I agree. Sometimes a debate arises where we feel our two cents has to be heard. The point is, if we choose our battles, then we should at least know when to bring it to an end. Since as you say having the last word doesn't mean you win the debate, neither does walking away mean you lose it. The notion that a conflict isn't over till it has sunk to the level of abuse is a standard for the individual to place upon themself.Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
That was exactly my view. An alternative viewpoint is still needed.
Of course no-one is going to change their mind and the term 'context' will automatically be equalled to 'apalogist'. Still, it does not change the fact that I at least am not one of those, depite what another here may think.
I tend to agree with what Juniper has said. Putting people on ignore is annoying. Firstly it makes you curious as to what he/she has said, because the tag 'this user is on your ignore list' is glarig at you, and secondly, it looks kind of weird in a conversation and may make for strange replies.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
Re: Countries that do not subscribe to conflict
It is worth noting that heavily Buddhist countries in terms of devotion to one of the tenets of the philosophy/religon which is essentially conflict avoidance have a history of being overrun by either another country or by strongmen(the Military) within the country:
Three countries spring to mind:
Tibet
Cambodia
Burma
They tend to practice passive resistance and it has not done them any favours.
Personally I tend to avoid conflict and I gain peace of mind, but lose position in the tribe sometimes- in the short term at least.
Last edited by tonywalt; 05-03-2012 at 11:23 AM.
In Tibet's past they had invaded China and took over large swathes of land. Rather than being passive resistors in the past, Tibet had a standing army. This declined and did not develop into the 19thC due to Tibet's isolationist policy to outsiders. Younghusband's British "invasion" and defeat of the Tibetan army is a case in point. they just weren't equipped.
The current Dalai Lama's stance on passive resistance is a modern phenomenon. In fact he's going for co-operation and some kind of dependant autonomy now.
The picture is not so simple either. Thailand has had a long running military dispute with tribal and Muslim people, and a few years ago the Sri Lankan Army destroyed the Tamil Tigers in the north of the country.
One historical iconic Buddhist figure is Asoka whose army in India defeated rival armies in his wars of expansion. On seeing the suffering and carnage he stopped the war, sued for peace and converted to Buddhism. I can't think of another example of a victor stopping the war and expansion.
Interesting reads.
Is talking/communication enough to divert a conflict?
Cammaraderie comes to mind.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Interesting! I should read the more distant history of some of these "Buddhist" countries. What you say is correct, as I left Japan out of the picture, a "Buddhist" country - at least nominally, with a strong military history. It gets complicated, sufficed to say that passive resistance works best in a country with rule of law and a certain culture of Conscience-otherwise the threat of Consequence works best.
At work, avoiding conflict will help you stay alive in the trenches, but you will certainly be marginilized slowly and surely until you are fully despensable.
It depends on what your work is. What if your job is a negotiator or mediator? Then I guess you're always involved in conflict, but always trying to resolve it, and how well you do determines your success.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote