are you non-violent, Sup Forums?
If you claim this you are a lying coward.
We all know, whatever your ideology is, that if it goes on like this for another 15 years we will all be forced choose mass murder and mass violence. But it will also force us to discover ourselves again.
We have been too wealthy to know what we are really capable of.
(This is a /Euro/thread american redditfags pls stay out)
people who can't kill will always be subject to those who can
I am non-violent and a pacifist until you danger the safety of me, my family or my loved ones.
After that I am Vlad the impaler.
But you still vote. You use the government as your weapon
Non violence is a spook
This.
I believe in diplomacy first and non violence measures.
However if need be I carry a large stick
Seriously?...
....
*sigh*
What a stupid argument
Violence neither should be your first choice nor not a choice at all.
we institutionalise and control violence in government. To use violence against those who would use violence against others and to use violence for the greater good.
But what if a new group which makes up a new plurality want to overturn these institutions to use govermental and non-governmental violence for their tribal gain. This is what faces us in the future.
>tfw there are no amerifat reddit cringe posters in this thread
Going great uptill now
You give the State a monopoly on violence. You condone their violence against (innocent) people and to use violence in other States' affairs.
You post-modern 'intellectuals' think violence is inherently wrong, that things should be solved with words, except that you completely accept that violence is morally right when it comes from the State.
So why isn't it wrong when the State does it?
Violence is an easy, definite answer to a lot of conflicts. We should use more of it to stop sandniggers from fucking up our country.
Based countryman, well said.
The government should have the monopoly of violence to protect our group interests since we are a group animal and will be defeated by other groups who do assert their interests. Our government however remits it's goals to the whole world and against it's own people. Because most people voting in a democracy are short sighted the migration just keeps going.
>and we will be defeated by other groups who do assert their interests if we don't
I am non-aggressive, but perfectly happy to engage in a bit of unrestrained violence if I need to.
>hidden ancap ameriposter
You're not fooling anyone ;^)
I get the practical sense of giving the State a monopoly on violence. You don't want to give all citizens leeway to kill each other. It would be a very unsafe environment for everyone involved.
However, that doesn't mean that it is morally wrong in all cases or even the vast majority of cases. If the State can use violence outside of self-defense and we would consider it 'morally right', then the same should be said about any citizen.
If Ahmed tells me that he's going to call his nephews and brothers when we're having an argument, then neutralizing that threat, even though illegal, is morally right. If Ahmed says he's going to take over this country, says that ISIS is great or that we should implement the Sharia, then using violence to neutralize this threat is, although illegal, morally right.
People who shy away from violence in these cases are hypocrits.
I think in a hostile truly tribally diverse society government will be unable to protect citizens from selfish violence. We'll have to do it ourselves again. After that we should have more liberty to defend ourselves ourselves so to say
How would you go and make that practical, though? Too many of our countrymen are scared shitless and 'too intellectual' to use violence. Making it possible for Ahmed to use violence is going to seriously fuck us up.
I'm not American
few the thread is still clean
Who knows. I think we are fucked in the long run anyway if you look at the demographics. I think the only way in the end will be to seize the army and aivd. Even though our army is a joke it's still the most powerful instrument in the country. But that's 15-20 years down the road
Violence is a descending spiral that leads nowhere. I grew up in rural eastern Europe. I've lived through mass murder and violence. It perpetuates itself and doesn't really solve any problems.
/thread
Carry yourself like Jesus Christ, but be ready to morph into Satan at a moments notice if necessary.
It's in fact too late for violence. Violence should have erupted when Merkel imported a few million sandniggers into Germany, or when the first boy got raped in the UK. Literally, all of today's problems could have been avoided if people acted accordingly in the very beginning.
But they didn't. Anything we do from this point onward would be damage control.
>Different IDs
Amerifat detected
Deafeatism the post. Part in parcel eh Nige
Get out of this thread nigger
I believe in defensive violence only, but I don't necessarily believe in holding back. Nor am I alone.
Wait sorry, I'm an Amerifag. Sorry guys, I missed the last line of the OP.
Nothing on this Earth would make me happier than LARPing as Dr. Mengele.
Yes I am violent.
...
Yes
If you retort to violence quickly, you're overaggressive and easily agitated.
If you never do so, you're soft and malleable, easily manipulated.
The truth is that violence sometimes IS justified. Even in Bible what is translated as "do not kill" should be "do not murder", because war, self defence and justice are justifiable uses of violence.
Fuck no
I'd kill millions if I could