Why the opposition to pacifism?

[John Shaw]

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.

Nice cherry picking, troll.

Stealing food is wrong.

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.

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.

[Pizzly]

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.

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?

[Turd Ferguson]

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.

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?

[Pizzly]

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.

[Andy]

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.

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.

[Turd Ferguson]

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.

[Pizzly]

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.

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?

[BonerJoe]

derp

[Turd Ferguson]

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.

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?

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?

[Turd Ferguson]

derp

For real

[Pizzly]

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?

I'v heard many libertarians say that, but it makes no sense to me.



On a different note, why was this thread moved to the troll board?

[Turd Ferguson]

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?

I'v heard many libertarians say that, but it makes no sense to me.

Thats because you're 19 and STUPID.............. game over.

[Pizzly]

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?

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.

[Turd Ferguson]

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?

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.

[BonerJoe]

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?

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.

I'll be right over.