Terrorism

What are your views on terrorism?
Is terrorism justifiable?
Why are some people terrorists?

Bi0Hazard: For what it's worth, I oppose violence towards other human beings, with the exception of the unborn (who I do not consider human).

People are terrorists because they get sufficiently frustrated with something that they feel the need to bring fear to others. As Asimov famously wrote, violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

admin: Why do you oppose violence?

Do you believe there are no scenarios in which violence can be used as a means for self defense?

Do you accept that violence can be used as a means to an end, in order to achieve certain goals?

Scenario: An oppressive fascist regime has ruled continuously over an unnamed nation for 50 years.You are a citizenof this nation. What would be your course of action to rid your country of its fascist overlords in your lifetime.

Crow: I oppose all violence because it's hurtful towards other people. I don't believe that it is sensible to end suffering through causing more suffering.

I do not believe there are any scenarios where violence can be effectively used for self defense. Moreover I don't think self defense is so important as the overall cause of non-violence.

Violence can be used as a means to an end, yes. It just is a particularly poor means to an end that hurts people.

In your scenario, my course of action would be passive resistance.

admin: Violence can be used as a means to an end, yes. It just is a particularly poor means to an end that hurts people.
Violence is an effective and quick means to an end, sure, it may be immoral in many ways, but I wouldn't say it is a poor means.

Bi0Hazard: Common misconception. The reality is that violence actually makes other people more violent, not less as many would assume. In many parts of the world it's a self-perpetuating culture.

admin: I oppose all violence because it's hurtful towards other people.

That is a SJW bs level answer.

Explain how violence affects you personally. That would be an acceptable answer.

I do not believe there are any scenarios where violence can be effectively used for self defense

Under the scenario that a gang actively wants you dead, a firearm would be an unhandy tool for self defense? I mostly asked you this to establish naivety. This makes it official.

Moreover I don't think self defense is so important as the overall cause of non-violence.

Just reiterating that you are atheist, and therefore believe that there are no moral repercussions for your actions on earth in the afterlife.

If you could defend yourself from an attacker using violence, and chose not too for an arbitrary cause, which if you ended up dead would soon be forgotten... that makes you an idiot.

You sacrificed your life for something that will be totally meaningless to you in the afterlife. See how stupid your statement sounds from someone of your POV. It goes to show that you are being handed down lines, rather than reaching logical conclusions from your own perspective.

Violence can be used as a means to an end, yes.

Good, so we know that the act can be justified for someone with a significant cause.

It just is a particularly poor means to an end that hurts people.

It is an effective means. Take that into consideration.

In your scenario, my course of action would be passive resistance.

This is among the most non-effective means. It causes much pain, all of which is in vein, because a fascist government doesn't give a shit about your "passive resistance."

Can you help me wrap my head around why you are so intentionally naive?

admin: If you want to defeat a government that uses violence on its own people, violence to defeat it would be effective if you can overpower it.

Bi0Hazard: Admin would much rather use "passive resistance" because he is wrapped up in all this BS nonsense he invented to make him feel good about himself.

Crow: Well some people can personally feel empathy for other people. It's sociopathic to be so self-absorbed as to never consider what impact your actions have on other people.

Firearms do not protect against bullets. Shields or armor do. Rather firearms allow you to hurt other people.

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you can't have a moral code. In fact I feel naturalistically, there is a stronger moral imperative for caring about other people than just about anything else. We're all human and with this precious short life we need to make the best of it.

I don't think it's idiotic at all. People told that to Baxter, Ghandi, Te Whiti and pretty much every other famous passive resister in history. I'll never forget that scene in We Will Not Cease, as it had a big effect on me. Mark Kurlansky's book "Nonviolence" has a more comprehensive overview on why it isn't stupid, as he systematically reviews hundreds of examples of nonviolent resistance. The bottom line is that nonviolence is not forgotten, and not meaningless to me. It has meaning to me if it has meaning to society at large. People need to come to the realization that violence doesn't help anyone, and if I can be only the smallest part of that, then yay. Many others have done it with absolutely no expectation of popularity and as a result inspired many others.

It can't be justified even with sufficient cause. You're forgetting that economics is always marginal, even economics of activity. You say it's effective, for example. Relative to what? Non-violence? Then that's where I'd disagree with you.

Sure they don't care about my resistance. I don't care about them either. What's your point?

Bi0Hazard: Sure, until somebody overpowers you.

OR you could just not run a state by force, but by cooperation.

Take your pick.

admin: Well some people can personally feel empathy for other people. It's sociopathic to be so self-absorbed as to never consider what impact your actions have on other people.


You can use violence as a tool, and still retain your humanity. There is a fundamental difference between a soldier and a psychopath, even if you cannot see it.

Firearms do not protect against bullets. Shields or armor do. Rather firearms allow you to hurt other people.

Removing a threat is synonymous with protecting oneself from a threat. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

People told that to Baxter, Ghandi, Te Whiti and pretty much every other famous passive resister in history.

What are all those people associated with?

Britian


All your non-resistance success stories are associated with Britain and British influenced governments , and the fact that a world war had ended shortly prior. Goes for Kenya and South Africa too.

They are the exception not the rule, and honestly, the non-violence movements hardly had much of an actual impact on the change of events. Now get your head out of la-la land.


Sure they don't care about my resistance. I don't care about them either. What's your point?

Another example of you lying to yourself.

You do care, and you care a lot. In your current state of privilege, you get to complain about a lot, and you take full advantage of that. If the place that you came from became a fascist dystopia, you would care a helluva a lot. You wouldn't be fooling anybody if you tried to play it off.

admin: If you cooperate, you won't get anywhere since you have to follow the rules(or at least make it harder to change anything), which is not desirable when your ruled by a corrupt state. If you go by revolution, it would work better since force has no laws and can change for the better. Violence would work as a means to an end.

What's your point?

Sorry, forgot to say something.

Now if you actually wanted to achieve something in this scenario, what would you do. Continue to bitch passively like a little girl?

You think your beliefs in non-violence are noble. They might make you feel all warm inside, but they are naive and unfounded.

Bi0Hazard: He thinks that passivity is effective, but when I pressed him in my fascist state scenario, he all but admits that it wont actually accomplish shit.

Crow: Insofar as soldiers kill people, you either have to accept that killing people is moral, or that soldiering is immoral. "Tool" is a nice way to dress up that you are killing people for your own ends. I don't see the morality in treating human lives as tools.

Killing somebody is not the best way to remove a threat.

So the American Woman's Suffragette movement, was that influenced significantly by Britain? The fact all three of those can be loosely connected with Britain speaks only to the fact that Britain had a significant colonial influence compared to many other nations. There are examples from basically every country. More has been achieved in human history by nonviolent means than violent ones. Violence is instead only destructive, and anything else is a broken window fallacy.

You can hypothesize all you want about how I'd react in various situations. Nonviolent resisters have existed during actual extremist fascist regimes and I can only say I feel like I would have joined them.

Crow: You don't know that. All I said was, lots of people have assumed such movements wouldn't, when in reality they accomplished that and much more. People are more war-averse than at any other point in human history. Great.

If I actually wanted to achieve something, same thing. Passive resistance. Simply not comply and go about my business. Worst they can do is kill me, and honestly that's a super weak threat. What value is a martyr to them?

Bi0Hazard: Since when do you have to follow the rules?

admin: Insofar as soldiers kill people, you either have to accept that killing people is moral, or that soldiering is immoral.

You do not need to accept either. Neither is fully true for a soldier to begin with.

Soldiers dedicate themselves to a cause. That is the only thing of any importance to consider.

Most soldiers set out to kill other soldiers who will attempt to kill them. That is different than killing just any other person.

Stop misrepresenting facts and peddling lies. It isn't proper intellect.

Killing somebody is not the best way to remove a threat.

In life or death situations, it is the most sure solution.

You can hypothesize all you want about how I'd react in various situations.

You said you wouldn't care. I didn't hypothesize that you are full of shit, I just know it as a fact.

Worst they can do is kill me, and honestly that's a super weak threat. What value is a martyr to them?

Nope, they can also torture you, shut down your businesses, kill your family members, seize your economic assets, ect. Use your imagination.

admin: If you cooperate, that is following the laws. Unless you mean cooperating against the state. Revolution would be the best cooperation against the state.