Is pasifism right or wrong?
We are taught that the right thing to do is to not hit back and just walk away, but countries always go to war.
Man exerts himself over things, things exert themselves over man. Exertion is violence, and violence is everything. Only the dead know the luxury of peace. Those who wish for peace may easily find it by gazing down the barrel of a pistol.
t. me
>>7818818
you combined like 3 famous quotes and pawned it as your own you charlatan
Pacifism is an immoral position, in that it forces other people to defend your rights without any contribution of your own. You can't just stand there and take it on the chin without retaliation and survive in the world, there will always be evil people who will use force to exert their influence over you. By insisting on a pacifist position, you are just passing the buck onto others without taking any risk of your own. Therefore, it is immoral as you insist on having others suffer for your safety.
>>7818700
VIOLENCE IS THE SUPREME AUTHORITY
>pasafism
you need to be able to speak english, its pretty essential in 2016 dude
>>7818700
It doesn't work on every scale. Within some communities it's usually best not to fight to the death, and some groups like Jews in Eastern Europe back in the day have concluded that self-defense can draw unacceptable reprisals on the rest of the community. Most of the time, however, somebody needs to balance chaotic violence with lawful violence. I think a lot of present day pacifists get it from the rabbinical defenses of pacifism that originated from this fear of reprisal.
Like >>7818839 said, however, somebody has to oppose rapacious violence with restrained or lawful violence to keep chaotic violence from ruling the day.
Think about it in game theory terms where there are three approaches
1.) Chaotically/criminally violent
2.) Completely pacifist
3.) Usually nonviolent but will act to suppress criminal violence
So (1) gains by seizing resources for himself through violence. That's his advantage. If he only encounters (2)s, then he faces no downsides to his behavior. If he encounters (3) then he faces substantially more risk. An environment with a lot of (1) makes it profitable to be a (3) because the (3) will face less risk than the (1)s running around willy-nilly. It is catastrophic to be a (2) in such an environment.
(2) gains from his position by not expending resources on defense, but gets totally fucked if he encounters (1), so he must either avoid him or surround himself with (3). In an area with a dominant population of (2), it's profitable to be a (1) but there may also rise a demand for (2).
(3) expends resources on defense and accepts some amount of risk related to this, but not really that much. He can make (2) safer if there's enough (3) in the area. Any (1) operating in an area with a strong population of (3) faces much more risk than he would without them and so being a (1) becomes less viable and being a (2) becomes more viable.
>>7818818
Wow. Who wrote that?
have fun being a pacifist when an aggressor is fucking your gf up the ass
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books
go to >>>/his/ fgt
