There will always be people willing to commit violence. If you have no capacity to defend yourself...

There will always be people willing to commit violence. If you have no capacity to defend yourself, or are unwilling to do so, you will suffer the consequences

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=AwjqlpZvFC8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

this is like saying "things turn out the way things turn out"

yeah man, totally

No, I'm saying when people give up their ability to protect themselves, or refuse to do so because "somebody, somewhere" may be harmed with a weapon, you deserve what you get for refusing to acknowledge violence as something fundamental to human nature

I get what you mean by this, yet most civiled fools think that their morals are at stake when they dont realize that its their life instead.

Separates most people from most people, only thing to say is its cool that weve weak people among strong, though social darwinism and murpheys law will have its way

create 2 societies, one that believes in self defence and the other a pig farm, physically seperate them and all comms, see which side is more beneficial off without the other

It's fine having weak people and strong people both, we need both.But the weak have to accept that the strong do violence on their behalf for their safety and continuation of life, and that there are always other violent people that are a threat and commit violence for their own personal reasons

That's not how it works user, the violent society would take over the farming society because they have no one to defend them from that happening. You're stacking the deck with that question. If societies never interacted, somebody would still eventually get jealous or angry or feel wronged enough to become violent

Or they would simply recognize that something they wanted could be taken by force, and would do so

shill
shill
shill on steroids

i never said voilent to non violent i said one that believes in self defence (more likely to be highly educated, intelligent, indepedent) and as such not having a need especially in this day and age for a slave cast (and owners, that dont believe in this formatisation), you're right, one would wipe out the other, and you didnt answer the question of which one requires the other (one becomes eventually completely cancerous and cannibalises as theres no more injection of a strain of sanity to guide one class over the other and you get an eventual blood dilution case)

im really angry i replied to this so this is what u get

seconded, its not like a pig farm wouldnt be without its benefits either,
but experience-wise the odds favor those who have the imagination, drive and will to go through with conquering. Will to conquer isnt something easily conjured when sheep only know to graze.

The likelyhood of anything happening to you personally is almost 0. Stop worrying so much you will give yourself a headache. Enjoy yourself.

but shell casings are made of brass, not gold

I'm not shilling, just wanted to see what Sup Forums would say. I'm not sure I understand your question now. Of the two, both would need the other. But you said they were separated and had no communication. So I'm not sure why you're asking which requires the other. To clarify what I meant, if the one society had pig farm and had plenty of food, it's a small step for the self defense society to turn into bandits essentially and take whatever they wanted from the othe.

call me a shill, doesnt make a difference that youve a weak constitution mentally and likely physically. With angst likethat youre probably some 14 yearold mad at the world, when youre actually mad at yourself for not accepting the reality

This

Man how scared of life do you have to fucking be to post shit coward threads like this every day?

This right here.

Just listen to the Iceman:

youtube.com/watch?v=AwjqlpZvFC8

"All the religious stuff aside, people who can't kill will always be subject to those who can."

>both would need the other
no

Man how scared of life do you have to be to not accept reality?

...

Exactly. People unwilling or unable to commit violence will always need and be subject to people who are willing and able. Sorry if there was some confusion on that point

They trained us to be killers. It's not going to go away.

>
there are 2 types of people though, one that think this type of cast is desirable and one that understands its redundency (minus the guilty weak)

guy, dafuq are you talking about

You sound like one of the guilty weak...

...

I'm not saying violence is right or wrong, I'm simply saying it exists and always has, and is fundamental to not only human nature but nature itself

I accept reality as it is.. I just don't have to write emo ass sonnets about getting shit done. Sack up and shut up already. Fucking tweens I swear.

I'm just gonna ask... what theater did you serve in? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Where did you do your time?

Oh... you haven't? You're just some weak fucking coward who sat out the last 17 years of war? Well then you don't get an opinion faggot.

user, there's been war going on somewhere in the world pretty much every day since the Bronze Age

nah man i failed drama

Sure, but the US has been at war for a generation and it's like the men they send over to do the killing are invisible. Veterans are just an inconvenient meat byproduct of the war that nobody even acknowledges.

smoke weed

That is very true user, and I don't agree with that at all. It's shameful and dishonorable how our veterans are treated

Nah. Gives me the spins. Bourbon's my thing. And posting like a washed up old homeless vet on this shitty Tibetan knitting forum.

Clearly OP doesnt understand the economy as well as the history behind nations and the fact that blood doesnt wash away with pretty pennies and silver tongued appologies. They dont return the dead nor tears.

Oh you're right, there's never been any such thing as empires. You think nations are built on good intentions and polite suggestions?

try cannabis oil

loved the mayan civilization for that very same reason ;D
>seriously though
you know what i meant when you replied, youre only kidding yourself and are just aiming for a rise.

Do you mean the politicians or leaders don't use the threat of violence, if not outright violence? They amount to the same thing. Have you ever been late paying your taxes? Do you think the letters they send threatening to take away your personal property if your taxes aren't paid isn't a threat of violence?

Ok I'm hammered so maybe I'm misreading, but uh... are you saying the Maya were peaceful, because that's a silly bitch statement.

only thing damaging about it is the equity that youve been threatened witht to lose, but damn shame guy, cause i dont know that feel and hope to never. Now Im not gonna put words or agendas around, but one would assume that a guy comes around and removes property -resisting would definitely incite shit to next level. Personally being beaten and arrested, its nothing to make more complicated than to follow the government; where theres a big stick, theres a dick behind enforcing its will. My suggestion, find out why shit like that happens and how you might prevent it.

sarcastically peaceful and welcoming to its neighboring tribesmen, kek

Nah, he was being sarcastic. I'm not really sure what his point is though
I was using it as an example of a threat of violence. Clearly you understand that. What point are you trying to make? That nations don't use violence as one among many ways of dominating space and enforcing control, or what?

Alright cool... Because those Yucatan niggers were killing each other in the tens of thousands every year. They actually had an economy prefaced on the idea that human labor was what gave value to a thing. So if a hundred thousand brownies died building your temple, it was better than the one down the road that only killed a thousand. Cult of death, tbh.

No its rather obvious that nations enforce policies, and that none have been built without sacrificial efforts. The point being that experience is likely to be the deciding factor among those who know how to fight and those who dont.
This seems a bit drawn out, yet the realities and the internal workings of society will always scapegoat or martyr based on the politicians and leaders direct agenda for expanding an empire , despite treaties.

Sacrificial efforts is a nice window dressing for saying violence. But yea, leaders manipulate the people they have control over and that has some to do with their willingness to become violent. So do economic and social factors. Doesn't change the fact that violence is essential, whether it's to expand or protect

this has derailed and im out of juice to continue, gg, violence is definitely necessary , and the people shouldnt allow the government to decide everything for them, people that are lead on by the government will only know the coverups/lies that the institutions were instructed to repeat. People should strive for more than just power, but understand the environments theyre in and the inner workings, and improve on themselves and always question things handed or provided. But when SHTF, the strong no matter how smart or dumb will immediately be chosen. whether its mentally or physically fit

Nicely put

10/10 thread