I will end your life if I need to. And thats all I have to say about that.
I will end your life if I need to. And thats all I have to say about that.
I'd like to mention that you are doing a shabby job at staying on topic and encouraging discussion tonight, in case you havent noticed.
I think it is about the commonly perceived definition: I think many people see pacifism not in the non-aggression principle way (self defense = OK) but in a way that says that you must remain a victim/nonviolent/weak in the face of trouble. I might include myself in one of those people who define "pacifism" that way. I may also be drunk.
I think its cultural heritage. A lot of our cultural values were formed during less civilized times. Think about a group of people who live on the frontier or on the borderlands between two rival powers. They would continually face the threat of attack and someone who wasn't willing to fight would be a liability to the group. They couldn't be counted upon when they were needed. Other people would view a pacifist as someone who was not carrying their fair share.
Pacifism is dying even when you don't have to.
That's contra survival and not good.
Not initiating force <> Not concluding it when used against you. Even in a totally gratuitous and out of proportion way.
In a just society, if some mugger whips a gun out on me in my own store, and have every right to shoot him dead and stick his head on a pole out front until the condition of the head could endanger my customers with disease.
Not saying that I'd do something as barbaric as that, but I'd have every right to.
Pacifism is for masochists.
Gotta go with Shaw on this one.
I think it's one of the things objectivism brings to the table (perhaps implicitly) that some libertarians don't get. Pacifism encourages people to act immorally by failing to properly set boundaries. In the same way that thoughtless charity (just throwing the money out for the bums) encourages bums, thoughtless avoidance of self-defense encourages the truly evil people to take advantage--and not just of you, of the next guy as well.
Pacifism is probably the root cause for The State (just as The Maffia.)
Pacifism is evil because it is the enabling of evil.
That doesn't mean being passive is evil. Making a policy of it is. Same as altruism.
Pacifism is dying even when you don't have to.
That's contra survival and not good.
Not initiating force <> Not concluding it when used against you. Even in a totally gratuitous and out of proportion way.
In a just society, if some mugger whips a gun out on me in my own store, and have every right to shoot him dead and stick his head on a pole out front until the condition of the head could endanger my customers with disease.
Not saying that I'd do something as barbaric as that, but I'd have every right to.
Pacifism is for masochists.
I absolutely disagree. It's strange, usually libertarian leaning indivuals see fallacies like "one of us must die." The fact I find it unethical to use force, even in response to a prior force, is not even the slightest admission that I would rather die.
You probably need to be more specific.
Electric or gas chainsaw?
Wouldn't you be grossed out by the rotting muggers head on the pole outside?
pacifists embrace evil, why else would they not fight against it
Pacifism is dying even when you don't have to.
That's contra survival and not good.
Not initiating force <> Not concluding it when used against you. Even in a totally gratuitous and out of proportion way.
In a just society, if some mugger whips a gun out on me in my own store, and have every right to shoot him dead and stick his head on a pole out front until the condition of the head could endanger my customers with disease.
Not saying that I'd do something as barbaric as that, but I'd have every right to.
Pacifism is for masochists.
I absolutely disagree. It's strange, usually libertarian leaning indivuals see fallacies like "one of us must die." The fact I find it unethical to use force, even in response to a prior force, is not even the slightest admission that I would rather die.
Ok pizzly, lets role play. I have a chainsaw and I just busted down your door and am coming at you reving it up.....................you have a loaded shotgun 2 ft from your reach leaning against the fireplace.
Your move.
I obviously feel my life is of greater value, but that is not a justification for killing a person.If you thought your life was of greater value, you wouldnt allow someone to murder you. In scenarios like that, the only way to stop the other person may be to kill them.
pacifists embrace evil, why else would they not fight against it
I see this kind of comment come up quite often when looking at philosophical quotes and such, I don't get it at all. Pacifism is not passivism. Gandhi was a pacifist, but he obviously fought ferociously against evil.Pacifism is dying even when you don't have to.
That's contra survival and not good.
Not initiating force <> Not concluding it when used against you. Even in a totally gratuitous and out of proportion way.
In a just society, if some mugger whips a gun out on me in my own store, and have every right to shoot him dead and stick his head on a pole out front until the condition of the head could endanger my customers with disease.
Not saying that I'd do something as barbaric as that, but I'd have every right to.
Pacifism is for masochists.
I absolutely disagree. It's strange, usually libertarian leaning indivuals see fallacies like "one of us must die." The fact I find it unethical to use force, even in response to a prior force, is not even the slightest admission that I would rather die.
Ok pizzly, lets role play. I have a chainsaw and I just busted down your door and am coming at you reving it up.....................you have a loaded shotgun 2 ft from your reach leaning against the fireplace.
Your move.
You make many assumptions, but if we assumeI have no way to run, no way to pay, and no way to beg, and that this shotgun has lethal rounds, I would chose not to shoot. I'm not saying my life has less value, I obviously feel my life is of greater value, but that is not a justification for killing a person.
I do wish to clarify if I need to. I respect the right to private property, I do recognize the right of an individual to use violence in their self defence. My belief in pacifism is trumped by my belief in private property rights.Fine. Kill him because he runed your fucking door.
I do wish to clarify if I need to. I respect the right to private property, I do recognize the right of an individual to use violence in their self defence. My belief in pacifism is trumped by my belief in private property rights.Fine. Kill him because he runed your fucking door.
chainsaw with a shotgun attached to the bottom :wink:
sure, just dont cut my head offchainsaw with a shotgun attached to the bottom :wink:
Hey neighbor, got some duct tape I can borrow?
sure, just dont cut my head offchainsaw with a shotgun attached to the bottom :wink:
Hey neighbor, got some duct tape I can borrow?
I think dueling chainsaws would be a better way to go.
Just like the saying goes there are not Atheist in foxholes. There are no true pacifist if they have the means to defend themselves in a life and death situation.
The former of which is demonstrably false, and the latter we have no way of knowing. If it's false, the pacifists in question are dead.
Again, that's a false dichotomy. It is totally false to assume that someone must die in a physical dispute.
pacifists embrace evil, why else would they not fight against it
two fucking words.
russell kanning. (nh underground)
child-support-dodging queer >admitted< (on his own forum) he'd let intruders rape his daughter & wife while he watched, AND WOULD NOT AGRESS AGAINST SAID ATTACKERS.
darwin's theory red-fucking-lining here.
you douchebags that claim true ''pacifistic tendencies'' should be sheep-herded into the soylent green machine. 3rd-world hunger problem solved.
you're welcome.
you wouldn't fight back......or try to stop the fine folks at SOY-G from forcibly stuffing your head into the grinder, would you?
....that would be ''aggressive''
go ahead n' die....as mr. scrooge so aptly put it, ''and decrease the surplus population.''
There could be any number of reasons why an individual might choose to avoid violence in favor of other tactics for fighting "evil".I certainly don't yearn for the chance to use violence on anyone even if it is justified. I'd much rather see a burglar or criminal escaping down the street scared for their life rather than lying in a pool of their own blood because they weren't.
Maybe they believe their life is part of something bigger and more important and that the sacrifice of their life is not as great as something else that will be sacrificed by certain serious choices.If someone's life is part of some big and important idea why willingly sacrifice it to another obviously opposed to that big important idea. Could you provide a real life scenario that reflects this statement? If I dive into a volcano to save the world, it is suicide, but its not pacifism. Pacifism has nothing to do with murder necessarily, but with violence of any kind, and sometimes protecting yourself, loved ones, or possessions may require violence even though you have no intention of killing the perpetrator.
What I absolutely don't get is the anger directed at pacifists for their personal choices when they're not trying to push it on anyone else and I've seen a lot of that. Why can't you make your own choice for yourself and get on with your life?I wouldn't say anyone here is angry at pacifists, and I certainly don't care if that is someones choice, its just makes me sad to think of the possible results of it.
two fucking words.I knew it
russell kanning. (nh underground)
I call BULLSHITare you gonna find out? :shock:
QuoteI call BULLSHITare you gonna find out? :shock:
Ok, im gonna go out on a limb here and say that Russell Kanning is utterly full of shit if he really expects anyone to believe he would sit idly by while his wife was getting ass raped by some pigpen lookin ghetto hood rat right in the middle of their living room floor with the kid screaming for his mommy. Only reason someone says shit like that is because they are trying to show how ultra-passive they are by using the most extreme example even beyond their own level of passivism. Similar to vegetarians who claim they would starve to death on a life raft before they would eat a cheeseburger if it were the only food available.
I call BULLSHIT
I find it troubling that becuse I am against causing violence, you feel I should die.
Ok, im gonna go out on a limb here and say that Russell Kanning is utterly full of shit if he really expects anyone to believe he would sit idly by while his wife was getting ass raped by some pigpen lookin ghetto hood rat right in the middle of their living room floor with the kid screaming for his mommy. Only reason someone says shit like that is because they are trying to show how ultra-passive they are by using the most extreme example even beyond their own level of passivism. Similar to vegetarians who claim they would starve to death on a life raft before they would eat a cheeseburger if it were the only food available.
I call BULLSHIT
It's like the question "if you were starving would you steal food." I know the moral answer, I know what I should do, but there is a reasonable chance in such a dire situation that I will be overcome by deep uncontrollable emotions. If I comit the immoral act of violence, I can only ask for fogiveness.
I absolutely disagree. It's strange, usually libertarian leaning indivuals see fallacies like "one of us must die." The fact I find it unethical to use force, even in response to a prior force, is not even the slightest admission that I would rather die.
You make many assumptions, but if we assumeI have no way to run, no way to pay, and no way to beg, and that this shotgun has lethal rounds, I would chose not to shoot. I'm not saying my life has less value, I obviously feel my life is of greater value, but that is not a justification for killing a person.
I'm wondering if this guy is a troll to get us to say how we might react violently.
lily liver
I'm wondering if this guy is a troll to get us to say how we might react violently.
Nah. I have been having issues lately though, I don't understand why it is okay to compromise moral prinicples depending on the situation. I ultimately believe doing violence is wrong, and because I believe in the self-ownership principle I cannot justify doing harm to another person under any circumstance.
how do you know were talking about the same person?lily liver
I think he's gotta yella belly too.
I'm wondering if this guy is a troll to get us to say how we might react violently.coming from you, that sounds like a threat
coming from you, that sounds like a threat
about pointing out how youre a jackass?coming from you, that sounds like a threat
1st warning.
about?coming from you, that sounds like a threat
1st warning.
Nah. I have been having issues lately though, I don't understand why it is okay to compromise moral prinicples depending on the situation. I ultimately believe doing violence is wrong, and because I believe in the self-ownership principle I cannot justify doing harm to another person under any circumstance.
You sure had that definition at the ready huhabout?coming from you, that sounds like a threat
1st warning.
The YerATroll. YerATrolls are those whining forumites who devote a tremendous amount of time and energy complaining about the tremendous amount of time an energy expended by Troll Bashers and Angry Forumites on the practice of troll-hunting. A self-righteous and hypocritical breed, YerATrolls spend all their time pointing fingers at everyone but trolls, petulantly demanding that their opinions be granted the significance the YerATroll believes they deserve. YerATrolls often start threads excoriating others for troll-hunting, all the while completely oblivious to the fact that they're engaging in trolling by picking fights with everyone else. One of the most ill-tempered of troll species, YerATrolls are characterized by a childish need for attention disguised as cynical nobility and pretensions of being "above it all."
You sure had that definition at the ready huhabout?coming from you, that sounds like a threat
1st warning.
The YerATroll. YerATrolls are those whining forumites who devote a tremendous amount of time and energy complaining about the tremendous amount of time an energy expended by Troll Bashers and Angry Forumites on the practice of troll-hunting. A self-righteous and hypocritical breed, YerATrolls spend all their time pointing fingers at everyone but trolls, petulantly demanding that their opinions be granted the significance the YerATroll believes they deserve. YerATrolls often start threads excoriating others for troll-hunting, all the while completely oblivious to the fact that they're engaging in trolling by picking fights with everyone else. One of the most ill-tempered of troll species, YerATrolls are characterized by a childish need for attention disguised as cynical nobility and pretensions of being "above it all."
But seriously, all you do here is whine about what I do.stop being a dick then
Stop it, please. Nobody is forcing you to come here. If you think you can do a better job then me, then petition Ian.
But seriously, all you do here is whine about what I do.stop being a dick then
Stop it, please. Nobody is forcing you to come here. If you think you can do a better job then me, then petition Ian.
Shithead.
That is true. That is the problem. Are we all suppose to be afraid of Shaw and Bonerjoe now?
mrapple.....
i tried to youtube this, but,
your arguing w/ boner or shaw on this is just like that scene in 48 hours, where eddie murphy says to the big indian dude,
''billy, you're gonna lose''
right before he puts two big .357 slugs into the big indians chest
That is true. That is the problem. Are we all suppose to be afraid of Shaw and Bonerjoe now?
QuoteI call BULLSHITare you gonna find out? :shock:
No, but I'd be pretty upset if I were his wife.
I'm wondering if this guy is a troll to get us to say how we might react violently.
Nah. I have been having issues lately though, I don't understand why it is okay to compromise moral prinicples depending on the situation. I ultimately believe doing violence is wrong, and because I believe in the self-ownership principle I cannot justify doing harm to another person under any circumstance.
QuoteI call BULLSHITare you gonna find out? :shock:
No, but I'd be pretty upset if I were his wife.
You assume she doesn't like the thought of being raped.
You assume she doesn't like the thought of being raped.
QuoteI call BULLSHITare you gonna find out? :shock:
No, but I'd be pretty upset if I were his wife.
You assume she doesn't like the thought of being raped.
Yea, I pretty much assumed that, but im bound to be wrong about something someday and this might be the thing.
QuoteI call BULLSHITare you gonna find out? :shock:
No, but I'd be pretty upset if I were his wife.
You assume she doesn't like the thought of being raped.
Yea, I pretty much assumed that, but im bound to be wrong about something someday and this might be the thing.
She's waiting for someone to save her with their penis.
All ya'll should just mellow the fuck out. Bonerjoe is cool and chucking shit at him is lame. It's the same shit that happened to me when I became a mod and thankfully in his case he doesn't have to just suck it up and take it.
(Waiting for graphic descriptions of violent acts, probably rape, especially child-rape, and elaborate contrived scenarios where killing someone has been clearly established as the only possible preventative measure.)
child-support-dodging queer >admitted< (on his own forum) he'd let intruders rape his daughter & wife while he watched, AND WOULD NOT AGRESS AGAINST SAID ATTACKERS.
...
you wouldn't fight back......or try to stop the fine folks at SOY-G from forcibly stuffing your head into the grinder, would you?
There was a guy that called into the radio show one time and said that even if his wife was being rapped in front of him, he wouldn't use violence to try and save her, I believe it was russell kanning...what douche bag
Ok, im gonna go out on a limb here and say that Russell Kanning is utterly full of shit if he really expects anyone to believe he would sit idly by while his wife was getting ass raped by some pigpen lookin ghetto hood rat right in the middle of their living room floor with the kid screaming for his mommy.
(http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp71/quickmike1969_photo/nailgunmassacre_sexscene2.jpg?t=1284306308)
(Waiting for graphic descriptions of violent acts, probably rape, especially child-rape, and elaborate contrived scenarios where killing someone has been clearly established as the only possible preventative measure.)child-support-dodging queer >admitted< (on his own forum) he'd let intruders rape his daughter & wife while he watched, AND WOULD NOT AGRESS AGAINST SAID ATTACKERS.
...
you wouldn't fight back......or try to stop the fine folks at SOY-G from forcibly stuffing your head into the grinder, would you?
Just for the record, it was the anti-pacifist crowd coming up with the graphic depictions of Russell's family being raped in order to create an emotionally-charged argument as opposed to sticking to a calm rational discussion about personal philosophies.There was a guy that called into the radio show one time and said that even if his wife was being rapped in front of him, he wouldn't use violence to try and save her, I believe it was russell kanning...what douche bagOk, im gonna go out on a limb here and say that Russell Kanning is utterly full of shit if he really expects anyone to believe he would sit idly by while his wife was getting ass raped by some pigpen lookin ghetto hood rat right in the middle of their living room floor with the kid screaming for his mommy.(http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp71/quickmike1969_photo/nailgunmassacre_sexscene2.jpg?t=1284306308)
Come on. Raise the quality of the discussion.
It probably took quickmike 4 whole minutes to photoshop that, the man deserves some credit.
Do you guys realize how similar these tactics are to those of many statists?
Describe elaborate problem that no one has a perfect solution for-- crime, traffic accidents, drug abuse, war.
Therefore -> THE STATE. (Which has drastically failed to solve these problems as well)
So if I don't have a perfect answer for some carefully contrived problem (like whichever graphically depicted rape scenario), I have to accept your solution exactly as presented, even though it's clearly not a perfect solution either?
I don't have a perfect argument for why everyone should be pacifist and frankly I don't try very hard to convince people. I openly admit it's not an easy path and I feel there is a large foundation of agreement that would have to be there before I could even start to make a case. For instance, if you're not panentheist, then there are a lot of reasons that wouldn't apply to you as they do in my case and the panentheist discussion is a doozy that would massively derail the conversation. That's why my focus is just on the anger directed at people who make a PERSONAL choice to be a pacifist. And don't deny there is plenty of that anger. Even when it's openly denied, there is plenty to read between the lines about talking about how the entire human race would massively benefit if all the passifists died a horrible death.
Can you honestly believe that? Sure, you consider it a flawed view, but who do you think is more of a threat to peace-- someone who openly opposes violence and fights it on many fronts short of actually using violence themselves or people who are openly aggressive and have convenient justification systems for using violence, even without provocation, e.g. statists?
Do you guys realize how similar these tactics are to those of many statists?
Describe elaborate problem that no one has a perfect solution for-- crime, traffic accidents, drug abuse, war.
Therefore -> THE STATE. (Which has drastically failed to solve these problems as well)
So if I don't have a perfect answer for some carefully contrived problem (like whichever graphically depicted rape scenario), I have to accept your solution exactly as presented, even though it's clearly not a perfect solution either?
I don't have a perfect argument for why everyone should be pacifist and frankly I don't try very hard to convince people. I openly admit it's not an easy path and I feel there is a large foundation of agreement that would have to be there before I could even start to make a case. For instance, if you're not panentheist, then there are a lot of reasons that wouldn't apply to you as they do in my case and the panentheist discussion is a doozy that would massively derail the conversation. That's why my focus is just on the anger directed at people who make a PERSONAL choice to be a pacifist. And don't deny there is plenty of that anger. Even when it's openly denied, there is plenty to read between the lines about talking about how the entire human race would massively benefit if all the passifists died a horrible death.
Can you honestly believe that? Sure, you consider it a flawed view, but who do you think is more of a threat to peace-- someone who openly opposes violence and fights it on many fronts short of actually using violence themselves or people who are openly aggressive and have convenient justification systems for using violence, even without provocation, e.g. statists?
That is true. That is the problem. Are we all suppose to be afraid of Shaw and Bonerjoe now?
I don't know about Shaw. But if you're going to continuously act like an asshole troll here, then yes.
This is a bar. I am a bouncer. I toss out troublemakers. Capiche?
Do you guys realize how similar these tactics are to those of many statists?
Describe elaborate problem that no one has a perfect solution for-- crime, traffic accidents, drug abuse, war.
Therefore -> THE STATE. (Which has drastically failed to solve these problems as well)
That is true. That is the problem. Are we all suppose to be afraid of Shaw and Bonerjoe now?
I don't know about Shaw. But if you're going to continuously act like an asshole troll here, then yes.
This is a bar. I am a bouncer. I toss out troublemakers. Capiche?
Troublemaker defined as someone who pisses you off? I don't believe bouncers that intimidate and bully work at bars that are fun to go to. I have gotten death threats here, I have been called names here, they are just words man! The only time I got bent was when someone posted photo's cops could use to convict everyone registered on the websight for soliciting pedophile porn. A bouncer is ultimately responsible for maintaining a situation that is comfortable and fun for the patrons. I never felt Stoker or Avshae were causing anyone harm. Alex confused the hell out of me but I never felt a need to ban him. I don't really appreciate your Henry the VIII avatar or your fucking tough ass attitude. What freaks me out the most is I thought you were a all right guy before. I just don't get it, are you trying to prove something, or does so little power really mess people up so much?
I wanted to know why libertarians specifically justify violence in certain situations versus other situations.
wasnt alaric a amper?
wasnt alaric a amper?
All ya'll should just mellow the fuck out. Bonerjoe is cool and chucking shit at him is lame. It's the same shit that happened to me when I became a mod and thankfully in his case he doesn't have to just suck it up and take it.
Yes, and I apologize for any shit I gave you over it.
I wanted to know why libertarians specifically justify violence in certain situations versus other situations.
S-U-R-V-I-V-A-L (and i don't think justification for the use of violence for self-preservation is specific to libertarians....i bet a majority of namby-pamby liberals & even *shock* statists would condone it)
what confounds me, and most others, presumably, is that the tried n' true ''pacifist'' won't lift a finger, in a defensive manner, to save his/her life, or the lives of others.
you don't want to be a member of the armed services and use violence against another human, even though they are an enemy, fine.
i get it.
i don't get why you'd stand by & watch an intruder slice your daughter's throat, cuz to hit the guy w/ a broom to try to get him to stop, would be ''violent''.
i don't wish pacifists a ''horrible death'', either.
i just wish there were more like you......so there'd be less like you.
So would you steal food if you wre starving? If you say no, you are true to your philosophy and will starve to death. If you say yes, you don't believe in the NAP.
So would you steal food if you wre starving? If you say no, you are true to your philosophy and will starve to death. If you say yes, you don't believe in the NAP.
only an idiot (and a big, fat fucking liar) would state that they would'nt steal food to survive.
i beleive in the nap, but i'm not a fucking moron that is that ''principled'' to allow myself to die, cuz the ''nap'' suggests stealing a loaf of bread makes me a jack-booted thug.
So you would justify theft then? How about if your child was starving?
In the case of a child, it would be up to the parents to steal to feed them and in the case of the stranger, it would be up to the stranger himself to steal to feed himself, assuming he was an adult. You see, by letting the state steal for them negates all responsibility to the consequences of stealing...... getting shot, clubbed, smacked etc etc, which might very well happen even if you are stealing for yorself, and justiflyably so. If you steal in the name of starvation, you are still violating someone elses property rights, but you are taking that chance on your own, not letting the long arm of the law do it for you. If we just let the state steal for them, there is no way to be sure that they were stealing for people who are truly starving, or are just lazy fucks who want someone else to get their grub for them cuz they dont want to work. Thats less likely to happen when each individual has to make the choice to steal or not to steal.
So would you steal food if you wre starving? If you say no, you are true to your philosophy and will starve to death. If you say yes, you don't believe in the NAP.
only an idiot (and a big, fat fucking liar) would state that they would'nt steal food to survive.
i beleive in the nap, but i'm not a fucking moron that is that ''principled'' to allow myself to die, cuz the ''nap'' suggests stealing a loaf of bread makes me a jack-booted thug.
So you would justify theft then? How about if your child was starving? Or if a stranger was starving? Then what of statist policies that steal wealth from the populace to feed the hungry?
Gotta go with Shaw on this one.
I think it's one of the things objectivism brings to the table (perhaps implicitly) that some libertarians don't get. Pacifism encourages people to act immorally by failing to properly set boundaries. In the same way that thoughtless charity (just throwing the money out for the bums) encourages bums, thoughtless avoidance of self-defense encourages the truly evil people to take advantage--and not just of you, of the next guy as well.
Pacifism is probably the root cause for The State (just as The Maffia.)
Pacifism is evil because it is the enabling of evil.
That doesn't mean being passive is evil. Making a policy of it is. Same as altruism.
This argument makes me think of the usual arguments against liberty. People say that nongovernence or limited governence will lead to eventual tyranny or greater harm, but that's only a consequentalist argument. You seem to reject the deontological stance that menas are an end in themselves.
Liberty people get wound up when there's any change in a power structure. I became a mod and people were screaming from the rooftops that it was gonna be a huge pile of trouble and that suddenly the BBS would be a police state.
people in charge almost always claim they are reasonable
Except those people force you be under their rule. You can choose to leave here and not be.Do you believe that I'm not aware of this? I was simply stating a fact.
You're the type of person that would complain about an employer firing someone for shitting in a wastebasket under their desk.I most certainly would not! You dont know me, so dont pretend you do.
My last response to Pizzly, because that person doesn't address good arguments and keeps slinging bad ones -
Stealing food is wrong. Letting a person who requires your support to stay alive starve is worse. Letting yourself die is worse.
So some people steal. It's not Ok to steal but it's better than dying. Make reparations after the fact.
Dale seems to have a pretty warped concept of what the difference is between agression and defensive action.
I'm not willing to foster the anger and hate necessary to prepare myself to do serious harm.
My last response to Pizzly, because that person doesn't address good arguments and keeps slinging bad ones -
Stealing food is wrong. Letting a person who requires your support to stay alive starve is worse. Letting yourself die is worse.
So some people steal. It's not Ok to steal but it's better than dying. Make reparations after the fact.
If you wish to claim that someone will do an act or should do an act because of some subjective standard, then be it. Just don't claim that this is compatable with the NAP. Stealing food to live is agression and is in opposition to the NAP, whether or not is is the preferred choice has little to do with its compatibility with a moral principle. There is no "right" to climb onto that ledge if it is the only option for survival, it is morally wrong even if it the preferred course of action.
Stealing food is wrong.
It's not compromising principals to retaliate under the NAP.
NON. AGGRESSION. PRINCIPAL.
That means "DON'T. START. IT."
That does not mean "NEVER. USE. VIOLENCE."
As for compromise, your obvious hypocrisy, which I just quoted, is all I need to say.
It's not compromising principals to retaliate under the NAP.
NON. AGGRESSION. PRINCIPAL.
That means "DON'T. START. IT."
That does not mean "NEVER. USE. VIOLENCE."
As for compromise, your obvious hypocrisy, which I just quoted, is all I need to say.
You have also yet to address my response from before, because I fucking owned you and you won't admit it. Retaliation and self defense is not a violation of the NAP.Quote
It's not compromising principals to retaliate under the NAP.
NON. AGGRESSION. PRINCIPAL.
That means "DON'T. START. IT."
That does not mean "NEVER. USE. VIOLENCE."
As for compromise, your obvious hypocrisy, which I just quoted, is all I need to say.
I suppose you understand the self ownership principle yes? Then by what means can you justify taking violent action against another person or their property, since property is just an extension of your body. You have every right to exclude others from your property, but if they walk onto your property they don't give up their self ownership. You are agressing against their person, it matters little what actions preced that.
And you called me a troll, why? Doesn't that imply I am posting simply to get inflammatory responses and care little about actual feedback?
So your adherence to a principal is more important than saving your own life in a circumstance beyond your control?
How fucked up is that?
You have every right to exclude others from your property, but if they walk onto your property they don't give up their self ownership.
So your adherence to a principal is more important than saving your own life in a circumstance beyond your control?
How fucked up is that?
I don't think it's okay to kill, or harm, another person. I must do no direct action to harm another person, since I must accept that their right to exist is no less than my own. I'd choose not to harm someone in a dire circumstance, and if the result is my own harm so be it. I don't think that's admittance I think any less of the value of my own life.
QuoteYou have every right to exclude others from your property, but if they walk onto your property they don't give up their self ownership.
Right. Who do you think is disagreeing with this?
I doubt very much that you'll find anyone here, even amongst those who think trespass is a wrong in itself, who believe it should be punished with slavery or the death penalty.
What this has to do with pacifism is beyond me.
So your adherence to a principal is more important than saving your own life in a circumstance beyond your control?
How fucked up is that?
I don't think it's okay to kill, or harm, another person. I must do no direct action to harm another person, since I must accept that their right to exist is no less than my own. I'd choose not to harm someone in a dire circumstance, and if the result is my own harm so be it. I don't think that's admittance I think any less of the value of my own life.
I say you are utterly and completely full of shit if you really expect me to believe that you would just allow yourself to die before defending yourself against someone trying to kill you.
Whats your motive in trying to fool anyone. Is it just to show how principaled you are? Is it you, just trying to fool yourself? Its one thing to allow yourself to starve to death because you refuse to steal from someone, I can see that. But to say you would just sit there, arms at your side and take an incredibly painful beating at the hands of a psycho without even lifting a finger in defense is total bullshit. I guarantee it.
Once someone else directly violates your rights, they forfeit their rights to you to an equal degree. Why is that so hard for you to see?QuoteYou have every right to exclude others from your property, but if they walk onto your property they don't give up their self ownership.
Right. Who do you think is disagreeing with this?
I doubt very much that you'll find anyone here, even amongst those who think trespass is a wrong in itself, who believe it should be punished with slavery or the death penalty.
What this has to do with pacifism is beyond me.
Harming another person is messing with their property. Even in self defense it is aggression agaisnt their person, it's only okay to damage your own property.So your adherence to a principal is more important than saving your own life in a circumstance beyond your control?
How fucked up is that?
I don't think it's okay to kill, or harm, another person. I must do no direct action to harm another person, since I must accept that their right to exist is no less than my own. I'd choose not to harm someone in a dire circumstance, and if the result is my own harm so be it. I don't think that's admittance I think any less of the value of my own life.
I say you are utterly and completely full of shit if you really expect me to believe that you would just allow yourself to die before defending yourself against someone trying to kill you.
Whats your motive in trying to fool anyone. Is it just to show how principaled you are? Is it you, just trying to fool yourself? Its one thing to allow yourself to starve to death because you refuse to steal from someone, I can see that. But to say you would just sit there, arms at your side and take an incredibly painful beating at the hands of a psycho without even lifting a finger in defense is total bullshit. I guarantee it.
I never said that's what I would absolutely do, there is a very high possibility I would go against my own rational wishes and cause them harm. That only means I am under some stress that I can't think through, it happens to people. I can only hope I would have the resolve to not harm them, because what is the point in haveing a definition of right and wrong if you don't choose to follow them?
derp
Once someone else directly violates your rights, they forfeit their rights to you to an equal degree. Why is that so hard for you to see?
QuoteOnce someone else directly violates your rights, they forfeit their rights to you to an equal degree. Why is that so hard for you to see?
I'v heard many libertarians say that, but it makes no sense to me.
QuoteOnce someone else directly violates your rights, they forfeit their rights to you to an equal degree. Why is that so hard for you to see?
I'v heard many libertarians say that, but it makes no sense to me.
Thats because you're 19 and STUPID.............. game over.
Ok, you win. Have fun getting assfucked by psycho man.QuoteOnce someone else directly violates your rights, they forfeit their rights to you to an equal degree. Why is that so hard for you to see?
I'v heard many libertarians say that, but it makes no sense to me.
Thats because you're 19 and STUPID.............. game over.
If we go by the logic that your retaliation is allowable to the degree of their initiation, wouldn't you only have a right to threaten them? If you harm, or even kill, them before they can do so to you, they have not violated your rights, so how do they violate your rights to compel such action? I believe you are following what is called circular logic.
Ok, you win. Have fun getting assfucked by psycho man.QuoteOnce someone else directly violates your rights, they forfeit their rights to you to an equal degree. Why is that so hard for you to see?
I'v heard many libertarians say that, but it makes no sense to me.
Thats because you're 19 and STUPID.............. game over.
If we go by the logic that your retaliation is allowable to the degree of their initiation, wouldn't you only have a right to threaten them? If you harm, or even kill, them before they can do so to you, they have not violated your rights, so how do they violate your rights to compel such action? I believe you are following what is called circular logic.
QuoteYou have every right to exclude others from your property, but if they walk onto your property they don't give up their self ownership.
Right. Who do you think is disagreeing with this?
I doubt very much that you'll find anyone here, even amongst those who think trespass is a wrong in itself, who believe it should be punished with slavery or the death penalty.
What this has to do with pacifism is beyond me.
Harming another person is messing with their property. Even in self defense it is aggression agaisnt their person, it's only okay to damage your own property.
QuoteYou have every right to exclude others from your property, but if they walk onto your property they don't give up their self ownership.
Right. Who do you think is disagreeing with this?
I doubt very much that you'll find anyone here, even amongst those who think trespass is a wrong in itself, who believe it should be punished with slavery or the death penalty.
What this has to do with pacifism is beyond me.
Harming another person is messing with their property. Even in self defense it is aggression agaisnt their person, it's only okay to damage your own property.
That's just plain asinine. Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.
Ok, you win. Have fun getting assfucked by psycho man.QuoteOnce someone else directly violates your rights, they forfeit their rights to you to an equal degree. Why is that so hard for you to see?
I'v heard many libertarians say that, but it makes no sense to me.
Thats because you're 19 and STUPID.............. game over.
If we go by the logic that your retaliation is allowable to the degree of their initiation, wouldn't you only have a right to threaten them? If you harm, or even kill, them before they can do so to you, they have not violated your rights, so how do they violate your rights to compel such action? I believe you are following what is called circular logic.
I'll be right over.
That's just plain asinine. Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.
That's just plain asinine. Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.
I want to know why.The burden of proof is on the one who takes action, you. You wish to damage their property and I wish to know how this is reconciled with the principle of private property. You do not own their property or body, but taking direct physical action against them is you taking control over their property against their wishes. I see that as absolutely inconsistent with the most basic libertarian values.
That's just plain asinine. Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.
I want to know why.The burden of proof is on the one who takes action, you. You wish to damage their property and I wish to know how this is reconciled with the principle of private property. You do not own their property or body, but taking direct physical action against them is you taking control over their property against their wishes. I see that as absolutely inconsistent with the most basic libertarian values.
That's just plain asinine. Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.
I want to know why.The burden of proof is on the one who takes action, you. You wish to damage their property and I wish to know how this is reconciled with the principle of private property. You do not own their property or body, but taking direct physical action against them is you taking control over their property against their wishes. I see that as absolutely inconsistent with the most basic libertarian values.
Thats because you are obviously full throttle fucking insane. Yeah, lets all just sit back and hold hands and smell the flowers while someone tries beating the pulp out of us............ yeah, sounds like a good time to me.
Or you are just a troll............. shame on me for letting you suck me into your insane world for so long
The reason is because the basis for morality is life itself. If you're going to set up a system of rules to protect the thing that matters, you're not going to disarm people from protecting it.
That's just plain asinine. Harming the property of one who initiated aggression, while in the act of self-defense is clearly not only "okay," but a moral imperative, in the event that it justly saves a life.
I want to know why.The burden of proof is on the one who takes action, you. You wish to damage their property and I wish to know how this is reconciled with the principle of private property. You do not own their property or body, but taking direct physical action against them is you taking control over their property against their wishes. I see that as absolutely inconsistent with the most basic libertarian values.
Thats because you are obviously full throttle fucking insane. Yeah, lets all just sit back and hold hands and smell the flowers while someone tries beating the pulp out of us............ yeah, sounds like a good time to me.
Or you are just a troll............. shame on me for letting you suck me into your insane world for so long
See, I find it difficult to respond someone who appears to not care. Call me a troll and blatantly lie about my position? This whole board is full of posters who use the exact same tactics as statists. You rely on gap arguing and it appears you intentionally distort your own view of my posting. I don't even see a point in responding to this post anymore, since you people obviously are just posting responses to try and provoke me.
Now that will justly get you tagged as a troll. I really didn't see a lot of trolly behavior from you outside this thread, but statements like the above are classic trolling. This whole thread reeks of trolling on your part.
Now that will justly get you tagged as a troll. I really didn't see a lot of trolly behavior from you outside this thread, but statements like the above are classic trolling. This whole thread reeks of trolling on your part.
In some ways, Ken, it's better that your troll detector is set to a lower sensitivity anyhow. It's sort of a curse to see it before anyone else, because a lot of people assume that you're just being an asshole rather than sniffing genuine bullshit.
So just to clarify your position, let me ask you a question. If someone just walked up to you, for no apparent reason and started wailing on your face with no help around and he was yelling "IM GONNA FUCKIN KILL YOU!!", assuming you had no way of running away from the attacker, are you telling me that you would just lie there and take the beating without even trying to save your own life?
Now that will justly get you tagged as a troll. I really didn't see a lot of trolly behavior from you outside this thread, but statements like the above are classic trolling. This whole thread reeks of trolling on your part.
In some ways, Ken, it's better that your troll detector is set to a lower sensitivity anyhow. It's sort of a curse to see it before anyone else, because a lot of people assume that you're just being an asshole rather than sniffing genuine bullshit.
Yeah I'm thinking you guys are right now. At first, since this was the only trolly thread I figured the guy was just a retard about this particular issue. And I'll admit that my responses have not been terribly constructive, but plenty of people tried to engage him and that stuff about statist tactics is just too much.
Let me ask you something. If you see a man raping a woman, do you KNOW that attacking him will result in the best possible outcome for all the innocent people involved (you, the woman, potential future victims)?
I'd noticed the heavy volume of his "whadayathink?" threads, but didn't consider them to be potential trollbait. Perhaps it's that he's a lousy troll and it took so many tries to engage anyone, or perhaps he's just like that.
He reminds me of that caller to the show a couple years ago (something like James in Michigan--both may be wrong) who would broach subjects half-seriously, and it became clear after about six calls that each time the intent was to start an argument in which he would attempt to somehow "prove" libertarianism "wrong," or at least get the hosts steamed. I think that series of exchanges ended in them accusing him of being a crank.
I'd noticed the heavy volume of his "whadayathink?" threads, but didn't consider them to be potential trollbait. Perhaps it's that he's a lousy troll and it took so many tries to engage anyone, or perhaps he's just like that.
He reminds me of that caller to the show a couple years ago (something like James in Michigan--both may be wrong) who would broach subjects half-seriously, and it became clear after about six calls that each time the intent was to start an argument in which he would attempt to somehow "prove" libertarianism "wrong," or at least get the hosts steamed. I think that series of exchanges ended in them accusing him of being a crank.
Eric. EricFromMichigan on the boards. Massive troll.
Now that will justly get you tagged as a troll. I really didn't see a lot of trolly behavior from you outside this thread, but statements like the above are classic trolling. This whole thread reeks of trolling on your part.
In some ways, Ken, it's better that your troll detector is set to a lower sensitivity anyhow. It's sort of a curse to see it before anyone else, because a lot of people assume that you're just being an asshole rather than sniffing genuine bullshit.
Someone came into the LRN chat room the other day pretending they were a STRICT Christian wife, who wanted her husband to spank "her" when she needed discipline. Her STRICT Christian husband didn't want to do it. "She" was asking if it seemed reasonable. It took about a half hour of telling people it was a troll to finally get them to stop responding.
Someone came into the LRN chat room the other day pretending they were a STRICT Christian wife, who wanted her husband to spank "her" when she needed discipline. Her STRICT Christian husband didn't want to do it. "She" was asking if it seemed reasonable. It took about a half hour of telling people it was a troll to finally get them to stop responding.
You mean they cared more about whether "she" was a troll or not than whether "she" was interesting or not?
There are a few variables in that situation that we must clarify before a decision can be made. Do I have a firearm? Does the rapist have a knife to her throat? Am I a block away? Am I 75 ft away? Do I have a clear shot at the rapist? What if I miss him and hit her? Who knows, in the case of rape, perhaps it would be better for the woman to allow hersef to be raped instead of being killed in the process of fighting back.
Im talking in terms of animalistic life or death situations where if you dont act, you are pretty much guaranteed to die.
I also do not feel separate from the rest of the universe and so my own death is not as scary to me as it is to someone with a more substantial ego, "ego" being your sense of having an isolated and separate existence from everyone else and the rest of the universe.
Here's something to consider for anyone who wants to better understand where I'm coming from. I know it's a bit alien.
I know that I will be a much happier person AFTER an incident of violence if I manage to refrain from hurting another person. I will strive to make the right choices which I acknowledge may be challenging depending on the exact situation. I will strive to do so even at great risk to my own survival of the incident because I am protecting something that is very valuable TO ME. I also do not feel separate from the rest of the universe and so my own death is not as scary to me as it is to someone with a more substantial ego, "ego" being your sense of having an isolated and separate existence from everyone else and the rest of the universe.
To someone who values different things and who perhaps has a greater fear of death, I would not begrudge them judging the situation completely differently for their own circumstance.
*And then ya puke and cry, no matter what happens.
*And then ya puke and cry, no matter what happens.
Thats EXACTLY
Nothing like getting shot in the face to give you some descriptives about violent events.
If you've taken a self defense course and/or practice self defense shooting, the second you realize your life is in danger you'll just draw, look beyond the target, and fire at center of mass until the threat ends. It's almost automatic, which is what the training helps you do. People without that sort of training end up standing there with a weird look on their face as everything goes down and lives or dies at random. *
Nothing like getting shot in the face to give you some descriptives about violent events.
Yeah, about which I know pretty much nothing. So feel free to ignore my previous post.
ETA: Or advice would be good. Your choice.
Sorry, I think I don't understand what you're saying here. Your previous post seems like a good one. Maybe I missed something?
<<<Might be confused about something. Sorry in advance.
Sorry, I think I don't understand what you're saying here. Your previous post seems like a good one. Maybe I missed something?
<<<Might be confused about something. Sorry in advance.
While I have opinions about how I'd prefer to act if someone broke into the house (or something similar), I have no idea how I'd react in reality since I haven't been in that situation before. So for all I know, it might be impossible for me to actually shoot a gun at a human being, in which case those opinions don't amount to squat. Any thoughts on that?
My biggest fuck up was thinking "hmm, wonder why the dogs barking at 3am" without getting my pistol ready first before looking outside. Pretty damn scary when youre looking through the blinds, getting ready to focus your eyes out towards the street, and the guys are only about 8 feet from your face on the other side of some glass.
This thread became a circle jerk about 4 pages ago.
Some ganged up on a 19 year old kid and used kidgloves on a more respected poster with the same beliefs.
Some have shown to be easily coerced or threatened and some have shown themselves to be trigger happy.
This Troll witchhunt is eerily similar to the FED witchhunt we have going.
Sad really, but better to know about people early I guess.
I am not busting on anyone, I am just disappointed in myself, I misjudged a lot of people.
Thought I would mention it.
Fire when you think you're gonna die or get raped.
Also, quoting myself from four posts back:QuoteFire when you think you're gonna die or get raped.
I know it's buried in a large post, but if you're gonna draw conclusions, you really need to have the facts.
I honestly thought I didn't have to define myself as a non- pacifist. I feel no motivation to address the OP I barely follow the NAP as I have alluded to before. What I want Prizzly to understand is I follow the NAP because it is a good idea.
Pacifism is society suicide, the Amish have the U.S. protecting them without that they would be toast.
I don't think you're triggerhappy Mr. Shaw. I live in a place where there are less guns, I use trigger happy as a metaphor for "Act's before he/she thinks". I meant myself and BJ in this instance when he jumped on mrapplecastle for trolling and I jumped on a grenade for the "trolls" and got spanked. O.K.?
I was one of the people who ganged up on Prizzly, in the start. I tried to keep it light and funny, but I busted his balls like everyone else. Then BJ started his "Jack Palance in Shane" act with mrapplecastle and my natural hatred for authority made me fuck up my own account.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfL4S5nI3Kw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfL4S5nI3Kw)
But I believe It should have been handled differently.
Dale is a skilled debater. He has strong princepals, he can take care of himself, yet people gave him more slack than Prizzly, most likely a 19 year old dumbass. I left the the websight before Dale made his pacifist sympathy's clear on this thread, so I can claim innocence on any hypocrisy. However I encourage a Innocent til proved guilty policy on trolls not a "He sounds like a troll - get him!". If Prizzly is what he says he is, his first messaging experience with older and wiser libertarians, was not a very pleasant one. I believe this is regrettable. I deal with kids, both mine and others, and they don't have a tendency to listen better when treated unfairly or disrespectfully. At 19 I myself was a major uncompromising, mean, bullying prick. It wouldn't have helped if a bunch of old guys ganged up on me.
But I'm not going to puss out either Mr. Shaw. If We collectively are going to start ganging up on every conceivable "troll" or FED, I have no place on this message board any more. I don't participate in what I conceive as witchhunts. Maybe You and BJ are right, and I am wrong here. Please just leave my account alone. I'll check back in in a month or two and see.
I apologise for any passive aggression that I may have inadvertently enacted.
But I'm not going to puss out either Mr. Shaw. If We collectively are going to start ganging up on every conceivable "troll" or FED, I have no place on this message board any more.
I don't participate in what I conceive as witchhunts.
Maybe You and BJ are right, and I am wrong here.
Please just leave my account alone. I'll check back in in a month or two and see.
Please read this thread - http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=35018.0
But why was the thread moved to the troll board?
Shouldn't mine have maybe only been moved to no hijacking so I can delete comments that wish for me to be raped and murdered
and possibly the posts that claimed untrue positions I never stated?
Maybe I've become a bit of a softy, mod-wise. I banned someone on Free Keene for what I thought was a completely legitimate reason and then later felt like it was a huge mistake. I decided to hand over the ban hammer to the other mods. Didn't trust myself with it anymore. *shrug*
I see all that, but those are things people do just from being kind of lazy about reading posts carefully (which I've even recently been guilty of) or just not being very bright in a discussion.
Plus it kind of seemed like you defined troll right there so that it happened to fit him perfectly.
It just still seems early to be making that judgment.
Maybe I've become a bit of a softy, mod-wise. I banned someone on Free Keene for what I thought was a completely legitimate reason and then later felt like it was a huge mistake. I decided to hand over the ban hammer to the other mods. Didn't trust myself with it anymore. *shrug*
I already said that I dont really care if pizzly wants to lie down while someone kills him. Its his business. I was just simply calling it bullshit that he really believes his own bullshit. But yeah, it definitely seemed he was just trying to fuck with Shaw with his "oh, but agression, even in self defense is still theft of property" and the rest of that nonsense.
He was just trying to be a contrarian and piss people off for whatever reason. :roll:
Ok, maybe my Kanning/rape/photoshop thing was a little childish, Ill admit that. But thats all im even a little sorry for. It was just used to illustrate the ridiculousness of such a position.
I already said that I dont really care if pizzly wants to lie down while someone kills him. Its his business. I was just simply calling it bullshit that he really believes his own bullshit. But yeah, it definitely seemed he was just trying to fuck with Shaw with his "oh, but agression, even in self defense is still theft of property" and the rest of that nonsense.
He was just trying to be a contrarian and piss people off for whatever reason. :roll:
Ok, maybe my Kanning/rape/photoshop thing was a little childish, Ill admit that. But thats all im even a little sorry for. It was just used to illustrate the ridiculousness of such a position.
No one threatened the dude, I think we can all agree on that.
I'm starting to think there might be no actual orange in this oh-so-yummy soda.
As a small addendum to this whole mess -
Here is the newest thread by Pizzly.
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=35052.0I'm starting to think there might be no actual orange in this oh-so-yummy soda.
I don't think Pizzly is a troll. I have tried to pick a fight a couple of times, and no bites. He and Dale have more than pacifism in commen I find that interesting. Not judgemental or anything just curious if gays have a tendency to strive for true pacifism http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=23483.45 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=23483.45) (truth is I don't deal with openly gay people very often in my day to day, the ones I have met are shocked at my "I could give two shits about it" attitude and seemed a little intimidated by me) *
*Libertarians are fucking rare in Norway.
Do you guys realize how similar these tactics are to those of many statists?
Describe elaborate problem that no one has a perfect solution for-- crime, traffic accidents, drug abuse, war.
Therefore -> THE STATE. (Which has drastically failed to solve these problems as well)
So if I don't have a perfect answer for some carefully contrived problem (like whichever graphically depicted rape scenario), I have to accept your solution exactly as presented, even though it's clearly not a perfect solution either?
Eric. EricFromMichigan on the boards. Massive troll. He used the same methods as this dude, and the same methods as Nathyn.
I think it is about the commonly perceived definition: I think many people see pacifism not in the non-aggression principle way (self defense = OK) but in a way that says that you must remain a victim/nonviolent/weak in the face of trouble. I might include myself in one of those people who define "pacifism" that way. I may also be drunk.
–noun
1.
a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
But in the real world, there is such a thing as pure evil.
But in the real world, there is such a thing as pure evil.
I don't believe in evil. But obviously you do, so if that's what you believe then perhaps your other beliefs that derive from that make sense. I know that violence is not the only deterrent for anti-social behavior so I reject the notion that "evil" will overwhelm the world and wipe out all the peaceful people if it's not destroyed.
If it contradicts itself, it is false (it does not apply equally to all people at all times). If it doesn't, it is true (it can be acted out consistently by all people at all times).
I say that pacifism (defined as an absolute refusal to use force under any circumstances) is contradictory because it either requires everybody to submit to violence by those who lack the moral capacity to choose nonviolence (which would result in a world dominated by violence), or it requires some people to choose defensive force in order to stop those amoral persons. By itself, the NAP acknowledges the possibility of those who will not follow it, and allows for ways of dealing with them. It is realistic. Pacifism is Utopian in that it relies upon the non-reality of a world without violently amoral people to work.
Unless the pacifists hope that all the violently amoral people of the world will simply get too tired or die of old age before they get around to killing everyone else.