I support the use of violence

[PatrickC]

So we have a chap here that agrees with violence and the use of the state and wants to suggest (wrongly) that we are pacifists.. Come on guys, I gently ask you, why are you engaging with this chap.

[J. D. Stembal]

I don't know. What was the end result? Were the 30 million people guilty? Are people happier now? 30 million doesn't mean anything to me. There's no appreciable difference between 3 and 30,000,000 except logistics.

 

You can't form a subjective opinion? I thought this was the basis for ethics. Do you not like taking ethical stands?

 

To answer your questions:

 

30 million people died in the largest genocidal period known to modern history.

It doesn't matter if they were guilty or not. (What kind of guilt warrants being slaughtered?)

I don't know, ask a Chinese person about it. I'm sure you can find a relative of someone who died in the Cultural Revolution.

 

If you don't have enough information about communist China to formulate an opinion, why don't we use the Holocaust as an example? (12 million killed in the name of happiness through social purification.)

 

So we have a chap here that agrees with violence and the use of the state and wants to suggest (wrongly) that we are pacifists.. Come on guys, I gently ask you, why are you engaging with this chap.

 

I apologize for engaging in troll feeding, but I couldn't resist. I'm fascinated at what he's going to write next. I want to encourage him to call into the show with this theory of utilitarianism through ethical genocide, which seemingly comes out of modern feminism. (#KillAllMen)

[dsayers]

So we have a chap here that agrees with violence and the use of the state and wants to suggest (wrongly) that we are pacifists.. Come on guys, I gently ask you, why are you engaging with this chap.

 

I've been trying to figure out if he's a troll or a psychopath.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

So we have a chap here that agrees with violence and the use of the state and wants to suggest (wrongly) that we are pacifists.. Come on guys, I gently ask you, why are you engaging with this chap.

Also, I wonder what he's doing here? What motivates a fascist to engage specifically with anarcho-capitalists? Is it because we're opposites?

[Ken Cotton]

You can't form a subjective opinion? I thought this was the basis for ethics. Do you not like taking ethical stands?

 

To answer your questions:

 

30 million people died in the largest genocidal period known to modern history.

It doesn't matter if they were guilty or not.

I don't know, ask a Chinese person about it.

 

My subjective opinion hinges on the details. I prefer to have an informed opinion.

 

My ethical stand, my position, is that the death penalty is an appropriate measure for a society to take. I think it is unconscionable to force society to subsidize the living of certain kinds of criminals. I derive my standards and measures from my own personal experiences and my willingness to act on my beliefs, or as its more commonly known, the will to power.

 

30 million people died in the largest genocidal period in history. Interesting.

Their guilt is of profound importance. If they were all demonstrably guilty then there is no cause for concern.

I don't know any Chinese people, but, I'll make sure to keep this tidbit in mind next time I get a chance to talk to one.

[growler76]

I apologize, my name is Ken Cotton. I use my likeness as my avatar and its plainly available on other sources like my main email address and blog. It's a force of habit to use usernames instead of my real name on the internet. I think that's the case for most people, and something I am interested in working against.

 

Just an FYI; you can change your display name under your profile settings.

[luxfelix]

So we have a chap here that agrees with violence and the use of the state and wants to suggest (wrongly) that we are pacifists.. Come on guys, I gently ask you, why are you engaging with this chap.

 

I wasn't originally, but in post #26 of this thread he expressed that he was here primarily to learn, and he mentions a personal experience with government unable to help him much (the source for the bomb going off in his brain?); however, the turn to fascism, as well as his emphasis on the logic of violence (despite using happiness as a gauge for ethics...), presents, at least, a disconnect.

 

(If the violence of the state could not solve the problem (and/or if it was not the cause...?), why would more state violence solve the problem?)

 

I could be wrong, but it sounds like an ideology impassioned by a desire for vengeance through political power.

 

Ken, if you are here to learn, I recommend you address why it is you feel this way; I think you'll agree that you must know yourself as well as your enemy in order to triumph.

[Ken Cotton]

Knowledge is power. I certainly intend to learn as much from my enemies as possible.

 

However, there are many places where my beliefs overlap with those of others. I think that if I am successful in a political career I can help bring back the sort of traditional society we're sorely lacking. The roles of people in society, the nuclear family, and proper justice can all be restored. Vengeance will be a satisfying byproduct of the reinvigoration of the state. No amount of reflection or self-knowlegde can undo the way I view the world - it is who I am. All that remains is to weaponize the people against evil and purge it by force.

[Blackfish64]

I wholeheardtedly agree with the use, practice, and spread of violence.  100%.  Thank you for this post. 

 

I have studied violence my entire life and have learned only too well what it is and the one and only thing it is good for: self-protection.  And nothing else. 

 

Please, do not start in with the martial arts and all the broken people in that field who think they are some kind of expert on violence.  They're not.  They know nothing about the subject and will continue to do nothing but confirm their ignorance.

 

Violence is either an implement that saves lives or it's a criminal act.  Except in the case of suicide.  A man has every right, privilege, and property to do as he wishes with himself, i.e., commit violence against himself.   

 

Contrary to popular bullshit, violence is easy to learn, effective, and, when practiced properly, does not in fact make a person more violent or vigilant or alert or anything of the kind, but quite the other way around.  Violence, when properly learned, achieves peace, calm, cool collectedness in the individual.  It does not in fact twist him, but rather untwists him.  

 

Vilolence is not "random" or "senseless" or anytihng of the kind.  It is a perfectly logical, reasonable human property that we could not live without.  That challenge is to master it and put it in its proper context and keep it there.     

 

 

I don't know. What was the end result? Were the 30 million people guilty? Are people happier now? 30 million doesn't mean anything to me. There's no appreciable difference between 3 and 30,000,000 except logistics.

 

Talk about a perfect argument. 

[Mark Carolus]

I don't think Stef would agree with that statement. I am pretty certain he would ask you to define "harms way" FIRST.

 

Ah, see there you are again, this is basically the same trick you always play, so please allow me.

 

I don't have to define meanings every single time I make an argument in order for that argument to be acceptable, I only need to do so, if my definition is massively different to that which is generally accepted.

My definition of "harms way" or what I consider to be "putting people in harms way" ought to be quite obvious, I shouldn't have to explain this for you.

Funny enough though, I did actually give a few examples later on, which you decided to ignore, or have unintentionally missed.

 

If you read my original post again, you will also notice, that it answers you right there "the next step in the conversation would be: what/which behaviour is it that puts others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally?".

The question of what would constitute  "harms way", is a question you raise after you agree that "putting people in harms way" is wrong.

 

Your argument looks a bit like this to me "if you want to claim that punching people in the face is wrong, than you first have to define what punching people in the face means".

[powder]

Ethics completely revolves around maximizing human happiness. It's unethical to kill someone because it makes someone else feel sad, upset, hurt, angry, etc. There is nothing unethical about killing someone if it doesn't make anyone unhappy, the same way there is nothing unethical about destroying a chair. People throughout history have been able to kill other people by dehumanizing them, which makes killing them ethical. There's also nothing unethical about vandalism unless the vandalism makes someone unhappy.

 

This has actually been explored in art many times. You can see written work and movies about people who can't die or people who regenerate doing completely horrible things to one another. If you arm could regenerate very quickly and losing it wouldn't make you unhappy, it could become ethical for someone to cut your arm off. If having your genitals cut off was just a minor inconvenience, it could become increasingly ethical for someone to cut your genitals off. We don't condemn people who bump into each other for assault because it is incredibly minor and doesn't generally lead to unhappiness, even though the principle of force against a person without consent has technically occurred.

 

Genocide for example has been viewed as ethical in many societies. It is only by making minorities in the society or majorities in other societies unhappy that it gains a label of unethical. There's nothing inherently unethical about genocide or extinction, because ethics are wholly subjective, and that subjectivity basically amounts to the total of happiness/unhappineess generated by actions.

ethics is about consent, not happiness.  I don't care if my arm grows back or not, you can only take it if I say its OK, otherwise you are initiating force = unethical.  

[yagami]

Thanks. I appreciate that. I find civil conversation on points of disagreement to be generally productive and interesting. I am here primarily to learn after all.

 

My personal experience with freedom comes in two major arcs I would say. The first arc is in personal freedom or household freedom. The inability of social services or police officers to make meaningful investigations into private property enabled people to abuse me and others. Due to the government being legally unable to do much about my situation it continued longer then it had to, and a variety of tactics could be utilized to prolong it. In this way I was shown the inherent weaknesses of the present system and some of the potential side effects of freedom.

 

The second major arc of freedom I've seen has been growing up with the internet moving into the mainstream. I was born in 1987, so during my teenage years I was active when cable internet emerged and it became more common. Growing up with the internet in a form more closely related to its current incarnation I have seen the wide range of effects that occurs with anonymity. Anonymity is a form of freedom that generally leads to negative results. Anonymity encourages or allows for increasingly bad behaviour, which is supported by a variety of psychiatric studies. Anonymity, a form of freedom, divorces people from accountability and facing the consequences of their actions. By removing the negative sensation linked to inflammatory or hateful speech  ( misogynistic, uneccessarily violent, etc ) of public shame or ridicule you remove one of the main barriers to those actions.

 

 

With the second issue specifically, I am driven to support the nationalization of the internet and the creation of WebIDs. A WebID would function like any other form of identification in that it would link the real person using the internet to their online activities. Websites would be forced to collaborate in using this system, as would ISPs and programmers. The use of violence would force the internet and computer community to construct the necessary framework, enforce it, and put internet users into it. The result? An internet where people do not have the shield of anonymity, and thus a drastic reduction in death threats, misogyny, unecessary violence, child pornography distribution, etc. However, this security apparatus would never be able to exist without the underlying threat of violence keeping people in line, whether that's something simple like a fine or something more intense like jail time.

Lets start with your first point. Freedom is not the cause of continued violations of your property rights. If the government is bound by law to not act it is the government that enacted those laws through the democratic process. This is not a result of unchecked freedom at all. Im not sure if you have read Stephs book called practical anarchy but he explains one likely way violations of property rights will be dealt with in a free society. I'll give it a short summary.

 

Basically if you violate someone property rights you will either pay in some appropriate way or you would suffer a credit score hit. This isn't the traditional credit score where it only deals with finance this credit score will handle everything ( or it is very possible that there will be multiple credit scores for multiple things). So there may be a credit score for how often you violate or fulfill contracts or how often if at all you assault people. People who have a low credit score will be unable to function in society because it is in everyone interest to not be assaulted or stolen from ect. So you wont be able to buy groceries buy a car buy property and so on and so forth. This is what unchecked freedom looks like. Saying that the clearly unfree society is somehow looks anything like what we have now I think is incorrect.

 

On your second point I dont think anonymity turns people into bad people. In fact im sure it doesn't. Anonymity makes people feel more comfortable being who they really are. So many of us are not allowed to be ourselves because of our childhoods. When we are allowed to be ourselves without consequence then you see the true state of people in society. Getting rid of anonymity is attempting to fix the symptom not the disease. If you want people to not act negatively when given anonymity then we need to prevent bad childhoods. That is the real problem.

[powder]

I've been trying to figure out if he's a troll or a psychopath.

I am thinking the later but hoping the former.  

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Knowledge is power. I certainly intend to learn as much from my enemies as possible.

 

However, there are many places where my beliefs overlap with those of others. I think that if I am successful in a political career I can help bring back the sort of traditional society we're sorely lacking. The roles of people in society, the nuclear family, and proper justice can all be restored. Vengeance will be a satisfying byproduct of the reinvigoration of the state. No amount of reflection or self-knowlegde can undo the way I view the world - it is who I am. All that remains is to weaponize the people against evil and purge it by force.

Well you've kinda got the haircut for that.

It's probably best not to tell your enemies your plan. That's villain mistake 101.

[yagami]

I've been trying to figure out if he's a troll or a psychopath.

That's not pretty rude. He hasn't said anything rude to anyone here and that seems pretty uncalled for. He could simply have his view points and has come here to hear a different argument which is more than what most people would do. Imagine you taking your beliefs to a different forum and they said I've been trying to figure out if he's a troll or a psychopath.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Ah, see there you are again, this is basically the same trick you always play, so please allow me.

 

I don't have to define meanings every single time I make an argument in order for that argument to be acceptable, I only need to do so, if my definition is massively different to that which is generally accepted.

My definition of "harms way" or what I consider to be "putting people in harms way" ought to be quite obvious, I shouldn't have to explain this for you.

Funny enough though, I did actually give a few examples later on, which you decided to ignore, or have unintentionally missed.

 

If you read my original post again, you will also notice, that it answers you right there "the next step in the conversation would be: what/which behaviour is it that puts others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally?".

The question of what would constitute  "harms way", is a question you raise after you agree that "putting people in harms way" is wrong.

 

Your argument looks a bit like this to me "if you want to claim that punching people in the face is wrong, than you first have to define what punching people in the face means".

What trick? I would ask for a definition of "harms way" BEFORE I agree to any premise that you use it in. No one asked you to define meanings every time you make an argument. I just asked for a definition of "harms way". It's actually NOT quite obvious and just asserting that it IS obvious doesn't help. "Harms way" could cover almost anything including being born. It's quite a general term. 

Define your terms. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

That's not pretty rude. He hasn't said anything rude to anyone here and that seems pretty uncalled for. He could simply have his view points and has come here to hear a different argument which is more than what most people would do. Imagine you taking your beliefs to a different forum and they said I've been trying to figure out if he's a troll or a psychopath.

I sorry but what you saying is preposterous. If "I support the use of violence against you to get what I want" is not rude then nothing is rude.

[dsayers]

What does rude (subjective) have to do with anything? Psychopathy is seeing other people as not people at all. His position that violence is good, necessary, that people are people is arbitrary fits. When something looks like an apple, tastes like an apple, and smells like an apple, it is not rude to consider the possibility that it is an apple. Nor is it rude to share my honest thought process with others.

 

If I emulated a psychopath, for others to consider that I might be a psychopath would follow. No imagination necessary. Instead of pointing a finger at me, have you made an effort to identify why my honesty has that particular emotional response in you? Because trying to shame somebody for something unshameful is manipulative, which I don't think is a healthy way to manage one's anxiety.

[Ken Cotton]

Credit score is an interesting method of management. I'm glad to consider it. I'm all for exploring creative solutions to different problems. Whether its tax reform, justice reform, immigration reform, and so on. It's my core opinion that society is best served by multiple views, "everything in moderation" as the saying goes.

 

To make my original point clearer however, it is property rights and personal freedoms that condemned me. The same way that Ariel Castro was able to keep those girls locked up for years. The same way that any kidnapper or hostage taker is able to obscure their activities with privacy rights and private property laws. I'm not interested in fairy tale solutions about a utopia where there are never sick people again who excessively beat, starve, sexually abuse, or otherwise mishandle their children. I am interested in practical ways of combating the reality we face today.

 

I was saved by the state. Infringment of property rights and personal freedom rescued me. The state clothed me, the state fed me, the state educated me and the state freed me. My family failed on multiple counts to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations. Any number of reasons or conclusions can be drawn from why they did what they did, but those things are in the past. They are dead and gone and well beyond my changing. All I can do now is look at society and see where the incessant push for selfishness in rampant freedom causes unregulated misery. Inevitable human misery and suffering that can be placed upon the demonstrably guilty and not randomly distributed among the innocent by chance.

 

 

Considering my stance villainy can only either be an illogical reverence toward liberty or collusion with murderers, rapists, and thieves. From the high ranking bankers that sell out entire markets for personal gain, to multinational corporations with no particular allegiance to the people they exploit... from violent psychopaths to sex offenders. Aligning yourself against me in their defense is treasonous to virtue itself.

 

Remember vigor. Remember action. Remember passion. Break free of the shackles of modern society and rise up in force. Let the state flourish around you, not as a method of control, but as a singlular driving force! Through voluntary cooperation let the spirit of the greater community show itself, and let fascism emerge from democracy as the will of the people! The action of the people! We will punish the wicked and expel the saboteurs. We will use violence against those who would seek to undo our work, who wish criminality and deviance to run unchecked among us. There can be no love without hate. No life without death. No coexistence between good and evil.

 

All I ask is that you look within yourself and find truth. As truth cannot permit falsehood, neither can good men permit evil men - only be surrounded by them, twisted by them, or emulated by them.

[QueechoFeecho]

It sounds like Ken's stance boils down to "might makes right". Ken if I made an error there please explain how a bit.

[Ken Cotton]

Yes and no. Might is necessary for right to succeed and thrive. I don't believe that someone is in the moral right just because they overpower someone else. Rape for example is not a moral thing to do. I think there is an ideal human condition that dictates a framework for society with minor adjustments, systems with various pros and cons. I also think that violence is inseperable from the human condition and a fundamental part of our nature.

 

To be concise, my stance is that if you're right your might is right.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Credit score is an interesting method of management. I'm glad to consider it. I'm all for exploring creative solutions to different problems. Whether its tax reform, justice reform, immigration reform, and so on. It's my core opinion that society is best served by multiple views, "everything in moderation" as the saying goes.

 

To make my original point clearer however, it is property rights and personal freedoms that condemned me. The same way that Ariel Castro was able to keep those girls locked up for years. The same way that any kidnapper or hostage taker is able to obscure their activities with privacy rights and private property laws. I'm not interested in fairy tale solutions about a utopia where there are never sick people again who excessively beat, starve, sexually abuse, or otherwise mishandle their children. I am interested in practical ways of combating the reality we face today.

 

I was saved by the state. Infringment of property rights and personal freedom rescued me. The state clothed me, the state fed me, the state educated me and the state freed me. My family failed on multiple counts to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations. Any number of reasons or conclusions can be drawn from why they did what they did, but those things are in the past. They are dead and gone and well beyond my changing. All I can do now is look at society and see where the incessant push for selfishness in rampant freedom causes unregulated misery. Inevitable human misery and suffering that can be placed upon the demonstrably guilty and not randomly distributed among the innocent by chance.

 

 

Considering my stance villainy can only either be an illogical reverence toward liberty or collusion with murderers, rapists, and thieves. From the high ranking bankers that sell out entire markets for personal gain, to multinational corporations with no particular allegiance to the people they exploit... from violent psychopaths to sex offenders. Aligning yourself against me in their defense is treasonous to virtue itself.

 

Remember vigor. Remember action. Remember passion. Break free of the shackles of modern society and rise up in force. Let the state flourish around you, not as a method of control, but as a singlular driving force! Through voluntary cooperation let the spirit of the greater community show itself, and let fascism emerge from democracy as the will of the people! The action of the people! We will punish the wicked and expel the saboteurs. We will use violence against those who would seek to undo our work, who wish criminality and deviance to run unchecked among us. There can be no love without hate. No life without death. No coexistence between good and evil.

 

All I ask is that you look within yourself and find truth. As truth cannot permit falsehood, neither can good men permit evil men - only be surrounded by them, twisted by them, or emulated by them.

I'm very sorry for your abuse. It was not freedom that condemned you, it was your parents neglect and abuse. They did not respect your property rights or take responsibility. You think the state saved you? How do you know the state's actions didn't actually make your life worse? The state claimed responsibility for you along with your parents and they both failed.

Millions have been kidnapped and tortured and murdered because of violations of privacy and/or property rights so to take one example of privacy actually helping evil is not valid. 

Claiming that not agreeing with your fascist dictates is aligning ourselves against you is a false dichotomy. It doesn't follow that because we're against your advocacy of initiatory violence that we are therefore is collusion with murderers, rapists and thieves. We can be against those people AND you. In fact you ARE those people because you've stated you will commit murder, rape and theft to get what you want. 

 

There is no "the people". There's no agent called "the people" and no "will of the people". That's a superstition. There's just people. Instead of grandiose speeches you should make a valid argument. 

[dsayers]

Rape for example is not a moral thing to do.

 

How do you know? According to you, violence is integral and considering humans in a separate category from beasts is arbitrary. How do you arrive at rape is immoral without giving the victim personhood?

 

You also mentioned "our nature." Near as I can tell, there's only two things that can truthfully be said about human nature: we adapt and we seek out the most resources for the least amount of risk/effort. Since co-operating with others is a way of adapting to a world where others exist and not incurring the ire of others allows for the gathering of resources with reduced risk/effort, the elements that are true of "human nature" could be motivators for peaceful interaction.

 

It's superfluous to say that if you're right, your might is right. To say that rape is immoral is to say that the use of force to arrest rape is moral.

[Ken Cotton]

dsayers, I am going to prepare an exploration of this in another thread. Thanks for making me think about it.

[JeanPaul]

Suppose we have discovered a huge continent with lots of resources, and there are only 1,000 inhabitants who do not want to let us settle down. Suppose that this continent could allow half a billion people lead a great life. Is initiation of use of force acceptable in this case?

[Kevin Beal]

Suppose we have discovered a huge continent with lots of resources, and there are only 1,000 inhabitants who do not want to let us settle down. Suppose that this continent could allow half a billion people lead a great life. Is initiation of use of force acceptable in this case?

It depends on what you mean by "acceptable". It's immoral to steal from or attack the inhabitants, but if I have no choice as I'm starving or something, as ridiculous a situation as that would be, I'd still negotiate with them.

 

If "acceptable" is subjective (as in the colloquial sense) then imo, no.

[Blackfish64]

Suppose we have discovered a huge continent with lots of resources, and there are only 1,000 inhabitants who do not want to let us settle down. Suppose that this continent could allow half a billion people lead a great life. Is initiation of use of force acceptable in this case?

 

This has been done already on two continents, North and South America, and is done all over the world on a daily basis. We've been doing it in the middle east for nearly a century now to protect oil riches for ourselves. No, the use of force is not acceptable, which is why the native inhabitants fight back. We simply give them no choice but to do things our way or die.

 

You're sane and socialized, so to speak. Everyone thinks they are. If another such place as you describe were found, it would be the same thing all over again. We would invent some "reason", "philosophy" or plain excuse to go in there and get the goods-whether or not we need them. So, the initiation of the use of force, while clearly not "acceptable", is absolutely inevitable. We will find the excuse we need to go in there and lay everyone low, kick their heads in with boot heels and bullets and take everything they had. Guaranteed. When there's free loot lying around for the taking, philosophy goes out the window and the looting begins. This is not to say that no one will have the power to resist the looting, but that most will not.

 

Again, the use of force is good for one thing and one thing only: self-protection.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Suppose we have discovered a huge continent with lots of resources, and there are only 1,000 inhabitants who do not want to let us settle down. Suppose that this continent could allow half a billion people lead a great life. Is initiation of use of force acceptable in this case?

You have to describe how it would be the initiation of force. How do 1000 people own a huge continent? 

[Blackfish64]

There is nothing to be learned from empathizing with victims.

 

Rape is not moral not only because it destroys the victim. It destroys the rapist, too.

 

Violence destroys everyone. Violence destroys you when you're doing it, violence destroys you when it's done to you.

 

In those incredibly rare times when violence is the answer, unfortunately it is the only answer.

 

Give up violence and you are ruined. Take up violence and you are ruined.

 

Violence is good for one thing only: self defense, self protection. Nothing else. But even using violence only in the act of self protection there is a price to be paid.

[dsayers]

Violence is good for one thing only: self defense, self protection. Nothing else. But even using violence only in the act of self protection there is a price to be paid.

 

It's true. The first time I had to pull a gun on somebody, I was sick to my stomach for three days straight. I'm up to having to do that four times now and my hands are still shaking once everything is said and done. I have tears in my eyes just thinking about it right now. It's necessary, it's preferable to the alternative, but it's no picnic.

[Blackfish64]

It's true. The first time I had to pull a gun on somebody, I was sick to my stomach for three days straight. I'm up to having to do that four times now and my hands are still shaking once everything is said and done. I have tears in my eyes just thinking about it right now. It's necessary, it's preferable to the alternative, but it's no picnic.

Hear! Hear! Hear what this wise and eloquent speaker has to say!

[shirgall]

It's true. The first time I had to pull a gun on somebody, I was sick to my stomach for three days straight. I'm up to having to do that four times now and my hands are still shaking once everything is said and done. I have tears in my eyes just thinking about it right now. It's necessary, it's preferable to the alternative, but it's no picnic.

 

Indeed, this is very difficult. I'm sorry to hear you've had to go through it, especially multiple times. PTSD is real, and there are other psychological and physiological effects of such traumatic events.

[J. D. Stembal]

It's true. The first time I had to pull a gun on somebody, I was sick to my stomach for three days straight. I'm up to having to do that four times now and my hands are still shaking once everything is said and done. I have tears in my eyes just thinking about it right now. It's necessary, it's preferable to the alternative, but it's no picnic.

 

I hope I never have to draw down on anyone. I was told in a defense class that you won't know if you have the will to pull the trigger until the exact moment you are required to do so. Neither of the two retired cops teaching the class had to shoot another person before.  Lefties like to paint firearm owners like wannabe bad asses, and not humans with a conscience. It takes a depraved individual to actually want to shoot a gun at someone.

[Ken Cotton]

You felt sick? I don't understand.

 

Do you mean you felt sick as in, you went into shock? If that's the case you should be able to reason that shock is a completely normal biological reaction. I am really repulsed by spiders, and one time when someone went to throw a spider on my face I blanched and got all quesy feeling and shaky. That was just a biological reaction though, one that I worked through that only lasted a handful of minutes. Looking back on my personal experience with violence, I've never felt that feeling in connection with a violent act. I've felt pretty much nothing except for clarity, a sort of... brief falling out of the world and into another place of extreme calm. I can remember one time I threw a chair at someone at school in a fairly impressive fashion, the instant it entangled in their legs and took them down I did feel a momentary spike in fear - fear that I had gone too far and something would happen to me - but then we all were laughing about it and that fear vanished.

 

I've always found it extremely difficult to think outside of my own feelings and experiences. I would never have imagined that someone would feel bad about committing an act of violence, as long as it was socially justified. I've of course heard about people who felt bad about having to take lives but they've always existed as a kind of anamoly to me. From my youngest days I've always known my grandfather didn't want to talk about his experience in the war, but it was a kind of learned respect, an emulation of the solemness and sensitivity of those around him. On my part I've always been very curious about what happened and wondered how a many so strong and noble could be made so quiet so easily.

[Blackfish64]

You felt sick? I don't understand.

 

Do you mean you felt sick as in, you went into shock? If that's the case you should be able to reason that shock is a completely normal biological reaction. I am really repulsed by spiders, and one time when someone went to throw a spider on my face I blanched and got all quesy feeling and shaky. That was just a biological reaction though, one that I worked through that only lasted a handful of minutes. Looking back on my personal experience with violence, I've never felt that feeling in connection with a violent act. I've felt pretty much nothing except for clarity, a sort of... brief falling out of the world and into another place of extreme calm. I can remember one time I threw a chair at someone at school in a fairly impressive fashion, the instant it entangled in their legs and took them down I did feel a momentary spike in fear - fear that I had gone too far and something would happen to me - but then we all were laughing about it and that fear vanished.

 

I've always found it extremely difficult to think outside of my own feelings and experiences. I would never have imagined that someone would feel bad about committing an act of violence, as long as it was socially justified. I've of course heard about people who felt bad about having to take lives but they've always existed as a kind of anamoly to me. From my youngest days I've always known my grandfather didn't want to talk about his experience in the war, but it was a kind of learned respect, an emulation of the solemness and sensitivity of those around him. On my part I've always been very curious about what happened and wondered how a many so strong and noble could be made so quiet so easily.

 

Your honesty is appreciated.  In this, your post, your lack of empathy is laid bare.  Cops, military, government are always looking to recruit people with your peculiar abilities, or lack of ability, if you prefer.

 

I grew up in violence and, like dsayers, I have worked in incredibly violent occupations.  I worked for many years in one of the most notorious neighborhoods in Las Vegas.  I've arrested hundreds of people.  Been in dozens of fights and skirmishes, two of which were potentially lethal, i.e., asocial violence, where someone was trying to kill me and I had to put a stop to it.  Fortunately, I was armed in both instances with the most potent weapon in man's possession: my brains.  I survived.  My point is, having grown up in violence, I was already "conditioned", if you will, for this particular environment.  I fell right into it, admittedly by accident at first, but I blended in quite well.  It was a perfect place for me.   I knew when to dish it out and when to take it.  Most importantly, I understood the use of violence as an implement, as a tool.  My use of violence did not go beyond the stopping of the violence that was being done to myself or to someone else.  I've been reprimanded for not pulling my gun and using it when others thought I should have.  I didn't care.  Reprimand away.  I will not kill someone if it is not necessary.  I don't want it on my conscience.  It would only be yet another interruption in my life I would have to deal with.  The broken arms, busted heads, unconscious persons I have rendered, well, that will all heal nicely.  And we all live to fight another day-or, should I say, we all have another chance to learn that fighting isn't going to help us any.  It's a waste of time. 

 

There are three kinds of people in the world when it comes to violence:  there are wolves, sheepdogs, and sheep.  It's that simple. 

 

I'm a sheepdog.   I'm a peacekeeper.

 

Now, when it comes to survival, I do what I have to do.  We all do.  We all will.  It is part of our nature, our psychological makeup.