violent protest is like the suffragettes they used violence to get what they wanted
and nonviolent is where you use powers of persuasion to get your way and not to use violence.
Violent protests involve the use of force or aggression, while nonviolent protests rely on peaceful means such as civil disobedience and peaceful demonstrations. Research suggests that nonviolent protests are often more effective in bringing about lasting social change, as they are more likely to garner public support, avoid backlash, and create a sense of unity among participants. In contrast, violent protests can lead to negative consequences such as increased repression and alienation from potential allies.
None violent is when you just said something to offend a person and violent is when you hurt or atttack to a person
No, they were completely non violent.
Mount St Helens is violent.
the teddybear was non violent
Iran in 1979
dorothy the dinosaur
Nonviolent resistance (apex)
Up until the 20th century, violent revolutions were definitly heavily used. However, after media became more wide spread, non-violent revolution became more effective, and usually the more preferred solution. Protests, petitions, and other forms of civil resistance are now more used in most countries.
Islam and quran both are against use violence in any action where violence could have been substituted for non-violent actions there really isn't a better or worse to either one, they are both protests and, according to history, both usually end with getting what they were about.
The difference between ANY felony and ANY misdemeanor is the length of the sentence or the amount of the fine that the legislature attached to the law when they passed it.
He stopped eating.