Cognitive Dissonance

File: 1500497151293.png (394KB, 689x665px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 689x665px

>>34691275
War is no more than politics; an extension of power. War has, because of this which also includes much money and influence, improved the state of weaponry in an unstalling progress in order to get an edge over one another.

War will continue, and citizens are afforded by their government to own certain firearms, hopefully effective ones of use in the modern age.

File: 1497862703264.png (19KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x300px

>>34691320
I'm not really sure what that has to do with my question, but thanks for weighing in nonetheless.

File: 1500156848070.jpg (79KB, 720x606px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 720x606px

>>34691380
It's a reframing of your statement to the state of the human condition.

>>34691275
A desire for nonviolence is not necessarily a desire for helplessness or to be inconsequential. Invention and the influence on nature it grants us is fascinating because it's what we're built for, and the reason we survived when other species did not. We are deeply creative, and that singular drive stands behind not only the great traditional artists, but also behind the Manhattan project members, and behind the red neck burning mounds of old Christmas trees in the desert. Destructive power is fascinating because it's really creative power: the power to harness parts of the environment to change other parts of the environment. The Christmas tree bonfire isn't about destroying old Christmas trees, it's about creating a fire. A potato cannon isn't about the destruction of a potato, it's about misusing common items to create a projectile. The splat of the potato, and even the pressure wave launching it is worth what it is only because the cannon was designed and built personally. You wouldn't take nearly the pleasure in a random potato falling from the sky and striking the ground, even if it broke something. It's about celebrating human agency.

>>34691275
War is natural.
While natural things aren't always good, war shows the destructive power of man. And man is powerful, moreso than any other species we know. And while we are at the top, why not enjoy it? Atrocities aside, it is just about the eternal dick-measurement contest.

Ezpz to reconsider it, just view firearms as recreational and sporting tools, and use em as such

>>34691466
*reconcile
Fuk

>>34691450
>It's about celebrating human agency.
Thanks, I think that kind of sums it up for me as well. I just sometimes feel guilty for calling myself a pacifist while still liking guns, which are meant primarily for killing things, especially people. Yes, they have other purposes like hunting and sport, but I think those came after. The reason the gun was invented was to be a weapon of war, no?

>>34691466
But their power to kill is part of why I like them, which is why I feel guilty.

>>34691275
I'd say that senseless violence is just as bad as senseless pacifism. The best thing to do is to have the sense to recognize when violence is necessary and when peace is. Have a soft voice for when the latter and a big boomstick for the former.

>>34691481
>But their power to kill is part of why I like them, which is why I feel guilty.

Guilty for what? Marginally leveling the playing field? Get real.

>>34691481
Fire fed billions of people
Fire killed millions of people
Do you feel guilty when you light your lighter?

File: iowa12.jpg (27KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x398px

>>34691513
But we didn't design fire, or use it solely as a weapon. You can't say the same about an Iowa-class battleship, for example.

>>34691275
You're having an issue reconciling idealism with practicality. The simple fact of the matter is that we are geared as a species to be aggressive: that's how we out-competed our predecessor species of hominids and arguably became the dominant life form on the planet. Without aggression giving agency to our survival instinct, no living creature would have survived this long as a species.
I was once in your position. Now, I am an officer in my country's infantry. I recognized that if we do not learn to love the employment of violence, someone else will, and they will use that willingness to do harm to achieve their aims on others. Recognize the inseparable nature of violence and life, and learn to appreciate what it provides to those who see the brightest parts of our world and wish to defend them from the darkness. Properly focused violence is an immense force for good. Accept this, and you will no longer feel conflict between what you enjoy and what you see in the world.

>>34691275
>But, without war, we'd have none of these things.
Wars are caused by men; they are not a spontaneously occurring natural phenomena. The truest and most honest of the pacifistically inclined wishes for the human race to meet a swift and painless end, for without man, there is eternal peace for him.

>>34691275
ur an retard, being pasafist is dumb, as long as there is more than 1 there will always be conflict

File: shivadance.jpg (408KB, 450x575px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 450x575px

>>34691275
There is a reason showing kindness/generally not being shitty toward other people, animals, and nature in general is referred to as humanity. It is a good thing and something to strive for.
At the same time humanity is a luxury afforded to us by our ancestors and those with certain roles within our society being brutal motherfuckers. While morals and ideals are nice at the end of the day survival is the only thing that matters.
If we leaned too far either way we would not have much of a society, either through us being too destructive to maintain one or being too weak to protect one.
Sometimes not using violence will result in a more "evil" outcome.

File: 1485825929102.png (936KB, 884x1174px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 884x1174px

Pacifism and firearms are not entirely mutually exclusive.

I'm pretty much the same way. I hate violence, war and crime and would hate to have to use my guns on anyone. I'm only in favor of violence in absolute self defense situations and prefer that social, cultural and racial relations in the U.S. stay stable instead of turning into fucking Liberia just so I can test out my new toys.

but fuck guns look and feel so fucking cool. You'll never catch me in a better mood than after I spent the last 2 hours at the range shooting off round after round until i'm wading through a sea of empty shell casings. I love the smell of gunpowder and I love working on becoming the best marksman I possibly can.

The way I reconcile it is this. Guns are nothing but a collection of metal (and polymer or wood) and springs. They are designed to fire when the trigger is pulled and hopefully not to fire when the trigger is not pulled, nothing else. Everything else about what they are user for is determined by the user. Most guns sit in safes and lockers. Most likely mine will only be used to put holes in paper and hopefully 2 liters if I fulfill my dream of moving out of the city and living on a ranch. If I do have to defend myself, I like having them as an option, but that's it.

Would the world be safer if we lost all firearms technology and somehow kept all our modern medicine technology? yes, but that aint going to happen. As long as the technology exists it will be mass produced because their is a demand for it, and bad people will get their hands on them. So you might as well let good people have them too.

>>34691481
Who cares why it was invented? What matters is how you use them. I see guns as fascinating works of machinery as well as, in some cases, historical relics to be studied and used as a rememberence of the past.
I am also a pacifist and hope never to kill anyone, but I will not lie down and let a criminal hurt myself or other innocents. Those who would rather see themselves and their loved ones murdered instead of picking up a gun and killing the murderer first truly disgust me

>>34691481
>The reason the gun was invented was to be a weapon of war, no?
interesting question.
black powder was invented in China around the 9th Century by an alchemist experimenting to find the elixir of life. so it was an accident. shortly after it was developed into rockets, either for entertainment (fireworks) or as a military weapon. so i would say that historically speaking, all methods of throwing a projectile with gunpowder were designed to kill people. but today you can buy a single shot .22lr rifle for a child that was specifically designed to conform to the physical ability of said child. would it be fair to say that a firearm designed ground up as a childs firearm is designed to kill people? i dont think so.
but it doesnt really matter. because even if all guns are meant to kill, thats not necessarily a bad thing. there are some very bad people in this world. and some of them need killing from time to time. i consider myself a noninterventionalist. personally and politically. but if a druggie breaks into your house to steal yout shit, and decides he doesnt want to leave witnesses, you better be prepared to defend yourself.

>>34694618
>Would the world be safer if we lost all firearms technology and somehow kept all our modern medicine technology? yes
I disagree. Well, maybe the world would be safer, but guns empower the weak and level the playing field. So guns disappearing would take that away

>>34691275
The nonviolent are always slaves to the violent.

The purpose of war is to force your will on another, to to keep a will being forced onto you.

Weapons and pacifism go hand in hand. Pacifism is having the capacity to commit violence but choosing not to out of principle. People who refer to themselves as pacifists but totally lack the ability to commit violence are not real pacifists, just victims waiting to happen.

>>34691275
I always defer to this
>It makes no difference what men think of war. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.

>>34691275
I'm with you OP, the numbers behind weapons are just cool as fuck. Railsguns? Hitting something with an unguided projectile from 100+ miles?
That's insane.
The actual killing is horrific though. Until humanity stops needing war, it'll continue to happen unfortunately. Thanks to nukes we're killing each other less and less though.

>>34691481
You can be a pacifist while still being able to kill.
Arguably NOT being able to defend yourself would result in more violence.

>>34691275
Easy.

NAP.

>liberals 1955
>Vietnam is a useless war to fight Russia can't we get along with Russia
>2017 liberals
>Russia is the devil they must be stopped

Liberal fagots can never make up their minds so why try.

>>34691275
One of my best friends is a pacifist, yet he cc's every day. To him, it is best to go out of your way to show the best side of yourself to humanity in the hopes that it is reciprocated. If that doesn't occur, you have a backup.
>>34695126
What the literal fuck does this have to do with this thread?

>>34691275
pacifism is kind of gay to be quite honest with you famarino