India and Pakistan: Dissent vs. Disagreement

Tensions between India and Pakistan, which have been increasing in recent years, are reaching an all-time high as nuclear technologies in both countries threaten safety and provide potential for direct nuclear war. For now, India and Pakistan are in a disagreement – but as time progresses, and their discord transforms into dissension, citizens are put at risk as both nations currently have the technology to utilize weapons of mass destruction. For now, the people are safe. But once this conflict reaches new heights and diminutive disagreements turn into dangerous dissent, devastation is inevitable. Dissension similar to the situation in India and Pakistan is extremely harmful and leads to aggressive quarreling, while smaller disagreement is essential to the life of democracy and can be beneficial when civilized.

The primary argument for the destructiveness of dissent begins with the idea that dissent often leads to quarreling. These quarrels end up threatening the safety of parties involved. Because of the danger involved in these conflicts, it is concluded that dissent leads to danger and threatens society. At the beginning of this year, the citizens of Egypt acted on their frustration towards President Hosni Mubarak. Those opposing the president were fed up with Mubarak – he’d been ruling 30 years – as his prestige dwindled due to internal problems in Egypt. The people’s disagreement with Mubarak’s rule shifted gears in early February as new gunfire struck Cairo and the conflict turned into dissension. Foes and supporters of the president gathered in Tahrir square and hundreds of citizens were killed and injured as the protest turned violent. The magnitude of the crisis has affected other areas of Egypt as the economy is paral...

... middle of paper ...

...nderstand the frustration loyalists felt when their treasured product was ripped from their hands due to a company’s supply interruption. The difference between o.b. tampons and other tampons can only be recognized by the parties involved -- the loyal consumers who have used o.b. tampons for decades. Until outsiders are put in the shoes of a woman who has used the brand for years, until their discomfort and frustration is understood, one cannot recognize the difference between o.b. tampons and those of another brand. The same reasoning is applied to the distinction between disagreement and dissent. Those involved in the conflict can fully understand the difference because they are fully involved in the conflict’s consequences. The faction fraught with fear recognizes when argument becomes assault, when debate becomes devastation, and when bickering becomes bloodshed.