And people used "thuggery and extortion", as well as beatings and murders, to keep African Americans down. They treated them like animals, leading to a massive and horrible amount of bloodshed. And yet through non-violence, all men and women of different ethnicities in America have equal rights. Things aren't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than when people tried to solve their problems with hate-crimes and violence. You wanted an example of non-violence solving a horrible situation, and you got one. Now, as promised, concede the point. Unless, of course, you don't actually want stop fighting, and at this point are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

check my edit lol. i feel like you're ignoring my point on purpose here. i'm not arguing against non violence, i'm arguing against compromise in the face of violence. never asked for an example of non violence working. maybe i worded that one post too vaguely and that's how you took it but that's not what i meant.

i disagree tbh. just saying something doesn't make it so. seems like a pretty straight forward comparison to me.

and i honestly feel like i'm addressing each point you guys throw at me while you do your best to avoid mine lol. i'm sure that sounds arrogant but oh well

How is the Civil Rights movement not an example of compromise and non-violent demonstrations working in the face of violence? Instead of just killing each other, people from all backgrounds decided to stop fighting and actually talk to each other. The racists compromised with them by allowing seperate but equal facilities. This eventually led to equal and integrated facilities, and finally things got to the point where everyone used the same facilities without even thinking about it. Things changed for the better, and it all started with people making compromises.

They preached peace and understanding when confronted with violence. Remember Ghandi's quote "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"? The British, who could have squashed their rebellion, made compromises with them, and eventually peacefully gave them their independence. And it's all because people decided to give up on violence and revenge. Compromising wouldn't have been just giving up; non-violence was the compromise.

If they had followed your advice of fighting back when attacked by an enemy, they'd still be subjugated.

But thank you for proving my point even further.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_zF7nbEvwY

Dunno if you lot have seen it but 1:35 onward. Funniest thing I've seen in a long time (it's not true ftr, bit about London has some truth to it), it's like something Brass Eye would do.

#FoxNewsFacts on Twitter.

it is an example of non-violent tactics (i.e. expression) being used to coax compromise out of violent thugs. that is great. i was never saying that can't happen. i was saying you don't back down to thugs just like they didn't back down to thugs.

the racists compromised and stopped being violent. the civil rights protesters didn't compromise and stop asking for civil rights in the face of violence. in this analogy, the extremists are the racists. i'm saying we shouldn't stop expecting to have the right to freedom of expression in the face of violent thuggery. basically: compromising rights in exchange for safety isn't the answer.

You admit that The Civil Rights Movement was an example of non-violence and compromise successfully defeating a culture of violence. You admit that non-violence has the power to diffuse situations that violence only makes worse. You also admitted that thousands of years of turmoil have created a situation in the Middle East that has historically been made worse when people try to use violence to solve things. And yet... you're still arguing? About what? I can't even tell anymore. By agreeing with me, you have just debunked your initial point of "The only way to solve things is to get revenge on the terrorists". It's over. Now can we finally go get some waffles? (I didn't forget about your diet: I'll order a side of bacon for ya')

Your argument:
The part when you gave up on that argument:

lol... level with me honestly are you ignoring my words on purpose or do we have some sort of communication barrier? i'm saying we should stand up for free speech in the face of violence and that means yea saying what we want and standing up for people saying what they want. basically it means not backing down. with words. that's where i'm saying don't compromise. if you agree with that then you agree with me. if you don't then you don't. it's really that simple.

You've already agreed with me that compromise and non-violence are more effective than using violent methods. Why are you still fighting? You yourself have agreed that even though you initially said that we should seek revenge and violence against people who wrong us, a peaceful solution would be much more effective.

I'll post it again...

Your argument:
The part when you gave up on that argument: