The Philosophy of Violence

Whatever gets me an advantage within a given situation while not fucking me over legally (if there is a chance of witnesses or an investigation)

>>32818786
>Conflict is inevitable, and should be prepared for.
>Be aggressive enough fast enough
>Never be unnecessarily violent. Presume an enemy until they surrender but not an inch further.
>Everyone dies in the end.
>The best life is a cherished one, the best death is a useful one.

>>32818822
Assuming legality is not at ALL a factor; when do you feel it is right to kill or maim? That's the real question here,

Although I would certainly agree with the point you are implying that the current American legal system is unfairly skewed in the favor of violators, I'm more asking what ya'll have as general opinions towards the topic if you were operating in a legal vacuum.

As in; I for one would kill anyone who would threaten the survival of you and yours, but would not really consider it necessary or acceptable to cut people's hands off for trivial thievery of essential goods (As in; if someone tries to steal food from me, I'm not going to chop off your hands, but if you break into my house in the dead of night to murder or rape me me and mine, I'll gladly disembowel them and nail em to a post in front of my house so their buddies don't get the same idea.)

I'm not going to pretend I've never gotten in a scuffle over a girl or because someone was eyeing me wrong, but there's a time and place for that, and that's called highschool. Any "adult" (by American legal standards anyways) engaging in such behavior is maladjusted and and unfit member of society. I'd say the usage of violence or lethal force for the sake of 'honor' or pride is wholly unacceptable and punishable by death.

>>32818979
If it gives me an advantage. Same as everyone else for millennia.

Violence is human nature, I'd kill women, kids anyone in a heartbeat if I had to and think nothing of it.

File: Screenshot_20170111-092853~2.png (45KB, 1080x355px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1080x355px

>>32818996
Watch out guys, we got a real bad ass here

>>32818786
My use of force doctrine goes like this.
>Threat of Death.
Yes, shoot to kill don't wound, KILL. If you just wound the DA will try to make it seem you went overboard.
>Trival Threat to Property.
No, I would ask the person to come back so I can cook him something to eat. Shooting people over food is FUCKED UP.

>Substantial.
YES. If some dude had a Molotov he's getting killed.

>Honor Killing?
Literally sand nigger tier.

>TETOAWKI?
If at all possible, try to assimilate as many people as possible. If you work, and agree to follow moral conduct we'll welcome you. Besides you need farm hands to work crops. Now if they are Mad Max/Fallout style Raiders, kill them and track down their camp and kill them all.

>Ayylamos?
Be friendly, but have a 10mm just in case.
>Foreign Invasion?
Kill all they send.
>Race War?
Defend my home, stay out of it but if niggers show up kill them.
>RWDS?
ENJOY AS WE PURGE LIBERALS!

File: mfw.jpg (25KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x400px

>>32819267
ur ok im my book famlan

>>32819111
Counterreported no takseybackseys, shine on bright star.

Its every man's right to feel what it is like to kill another.

>>32818786
I don't live in USA so I don't really know.

>>32819349
Regardless, say the social order collapses wherever you live, and you manage to get your hands on a sweet sword or some pistol rifle from the former local govt; when would you feel morally vindicated in using it?

File: european police man's idea of self defense - charlie hebdo - muslims.jpg (400KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 2048x1536px

>>32819349
Seconded. Violence does not occur in Europe.

File: image.jpg (54KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 640x960px

It's golden.

>>32818786
Violence is like sex. It is simply a fact of life. It is non-moral. Outside of specific context, it has no ethical value, positive or negative.

Violence is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil. It's up to you to decide your morals (what's right and what's wrong) and examine your ethics (how you decide what's right and what's wrong).

Personally, I don't want to hurt anybody, but for that very reason, if somebody is going to hurt somebody else, especially one of my people, I must stop them, even if that means using violence.

>>32818786
>Is it acceptable to use lethal force to defend the "honor" of you and yours? (A guy slaps your significant other on the ass and won't stop groping her no matter what you or she says. Some guy has been scuffing your shoes with his when he walks past and is always looking at you wrong)

Escalating immediately to lethal in these cases is nigger tier. Of course if he decides not to listen in advice to cease and desist reasonable, proportionate escalation is in order until he does.

>>32819409
Regarding your hypotheticals, I think a pretty good rule of thumb is to respond in kind.

Somebody did a smash-and-grab? Hell no I'm not going to put a 5.56 in their back. Good grief.

Somebody with a Moltov is making threats? I'll pull my gun and tell them they'd better not. If they start acting on those threats, I'll have to stop them.

Somebody is putting their hands all over my wife? Well, frankly, she'll probably take his nuts off before I even get to him. But again, I'd respond with a similar level of force. If that didn't dissuade him, I'd go to the level necessary to make him quit.

>>32819410
Good answer.

>>32819409
I didn't ask you to re-summarize the premise of my question. I'm asking for YOUR opinion, not seeking an objective absolute.

What if somebody were to seeking to non-lethally and non violently harass one of 'yours'? How would you react?

>>32819408
/thread

>>32819436
SHTF? Ya know, 'scuse me for editorializing a little here, but I think the threat of "WROL Mad Max style horrible violent CHAOS!!!" is pretty overblown. I mean, I'm going to be too busy growing food and improving my homestead if it all goes tits up. I'd imagine most folks would be too. I'm not at all saying there won't be violence, but I don't think it's going to be a constant killing-fields firefight.

That's what pisses me off the most about "The Walking Dead" and a lot of other apocalyptic shows/movies. Everyone is too fuckin' stupid to calm down, collaborate and get shit done. "Oh no! Other people! We'd better get in a gun fight!" No, dumbass, human resources are the best resources. Those are ditchdiggers, woodchoppers, farmers, hunters, workers. They probably want the same thing you do, so why not work together to get them done?

Read "Tunnel in the Sky" by Robert Heinlein to see folks getting their shit squared away in a survival situation. I love that book, but it ruined Hollywood end-of-world stuff for me.

File: mattis3.jpg (54KB, 750x398px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 750x398px

>>32818786
That image.

Jesus, that man, that could have been us in 2020 if Hillary won.

File: CIA Hat.jpg (2KB, 110x90px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 110x90px

>>32818786

>>32819450
Sorry, I was running off at the mouth and broke my post up into multiple posts. TL;DR as fuark. I did address your hypotheticals.

>What if somebody were to seeking to non-lethally and non violently harass one of 'yours'? How would you react?
Lemme try to be more clear and succinct. Realistically, I'd just leave. That would be the simplest solution. Now, that's not really the most moral solution, but it sure is the simplest and most pragmatic.

What the "most moral" solution to harassment, in my opinion? Stand up to it and make them stop. Use the amount of force necessary to make that happen. "Evil happens when good men fail to act." It's not OK to let that kind of thing go unchecked.

No, I wouldn't initialize violence. But if they did, I would stop them as fast as possible.

Thats just my off the cuff assessment.

File: 1476241538109.png (18KB, 498x520px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 498x520px

>>32818786
>Is it acceptable to use lethal force to defend the "honor" of you and yours? (A guy slaps your significant other on the ass and won't stop groping her no matter what you or she says.

Someone cat calling your girlfriend or calling your mother a bitch infront of you? Fuck no. I carry a gun and I refuse to let my ego take control of me and possibly get me into a situation where I will have to use my gun.

Massad Ayoob said something along the lines of "if you carry a gun, you lose the rights to flip people off in traffic", something to that effect.

As for groping? That can lead to sexual assault or aggravated stalking. The latter being a forcible felony in my state.

There's so many toughguys on the internet that are all about "IF THAT GUY DOES X I SWEAR I'LL FUCKING KILL HIM I'LL FUCKING MERC HIM WITH MY GUN" then fold like bitches when shit actually goes down. They act like cowboys thinking self defense shootings are a fucking game and they then get fucked in court, spending the next 20-30 years of their lives in prison surrounded by the very people they despise.

One thing I do despise is the fact that you could go to prison if you shoot someone in the event that they intentionally kill a pet of yours with malicious intent. Like what could have happened to Marcus Luttrell.

>>32819267
Right there with ya.

>>32819567
>Massad Ayoob said something along the lines of "if you carry a gun, you lose the rights to flip people off in traffic", something to that effect.

Damn straight, that's a good one. Rights come with responsibilities and liberty can only belong to moral people. Like it or not, if you're armed you need to hold yourself to a higher standard.

>>32819475
I'm getting conflicting messages here, I mean who wouldn't wan't to be slavic Sean Bean?

>>32819468
the problem is not when a set community collaborates to get a crop going, the problems come when winter sets in and stores run low, a drought strikes and there is limited resouces.

imagine that two families are sharing a home now 2 kids an elderly person and a pregnant lady are all getting in bad shape, there is 2 courses of antibiotics and nowhere to get more. how is shit decided?

watch the movie defiance or the road. some people can't handle stress.

everyone seeks to survive and to do good for their families.

if you have ever worked on a group for anything you know that people always have reservations about things, even the most trivial things. human nature is shit.

>>32819567
>"if you carry a gun, you lose the rights to flip people off in traffic"
Hilarious, but I know EXACTLY what you mean, from the time before, to the time when I started carrying a gun I personally went from a fairly hormonal confrontational and territorial young man to nearly Buddha-like in my public demeanor.

Coming from somone who "as a kid" who popped hazards abd got out of the car with a baseball bat when someone was tailgating me, or put out a cigarette on the forehead of someone who slapped my highschool girfriend's ass, nowadays if you honk at me and cut me off, I'll smile a wave if anything, If some teenage clerk at a dunkin donuts fucks up at the register and refuses to acknowledged their mistake, I'm not going to grab them over counter by their collar.

I can unabashedly admit that most of that is in acknowledgement of the rule than of law than maturity of compassion or morality. Not going to lie, Carrying a gun IS a a "responsibility trip". Especially considering the potential liability of potentially incriminating usage.

>>32819823
Absolutely, I'm not saying there wouldn't be conflicts, both inside a group and between groups of survivors, but my contention is that the vast majority of those conflicts can be resolved without violence. It wouldn't be a first choice.

In that situation: if I were an 88 year old old-timer, I'd probably forgo treatment and let the youngsters use those resources.

If it were my wife or my kid in trouble, I would do everything possible to get them what they needed. I'd go scouting, I'd trade/sell everything I had, I'd take them somewhere else if I thought they could get help there. What I wouldn't do is murder the rest of my group to horde the supplies.

If I was in a group and some desperate guy did try to kill us all to horde the stuff for his sick kid, I think the rest of us would stop him. However long before that, he'd probably decide the group wasn't working in his best interests and he'd strike out elsewhere. Would he really like his chances alone against the rest of us?

I'm not denying humans are shitty, but I think we've got a moral obligation to assume the best about someone til they force us to change our mind.

Am I asking any sense?

>>32819990
*making any sense, fuckin' phone

>>32818996
Don't forget yourself.

>>32819990
That is a good answer in my opinion.

>>32818786
Pre-emptive, escalating, concentrated.
Some damage cannot be neither undone nor adequately compensated for, no matter what consequences the perpetrator will endure later.
Your picrelated is the best proof.

>>32819335
Does that make it your right to die, edgelord?

>>32819658
>I mean who wouldn't wan't to be slavic Sean Bean?
>wan't to be slavic
uwatm8?
Hell, most slavs i have known don't even want to be around fucking slavs.

>>32818786
Violence is abhorrent but sometimes necessary in the face of an imminent or credible threat to life and well being. If somebody threatens the life or the means to live of myself, my family, or my friends, I will utilize lethal violence to put an end to that threat. If life or means to life are not threatened, I will not use lethal violence. Life is a precious thing and should not be taken away without good cause, honor is not a good cause.

What does this mean in a practical sense? If a guy breaks into my house steals some food, and I catch him running out, I don't shoot. I can buy more food. If that same man comes in and starts waving a gun around, saying he's going to kill me? I shoot to kill.

>>32818786

I respond with equal violence. You want to throw some fists around, I will throw some fists around, but I'll be dirty about it. Right when I feel my life is in danger, then I respond with deadly force.

>>32818786
>MY take on the use of violence?
Do no harm but take no shit, don't start anything but be ready to finish it.
>Is it an acceptable response to the threat of death?
100%
>Trivial threats
Nah, I recognize the right for people to use force in defense of property, but I don't think I could bring myself to shoot somebody who was fleeing with some food and not presenting a threat.
>"honor killings"
No. Only in response to a clear threat. An important caveat is the guy who is groping my SO. If he doesn't respond to being told to stop, then he is assaulting somebody and presenting a threat and any level of force would be acceptable. Personally I might use the "shout shove show shoot" kind of escalation.
>pre-emptive violence
Taking out a camp of raiders, yes. Leaving sacs or rotting meat around like some sort of weirdo, no.

>>32818786

Use of violence against:

Other violence? Yes.

Theft? As much as it takes to make the situation stop.

Honor? Fists, not guns.

Pre-emptive? Only you can know.

>>32818786
Blood for the blood god

>>32818996
You are an edgy dinosaur, cooperation is how we got this far culturally and technologically. You are useless.

>>32819335
How is middle school treating you?

>>32819349
Enjoy only being on the receiving end.

>>32818786
>Is it an acceptable response to the threat of death?

Only the mentally ill think it isn't okay to kill people who are actively trying to make you dead

>What about trivial threats to property? You hear a bump in the night, by the time you're in your foyer/living room with your AR trained you see the robber leaving through the front door with a loaf of bread or a small pallet of canned goods?

I'm so poor that I will legitimately not be able to get more food if somebody steals it, so stealing my food is a threat to my life. In technical terms, stealing food is a threat to anybody's life.

>What about substantial threats to person or property? e.g. you exit your home one morning to see a crazed individual stating that they will molotov your car with a lit one inhand? Or you come home to see them stating they will molotov your house? (once again, lit in hand)

Substantial threats to property are also substantial threats to me because I have the right to be inside my property and since I have castle doctrine in my state, there is no need for me to attempt to retreat or deescalate on my land.

Is it acceptable to use lethal force to defend the "honor" of you and yours? (A guy slaps your significant other on the ass and won't stop groping her no matter what you or she says. Some guy has been scuffing your shoes with his when he walks past and is always looking at you wrong)

Groping your girlfriend and refusing to stop? Yeah, that's justifiable to use violence in my opinion because it could very well just escalate to a rape if nobody stops the dude. Scuffing my shoes and looking at me in a way I don't like? No, that's autistic and nigger-tier to get violent over without telling them to fuck off once or twice first.

>Pre-emptive violence?

For that scenario, yeah, I'd put up warnings like blood eagles and crucifixions and stuff. I've already shot those people justifiably, and I'm saving more lives by letting people know they will die if they try shit.

Hello friends, I've been thinking the same thoughts, so I recently started playing MGSV using lethal force with non-lethal intent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDEWhJYj6mM

Do you guys think a soldier in real life with extreme mental flexibility, training, and fitness could pull this off (sans mistakes)?

>>32818786

>MY take on the use of violence?
Speak Softly and Carry a big stick. Always leave violence as the final solution, but if needed, attack so viciously that even if they live, they'll never consider fucking with you again.

>Is it an acceptable response to the threat of death?
Yes

>Trivial Threats
If I had to shoot someone for every time someones called me faggot, most of 4chans userbase would no longer be with us

>Honor Killings
All should be just before a court of law. If it's not a crime in the country the act was committed, or was not illegal at the time, no action should be taken. If it's not life threatening, life threatening responses should not be used

>Pre-Emptive violence
Situation dependent. In the scenario you'd mention, I'd honestly bury the bodies. No-one deserves to rot on the street, and if they were near my fort it would be pretty low risk to bury them, or at least lay them to rest some other way.

That being said, you can expect to see a fuck ton of "Fuck off or Die" signs around the neighbourhood.

>>32821691
Also, to my add my thoughts to this thread, I think the biggest cause of death in conflict is misunderstandings between how much force is actually needed at a given moment.

I annotated some silly thoughts from about 5:45 on, if you're interested.

File: TimeForGangsterShit.jpg (91KB, 800x690px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x690px

The best violence is the kind that does not perpetuate itself (that is self-limiting) and ends as quickly as it begins. If someone hits you and you want to strike them back, then they've failed in their use or intent of violence upon you.

When you use violence against someone or something whom responds with a "i deserved that" or "i was wrong" then you've either won, and you've used the best violence possible; or you've used violence against the wrong person or in a situation where violence wasn't necessary (except in the case where the person was only willing to say they were wrong because of violence)

spoiler alert:
People saying they were wrong is only hypothetical: It does not actually exist in real life.

>>32818786
In the instance of "honor," you start with words of course. If simple "fuck off" doesn't do it, you get handsy and shove him off (although your girlfriend should have done as much herself by now anyway). You keep shoving him off and away until HE decides to escalate the situation. Never start violence. Always finish it, swiftly and decisively, and without remorse.

>>32822000
>People saying they were wrong is only hypothetical: It does not actually exist in real life.
Are you sure? What if they thought they could still kill you, even if they admitted their particular weakness?

>>32818786
>theif taking my bread and canned food
I would not shoot my family.

>>32818786
>Threat of death:
absolutely warrants violence
>Threats to property:
The ease of escalation on the part of the threat makes this difficult to gauge. I'd try to talk before resorting to violence, but violence is warranted if deescalation fails.
>Guy gropes my wife and won't stop
Literally sexual assault. It's totally acceptable to use violence to stop violence.
>Crucify dead raiders to scare other raiders
Not a violent act, just an icky one. Probably wouldn't work. If they're losing 3 or 4 men a week, they'll stop sooner or later. Try to get more creative than "shoot the bad men" since we can't do that forever. Home Alone the fucks.

>>32818786
Violence is not the question.
The question is "how much?"

>>32818786
>Some guy has been scuffing your shoes with his when he walks past and is always looking at you wrong

Haha, are you black?

"NIGGA YOU SCUFF'D MY PUMAS!"

File: download.png (140KB, 387x348px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 387x348px

>>32818786
The force shall set me free.

File: indeed.gif (916KB, 400x301px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 400x301px

>>32818786
>Some guy has been scuffing your shoes with his when he walks past and is always looking at you wrong
I would call him out for it, and firstly tell him I just don't like it.

If he's a good guy who was just mistaken (or clever enough in regards to social cues), things would be solved there.

Otherwise, I can assume he's either a person that is used to exploiting social cues and the insecurity people feel, or one of those strange creatures that literally cannot empathize with their fellow man.

These people are dangerous.

File: 1480590616015.png (200KB, 547x402px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 547x402px

>>32818786
>when there is a thread about violence and nobody mentions NAP so you are kinda sad you didnt get to see any meme pictures but it also means /pol/ is on a break

>>32820718
>Hell, most slavs i have known don't even want to be around fucking slavs.
These is weak, defective slavs

>>32822914
thanks ivan

>>32822689
>An individual fails to pay the toll necessary to set foot in your driveway thus violating the NAP so you vaporize him with a 20mm anti tank rifle, but chunks of his body and the 20mm round land in your neighbors yard and so he strafes your house with his A10 warthog.

>>32818786
>What's YOUR take on the use of violence?

Violence is as natural to man as breathing.

>response to the threat of death
Hell yes. You want to try and take my life, don't expect me not to retaliate the exact same way.
>trivial threats to property
Well the scenario you described would be shooting a dude in the back, and also, really? Shooting a dude over a loaf of bread? That's fucked up man, if they're stealing food, then they're probably not that concerned with trying to kill you or take your TV or rape your dog.
>substantial
Hell yes. There's a difference between a loaf of bread that, knowing me, has probably gone off and started growing lifeforms on it, and my goddamn house/car/etc. Houses are fucking expensive and fires can kill people and like hell I'm letting some nigger/nazi/general fuckwipe burn my house.
>honor
No such thing. Touch my SO's ass and don't stop and I'll kick you in the dick though.
>the rest of that
I have no fucking idea.

>>32818996
only way to do that is in SW Phantom menace and warcraft 3, i think.

>>32819177
If your stationed in the Middle East, you would have to change that view point. Those fuckers strap bombs to anyone, Including woman and children..... Where have you been for the last 16 years?

>>32819990
Well put anon.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzVj3Qtq-jg

>>32821422
This guy summed it up quite nicely.

>>32818786
Hmm, all non consensual interactions that cannot easily be avoided without personal loss.

File: 1444185205399.jpg (457KB, 763x1200px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 763x1200px

Anyone who is
>harming another person without just cause
>harassing another person in such a way that they cannot simply be ignored
>tresspassing on or damaging another person's property
has given up their right to live.
Preemptive violence is a case by case thing with many factors. It is sometimes the best option.

>>32823858
This is rather eloquent.

>>32818786
My philosophy is that I should do no harm to anyone who did not reasonably take upon themselves the risk that I would harm them. I don't want to fight anyone who didn't ask to be fought.

This means no to shooting petty thieves who probably thought I wasn't home, but yes to a thief who makes a sudden movement after I tell them to drop my shit.

Killing for "honor" would only be allowed if it was a duel or something where we both agreed to fight to the death, so in any realistic scenario no, but if for some reason I end up in Barter Town I'm pretty much set.

Anyone who marks themselves as members of a group that has been a threat to my life has reasonably accepted the possibility I might shoot back, so in a post-apocalyptic setting I could go out and purge a raider camp even if I didn't know for a fact that every single individual present had taken shots at me specifically.

Things like allowing surrender and such are situational. If I were in the military fighting another formal military, I would do my best to take prisoners unharmed as many of them could be conscripts who never wanted a part of the fight to begin with. Against an irregular force however, it's pretty easy to say that they all decided for themselves to come out and shoot at me, they should be prepared to see it through.

>>32822689
My neighbor's child sex slaves keep trying to escape through my property and trample my flowerbeds. I'm sending one of my indentured servants over to his place this afternoon with a SADM suicide harness.

>>32822689
>>32823061
>>32823973
I am new to these memes more please!

>>32823919
>Anyone who is
>>harming another person without just cause
>>harassing another person in such a way that they cannot simply be ignored
>>tresspassing on or damaging another person's property
>has given up their right to live.
so you deserve to die if you, say, shortcut across someone's lawn to get to a crosswalk?

>>32818786
My 2 cents?

As an Infantrymen when I was deployed violence was necessary. No shit right, it was a fucking war.

In day to day life, violence should be a last resort. We aren't supposed to behave like children. It's for people who are mentally weak, talking your problems out is a little thing called adulthood.

>>32818786
When all talks are off, and the intent on violence is concise and obvious, give them violence likewise.

Robbers should know that you enter one's castle, you are subject to their arms.

An insult on honor results in one back (slap on gf ass results in firm squaring of balls). A minor dickish move results in one in kind.

Pre-emptive violence is only required if it is shown that you must do what you need to survive. If raiders seek to take what is mine, they shall only get what was mine, out of the barrel of a gun or from the string of a bow.

I am not beyond taking a corpse, nailing it to a cross, decapitating it, then stuff the heads on a stake.

>>32823933

seems reasonable

>>32821577
>edgy dinosaur
my new band name

Violence is acceptable as a response to violation of the non aggression principle.

>>32824204
>In day to day life, violence should be a last resort. We aren't supposed to behave like children. It's for people who are mentally weak, talking your problems out is a little thing called adulthood.


Wise words.

Being an adult is about understanding, yeah?