It is a disturbance to the system, and it isn’t tranquil. They are not synonyms. Non-violent means you aren’t hurting anyone, peaceful means you aren’t disturbing anything. You can’t be violent and peaceful but you can be non-violent and non-peaceful. Peace is sufficient but not necessary for non-violence.
One definition of peaceful is synonymous, and one isn’t. This is exactly why language has so many synonyms, each one is sliiiightly different. Choosing one intentionally instead of another is important.
In this instance, “peace” is being defined (not directly, but through context) as status quo, going about your day unhindered. “Violence” is being defined as causing direct physical harm to a person, and possibly property depending on who you ask.
With these definitions laid out, it’s easy enough to see a situation that is not violent (no one got hurt at all) and also not peaceful (some people’s days were interrupted) - one person mentioned blocking a road. This is a FANTASTIC example of non-peaceful non-violent protest. No one likes a pedant.
Yep, just like the people trying to say blocking a road isn’t peaceful. They are trying to pedantically choose a definition to make a point. Blocking a road is absolutely peaceful, trying to explain it any other way would be to be pendantic. Lmfao.
I see a lot of other people have responded with examples and argument.
So I’ll disagree and say the argument falls apart when I don’t argue. (Cause it’s Friday. You ain’t got no job. You ain’t got shit to do. I’m gonna get you high today.)
Non-violent in the context of political action does not exclude property damage and looting. A non violent protest is still disruptive, it’s the entire point
Peaceful and non-violent are synonyms….
You also contradict yourself as well. You say to be non-violent, then you say you can’t be peacefully disruptive… those contradict each other.
If me and my fellow protestors block a road, we are being non-violent, but we are being disruptive.
And that is peaceful as well, until it isn’t.
…and in 99% of the cases where it stops being “peaceful” it’s because cops come in and violently assault everyone to try to break up the protest.
I’m really not sure of the point you’re trying to make. Protest can be peaceful, non-violent and disruptive.
You’re the one arguing with me after I said protests are peaceful. What the fucking hell is going on here?
Sorry, my bad, I confused you with the guy above you. That ones on me.
No, they aren’t. You must be disruptive, which isn’t peaceful.
How can you be non-violent and not peaceful at the same time…? lmfao. They mean the exact same thing.
Hmm I see what the dictionaries are saying but (using an example from above) I think argument exists that:
If me and my fellow protestors block a road, we are being non-violent, but we are not being peaceful.
But it’s Friday and no time for argument!
What’s not peaceful about blocking a road?
The argument falls apart when you ask for the difference lol.
Peaceful: freedom from disturbance; tranquility.
It is a disturbance to the system, and it isn’t tranquil. They are not synonyms. Non-violent means you aren’t hurting anyone, peaceful means you aren’t disturbing anything. You can’t be violent and peaceful but you can be non-violent and non-peaceful. Peace is sufficient but not necessary for non-violence.
Literally the next definition after that one….
SYNONYMS…
Peaceful literally means non-violent…. Literally defines the bloody term lmfao.
So, overlapping meanings, not synonyms
They are both, one is defined by other, AND they are synonyms.
Isn’t language fucked up?
One definition of peaceful is synonymous, and one isn’t. This is exactly why language has so many synonyms, each one is sliiiightly different. Choosing one intentionally instead of another is important.
In this instance, “peace” is being defined (not directly, but through context) as status quo, going about your day unhindered. “Violence” is being defined as causing direct physical harm to a person, and possibly property depending on who you ask.
With these definitions laid out, it’s easy enough to see a situation that is not violent (no one got hurt at all) and also not peaceful (some people’s days were interrupted) - one person mentioned blocking a road. This is a FANTASTIC example of non-peaceful non-violent protest. No one likes a pedant.
Goes on a bloviated pedantic rant…
Yep, just like the people trying to say blocking a road isn’t peaceful. They are trying to pedantically choose a definition to make a point. Blocking a road is absolutely peaceful, trying to explain it any other way would be to be pendantic. Lmfao.
I see a lot of other people have responded with examples and argument.
So I’ll disagree and say the argument falls apart when I don’t argue. (Cause it’s Friday. You ain’t got no job. You ain’t got shit to do. I’m gonna get you high today.)
Disruptive doesn’t mean violent, but it isn’t peaceful.
Peaceful and non-violent mean the exact same thing…
They do not.
Peaceful and non-violent mean the exact same thing…
Skydiving isn’t peaceful, but it certainly isn’t violent.
What’s not peaceful about skydiving…?
I’d go with the wind, noise, speed, and imminent possiblity of death.
So going for a drive wouldn’t be peaceful either…?
So… driving again? Or riding a motor bike? Not peaceful…? Strange perspective to have…
Strange example to try and use lol.
They do not.
Peaceful means not being disturbed, nonviolent means no violence.
Peaceful literally means non-violent.
If you are being non-violent by definition you are also being peaceful….
Non-violent in the context of political action does not exclude property damage and looting. A non violent protest is still disruptive, it’s the entire point