Why the opposition to pacifism?

[John Shaw]

Why the fuck have I been dragged into a conversation again?

You have to be a great big giant asshole for me to ban you.

Libman, Nathyn, LCPLIC, EricfromMichigan, that sort of thing.

Things that will get me to ban you are -

1. Harassing another member incessantly by name. One squabble every now and then doesn't count, either. It's the constant attacks that matter.

2. Threatening specific people. (Users or not.)

3. Spamming.

4. Continuously trolling, as defined by me. That means starting shit over and over again and wasting people's time with dumbfuck threads, necroing without any clear purpose, and deliberately antagonizing people. I don't include posts that are obviously absurd unless they are threats, so Richard gets a pass.


I can guarantee that the average user here doesn't pay as close attention as myself or the other mods to what sort of things certain people do, so their opinion on what is and isn't a long enough string of assholish behavior doesn't hold as much weight AFAIAC.

When someone like Ecolitan, who I have no problem with, logs in once a week or less and sees someone who used to be pretty cool years ago (Like Libman) getting reamed out like a motherfucker, then his viewpoint is a little clouded by the lack of up to date information.

Someone like anarchir who is obviously younger and likes watching bullshit get stirred up has their own motives. Anarchir doesn't like taking direct shots but supports people who do. Well that's fine. I've never said a mean word to the kid and I won't until he gets nasty with me.

mrapplecastle, back in the day, was almost always pretty cool toward me and I don't understand why he's got a giant attitude now. Bums me out and it seems to be directly related to moderation changes on the BBS, which is what, IIRC, made him leave in the first place, to go make that other forum that didn't last long.

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.

I was reported to Ian by some asshole users several times for doing absolutely nothing other than tell people to stop acting like assholes, leaving Ian and I to have a bunch of bullshit exchanges where I had to explain myself. The biggest benefit of the new changes is that it seems like I won't have to deal with that sort of bullshit anymore.

Now quit fucking dragging me into shit I have nothing to do with, for fuck's sake.

[Turd Ferguson]

I call  BULLSHIT

are you gonna find out? 

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.

[BonerJoe]

LOL.

[mrapplecastle]

I was unaware that I had any problem with mr shaw.

Since jonerboe has become a moderator it seems he enjoys his new found power and isnt afraid to exercise it. Banning people under the pretense that they are trolls, and subsequently labeling people trolls with the threat of banishment because he doesnt like them, is what I have a problem with, hypocrisy would be the word I'd use.

Its funny somewhat to see this happen especially after seeing his actions when I've been here. I dont see why anyone would care if I try and take a shot at him when the opportunity presents itself, look at the big fuss he and wtfk have made in the past. Dont worry time heals all wounds and soon this will just be memory to laugh at later. There are no hard feelings here, I mean, it is just a bbs on the internet.

[BonerJoe]

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.

[dalebert]

(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 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.

Come on.  Raise the quality of the discussion.

[mrapplecastle]

It probably took quickmike 4 whole minutes to photoshop that, the man deserves some credit.

[Turd Ferguson]

(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 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.

Come on.  Raise the quality of the discussion.

youre right, but I only have paint on my laptop and no other pics of Russ. I'll try harder next time.

Besides, all the good points about this topic have been made already, so its naturally getting to the "but anyway" stage of discussion. Just doing whats natural.

[Turd Ferguson]

It probably took quickmike 4 whole minutes to photoshop that, the man deserves some credit.

TY for noticing artistic genius when you see it............... or dont see it.

[dalebert]

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?

[mrapplecastle]

Its sounds like you're trying to lump all us non pacifists into one angry group. For shame.

[Turd Ferguson]

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?

Thats why I said "I do however respect your decision to not do anything. It is your life after all. Do what you want with it." But Im just the type of person that pokes fun at something I think is silly. By all means, let someone violate you if thats how you want to live your life, but its hard for me to not poke fun at it.

[Pizzly]

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?

When I started this thread, I knew most people would disagree. I wanted to know why libertarians specifically justify violence in certain situations versus other situations. I didn't expect this much resistance though, many of these comments show the same childish "gaps" arguing that you get when talking to statists.

[anarchir]

Thanks for the profiling Shaw! I think you and BJ are allright dudes, and I dont think I've ever given either of you shit.

I must now go ponder  the meaning about the rest of my fortune cookie. Direct hits and all that. I suppose it means I dont get dragged down too much in online debating that it gets personal.

[alaric89]

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?