment, I believe in non-violence. Whether I could impose it as a principle upon the world at large is not my business to say. But neither is it the business of the cynics to say it can not be implemented in the world at large.

Non-violence can only originate in the individual conscience.
"All moral culture springs directly from the inner life of the soul, and cannot be created by any external or artificial contrivances." -Chomsky
"Be the change that you want to see in the world." -Gandhi