Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Arguing against violence
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Arguing against violence  (Read 4070 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

think4yourself

  • Voluntarist / Anarchist
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
  • Forgiving Trolls
    • View Profile
Arguing against violence
« on: October 06, 2009, 11:54:17 AM »

A fellow freedom-loving friend of mine told me yesterday that he want's violence.

The context was that I was explaining to him how I am absolutely anti-violence and I don't believe it will achieve freedom. "I don't want violence," I said. "I do." He replied.

I just continued explaining my position as a 'borderline pacifist', being against the initiation of force, and explaining that using violence against government will only cause greater retaliation.

I would like to further this argument with him so that he may change his mind and see that the way to peace - is peace. So I ask if you will share your arguments with me so I can bring them to him.

This is very important. This friend of mine... is a police officer.

Logged
[ insert something witty and freedom-oriented here ]

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2009, 12:04:04 PM »

The initiation of the use of force is immoral.

Your friend is not moral, if he's a cop.

He is not a freedom lover.

Ditch your friend.

Find new one.

Enjoy!!!!!
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2009, 05:36:29 PM »

The initiation of the use of force is immoral.

Your friend is not moral, if he's a cop.

He is not a freedom lover.

Ditch your friend.

Find new one.

Enjoy!!!!!

this

.
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2009, 05:48:11 PM »

A fellow freedom-loving friend of mine told me yesterday that he wants violence.

"I don't want violence," I said. "I do." He replied.

I would like to further this argument with him so that he may change his mind and see that the way to peace - is peace.

So I ask if you will share your arguments with me so I can bring them to him.

This is very important. This friend of mine... is a police officer.

just remember that jackboots need the aggression/force/fraud/violence/conflict for JOB SECURITY...

if everything is copasetic and everyone is leaving everyone else alone...then who needs jackboot nazis hanging around wanting to get paid for eating donuts, snorting coke, and getting free blowjobs from the crack whores...

ask your "friend"(hahaha) what would happen if the city council disbanded the police department and told the chief to hand over the keys to the station, cars, and the armory...right then and there...at the meeting...

Hint:  Guaranteed the local jackboots would refuse and refute the authority of the council, retreat to the station, and call out the state jackboots and the national guard mercenaries...

Of course, they probably won't admit that...

And...like John says...

Enjoy!!!!

.
Logged

think4yourself

  • Voluntarist / Anarchist
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
  • Forgiving Trolls
    • View Profile
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2009, 06:13:26 PM »

I could have left-out the fact that he's a cop (and now I wish I did because now my question is being averted).

I think when he said that, he was speaking from the perspective of a citizen fighting the government, not from the perspective of a cop against the people. He is against the police-state. (His only problem is that he's a minarchist.)

He ran for local office as a Ron Paul-Republican and is still on the path to understanding what a free society would really look like. He's not your run-of-the-mill statist cop.

Like many in the freedom movement, I think he still has the "take my guns lead first" mentality. He needs the arguments against violence and I think he'll take to it quite readily.
Logged
[ insert something witty and freedom-oriented here ]

BonerJoe

  • Guest
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2009, 06:46:49 PM »

The initiation of the use of force is immoral.

Your friend is not moral, if he's a cop.

He is not a freedom lover.

Ditch your friend.

Find new one.

Enjoy!!!!!

Excellent structure. But I'm docking a point off for not including ellipses.
Logged

Harry Tuttle

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
  • Please don't feed the elitists
    • View Profile
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2009, 08:13:06 PM »

I think the problem that many people seem to have is separating individual behavior from group behavior and putting action into context.

I am with your friend in being "pro violence" if it means protecting myself or love ones from direct harm. I am against initiating violence against others.

The problem with pacificism is that it is too often taken to mean opposition to any violence at all. In my opinion, only a fool will accept direct physical harm if he has the ability to effectively resist.

So it seems that you are trying to convince your friend that initiating violence is bad on a personal level as a response to a perceived threat. It seems that if he is convinced that the violence he would propose would be in response to a threat against his life and liberty by an aggressive state. I have trouble arguing against this from a moral standpoint, because the threat on my life and liberty is quite apparent. It seems to me that you have to argue from a practical standpoint, demonstrating that any violence against the state would be fruitless and counter-productive. Violent resistance would only be practical if there was a hope of winning, if the threat was direct and pronounced, and if there was any hope of success.
Logged
"If you're giving up your freedom to have freedom you don't have freedom, dummy."              - Mark Edge (10/11/08 show)

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2009, 11:14:43 PM »

Like many in the freedom movement, I think he still has the "take my guns lead first" mentality. He needs the arguments against violence and I think he'll take to it quite readily.

Well, I'd like to put a different bit of perspective on this.

Even Ian has a gun for personal protection, and I fully expect he would be right there for someone else at need, thus demonstrating group protection is not unthinkable either.

But the threat from "government" isn't personal. It's distributed and nebulous and general. But still a threat.

The "gun polishers" aren't reacting to that feeling of threat any differently than Ian, or anyone else who chooses to have a firearm for personal defense. The reaction is the same, we're just arguing about what the threat really is.

Ian's arguments have reinforced my opinion that killing random government pawns does nothing but empower the government itself. It rationalizes their own militarism, since their agents are "threatened", and we end up with a general escalation of force by government against everyone for the actions of a few.

It is, to paraphrase Clair Wolfe, "Not time to shoot the bastards."

All that said, if a general war of independence from DC does ever break out, I will be relieved that at least the WAITING is over. I expected Waco was a wake up call. I was surprised that only one "federal" building came down, and that only because the FBI blew it up. When that A-10 crashed in Colorado and the military couldn't find it, I did have a niggling little feeling that maybe the soldier's desertions with their equipment had begun.

Do people really go to car races just to see people die in crashes? No, but violence is something everyone deals with, and crash footage is played over, and over. It's called "morbid curiosity".

I WANT THE BUREAUCRATS OUT OF MY LIFE. Who reading this doesn't?

So long as it remains individual responses to individual events, this "war of independence" cannot be fought with violence and have any hope of success. And if it becomes a general uprising, violence won't be needed.

Now, where'd I put my bore cleaner?
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

davann

  • Guest
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2009, 07:22:01 PM »


I am with your friend in being "pro violence" if it means protecting myself or love ones from direct harm. I am against initiating violence against others.


This.
Logged

Alex Libman 15

  • Guest
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2009, 07:47:34 PM »

If you're friends with a cop,

Poison his donuts.  :x

Logged

Terror Australis

  • Bitcoin Evangelist
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1181
  • People cannot be coerced into freedom.
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2009, 08:12:51 PM »

If you're friends with a cop,

Poison his donuts.  :x



One dead cop doesn't make a difference you would need a thousand poisoned donuts.

 :)
Logged
User generated content + bitcoin = http://witcoin.com

Alex Libman 15

  • Guest
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2009, 08:33:49 PM »

There are around 800,000 cops in the U.S. making $55-100K a year plus benefits.  But if we could poison just a few hundred, the remaining cops will get the message.  Some may quit, some may ask for greater compensation to stay on the job, etc.  You defeat tyranny by increasing its liabilities and decreasing its assets.

Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2009, 08:49:11 PM »

There are around 800,000 cops in the U.S. making $55-100K a year plus benefits.  But if we could poison just a few hundred, the remaining cops will get the message.  Some may quit, some may ask for greater compensation to stay on the job, etc.  You defeat tyranny by increasing its liabilities and decreasing its assets.



tomalcerie'd
Logged

Terror Australis

  • Bitcoin Evangelist
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1181
  • People cannot be coerced into freedom.
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2009, 09:10:50 PM »

Litter the sidewalk of freedom with the garbage of donut wrappings lol
Logged
User generated content + bitcoin = http://witcoin.com

Alex Libman 15

  • Guest
Re: Arguing against violence
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2009, 11:16:35 PM »

tomalcerie'd

Best compliment ever!   
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Arguing against violence

// ]]>

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 31 queries.