Middle East

[Invert]

I was not going to write this and just say "fuck it, I don't care enough to explain this to people" but I found some time for this (lucky you).

It is undeniably true that human beings are incapable of being non-violent and non-aggressive. Throughout all known human history there has never been permanent peace amongst human beings.

Violence and aggression are not taught and are natural to humans. While a human being can be taught not to act upon the feelings of aggression and violence the human will always retain feelings of aggression and violence. The amygdala which is located in each hemisphere of the brain has been shown to be the area that causes aggression. The hypothalamus area of the brain is believed to serve a regulatory role in aggression.

Humans might be able to control some of their aggressive and violent nature but will never be non-violent or non-aggressive.

If you are thinking "where did this guy get this crap?"

I got most of this information from reading peer reviewed articles from EBSCOhost written by professors of psychology and medicine. There was even an article about babies in their infancy stage showing signs of violence (being violent) when hungry or uncomfortable.
Unfortunately I cannot link to those articles because you need a subscription to access such a research database. Major university usually can afford to pay for access to EBSCOhost. If you attend one and have access or attended one and still have access to EBSCOhost, you can search for peer reviewed dissertations on human aggression and violence.

Now, back to the point:

With humans being human, permanent peace is improbable. When I asked the question in reference to the link, "How does one make peace with someone that does not want peace?" I did not want to get into the discussion of what the word "peace" means to you. I wanted you to come up with a solution to the problem (using violent or non-violent methods) that the article discussed.

My second question was not a question asking for your opinion. It was a challenge for you to come up with a factual answer (once again not your opinion) to my question. I don't care about individuals promoting non-violent solutions. For every Martin Luther King, Jr. there are 50 Black Panther Party members. I care about the actions of human beings on a society level because this relates to the article of Palestinians vs. Israelis.

History shows on many occasions that temporary peace was achieved with great success using aggression and violence. The frequency and efficiency of using violence and aggression to achieve temporary peace amongst human beings will eclipse any historical example (if you can provide one) of temporary peace being attained by using non-violent and non-aggressive means. American Revolutionary War, U.S. Civil War, World War I and II are great examples of events in time where aggression and violence was used on a massive scale to achieve peace.
 
Here are two scenarios for you to think about:
Two humans are arguing, we will call them human "A" and human "B."

1. Human A and B use the aggression and violence approach. Human B kills human A. Human B achieves temporary peace.

2. Human A and B use non-aggressive and non-violent approach. Human A and B achieve temporary peace.

What approach, in your opinion, took the least amount of time to achieve temporary peace?
What approach, in your opinion, has the potential to last?

(Note: this is not about being sympathetic to the survival of Human A. That would be a different topic on human morality and the survival of the fittest.)

And again:
How does one make peace with someone that does not want peace?
In all remembered human history, has there ever been a time where peace was achieved without violence?

[Barabajagal]

In that case, here's a better answer. Reprogram the human mind to bypass aggression, anger, fear, rage, jealousy, depression, and all other negative forms of thought. This can be accomplished in many ways, including drugs and surgery (I'm sure you've heard of the shocks [well, electrical pulses] to the back of the brain that help to remove chronic depression). And as for your scenario, how about #3: Human A and B smoke a gram of weed together and become best buds.

I'm really against anything unnatural, including medicine and surgery and all that. People should die when they are naturally supposed to die. I wouldn't be alive without medicine, and the same goes for many, MANY people. Modern health is the cause of overpopulation, which is in turn the cause of excess violence (it's a proven pattern that high concentrations of any populations cause more violence and more homosexuality). The real answer is to stop being so damn human and go back to being the animals we're supposed to be.

[Ishbar]

Scenario A is best.
While both have the same outcomes, in Scenario A Human B is promised his peace with the death of Human A and that temporary peace he has gained seems much more longer because there is no other Human to worry about. Scenario B requires too much effort since negotiation requires more thought based processes.

I suppose if you really wanted to prove your point you'd  take Human A and Human B and let them be isolated minds. (Not have any form of upbringing.) You would then have two Humans only running on their basic instincts, on that they could achieve bloodless peace by one becoming the Alpha and the other the Beta.

The Human thought process causes more problems and instigates more aggression only because of rationalization. While some may rationalize that peace is good, others use their violent tenancies and justify them as rational.

If you culminate society into one big scientific pangea peace could be worked out by system of alphas and betas. Yet it is rationalization that defers us from that and we are subjected to frivolous wars and non-existent peace theories.

[Barabajagal]

If Human B kills Human A, would Human A's family or friends not want revenge upon Human B?

Humans are different from other animals because of our ability to communicate. Not just simple communication like "Hey, come here." "Don't do that." or "I'm gonna kill you". Actual communication, the conveyance of ideas and thoughts. The first scenario is animalistic. No attempt at communication, just physical conflict. The fact that humans can verbally convey their opinions without violence is what makes humans who they are. To quote Stephen Hawking: "All we need to do is make sure we keep talking".

[Newby]

Incidentally: you certainly can gain peace through war. It's just not permanent peace.

Really? How can there be war when there is nobody left?

It's extreme, but I think it has a point.

[Arta]

Well, how can there be a peace if nobody's left? A war can result in a period of peace without everyone being dead.

[Adron]

Sweden has peacefully had peace for a longer period than the US. Sweden has not sought violent solutions in a long time. Thus peaceful solutions for peace have been proven to last longer than the violent solutions the US keeps selecting.

[TehUser]

Sweden has peacefully had peace for a longer period than the US. Sweden has not sought violent solutions in a long time. Thus peaceful solutions for peace have been proven to last longer than the violent solutions the US keeps selecting.

One might also notice that Sweden isn't exactly a player on the world scene.

[Barabajagal]

That's part of how they've done so well. If you don't draw attention to yourself, people won't hate you so much.

[Newby]

That's part of how they've done so well. If you don't draw attention to yourself, people won't hate you so much.

And you also don't have much of a say in worldly affairs, either.

[Barabajagal]

World affairs usually entail terrible things like war, famine, disease, and huge mistakes by large countries. I'd much rather be left alone by all that.

[DarkMinion]

The religion of peace is only the religion of peace AFTER all the nonbelievers are dead. 

[Barabajagal]

Peace isn't a religion, it's a state of coexisting. If you want to call peace a religion, then war would be a religion as well. Peace only recently became a belief-type mental state, and one I don't entirely agree with, as complete and constant world peace is not only highly improbable without major editing of the human mind, but will most likely hinder the natural state of evolution, since fights and wars are natural ways of lowering populations that have exceeded their alloted resources... Example:
I've run out of oil, so I'm going to attack you. [Insert Battles] There's less of both of us, and the quantity of oil now is sufficient for us to share.

[Noodlez]

Solution 1 : Give every single human a lobotomy. Thus, violence and peace rule all.
Solution 2 : For one to say non-violence is impossible/improbably simply means he refuses to stop using violence and he himself doesn't want peace. Those people should quite simply take massive amounts of Heroin and shut the fuck up.
Solution 3 : Accept you are all inferior beings and heed my every command.

-God.