Chavez is in the mentality that nonviolence is the only way his followers- the rest of the labor union- will achieve their goals and abstain from any injuries or harm that could possibly happen to them. In order to elaborate upon this, he employs the use of pathos in hopes that they might be more cautious of taking a violent stance. According to the prompt Cesar states “If we resort to violence then one of two things will happen: either violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps deaths…”.
He acknowledges that our current strategy against violence has shown no real effect on the number of brutal acts committed against people. Cesar attempts to share his thoughts with the masses in order to spread his solution to violence. He evokes strong emotions such as sadness, and guilt within his audience, along with posing logical questions that really make the audience think and listen to what he is saying. It is essential that Chavez's audience knows nonviolence has a more profound, lasting effect on society that paves the road ahead for change. In order to evoke this change Chavez must alter the way his audience thinks.
To begin with, Chavez uses juxtaposition to contrast the effects of violent and nonviolent resistance. In the speech Chavez says, “We are also convinced that nonviolence is more powerful than violence.” He then goes on to say that violence causes deaths and demoralizes the people, while nonviolence attracts people’s support and is morally just. The use of juxtaposition as a rhetorical device throughout the whole speech shows the pros of nonviolence and the cons of violence. This technique helps Chavez develop his argument because it creates a favorable bias
Also he uses irony to show why we are so opposed to the idea of nonviolent solutions or why we have such a hard time trying to use nonviolence to solve problems when we have basically programed ourselves to use violence to solve everything. In the sentence “When victory comes through violence, it is a victory with strings attached.” Chavez very bluntly told us that a victory isn't a true victory if we resort to using violence against each other it was merely a means to an end. Also in the sentence “ If we beat the growers at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death.” he is telling us that by using violence we will eventually lose all regard for human life and our humanity will dwindle away until there is nothing left of
Several people from different walks of life have extended their own opinions on just and unjust wars. Defencists argue the need to engage in war as an act of defense when there is a threat, such as facing a country what initiated a violent war, overthrowing a cruel and oppressive government, and protecting its people against an invader; the Realists’ belief is similar to those of the Defencists, but that war is said to be just when your moral standards call for it (Orend, 2009). For instance, fighting against the US government after it overthrew your previous dictator, but then proceeded to use Phosphorus shells on civilian targets. As a Realist soldier ordered by the US government to participate in this war, you would call for the right to
King is illustrated in the center of the photo to exaggerate King’s apprehension. Many conservatives did not support the boycott and saw King as the cancer of the movement , and, therefore, they would approve of his arrest. King was known amongst conservatives and liberals as law-abiding citizen who preached peaceful protests. Yet a person who is arrested is typically associated with crime, and the photograph calls to question the validity of King's lawful nature. The image works to criminalize King, and to depict him as culpable and at fault.
Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission. Freedom fighters target the military forces and the organized instruments of repression keeping dictatorial regimes in power. Freedom fighters struggle to liberate their citizens from oppression and to establish a form of government that reflects the will of the people. Now, this is not to say that those who are fighting for freedom are perfect or that we should ignore problems arising from passion and conflict. Nevertheless, one has to be blind, ignorant, or simply unwilling to see the truth if he or she is unable to distinguish between those I just described and terrorists.
He believed that not any situation should have violence. For example, he did not use violence even when the police arrested him for no reason. Also, when he was attacked by a mob of white people in Durban, he did not want to press charges against the mob of people. He said “it was one of his principles, not to seek redress the world no matter the risks and consequences of his actions”. Even though he had some injuries he still did not want to press charges, which revealed Gandhi really did not like violence and he would do anything to display to the people that you can solve differences without violence.
Once Romeo had seen the fight start between Mercutio and Tybalt, he should have stayed where he was. Asking them to stop was a "valiant" move, but interfering could cause disaster in between. Law acts really quickly, so by following one 's impulses could mean an assured unhappy doom. It does not take much, just patience, to be able to stop and think before acting. In the end, it is worth it, decisions taken guided by impulses and rushed are most likely to be regretted afterward.
“To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leave one’s post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one’s city and country, or persuade as the nature of justice. It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country.” What we say in reply, Crito, that the laws speak the truth, or not?” (TDS pg 51,52). By breaking the law, Socrates would be disobeying the laws as a citizen, like a child disobeying his parent. By escaping he would have been doing an impious act that would affect his standing with the gods. Therefore, Socrates was willing to die if it meant that his actions would still be
Throughout the article, Chavez counters nonviolence with violence informing the "what ifs". Chavez states "if it fails our only alternative is violence". The people need an understanding of what is taking place in order to handle however amount of struggle is occurring nonviolently. Violence happens when concern about any human aspect gets deepened. Nonviolence is a more successful way to prevent future issues.