so im a pacifist and i wonder:

[LISELOTTE]

to all of you that normaly ends up in barfights and maybe even provoke to one, you who thinks murder and violence actual solves a problem, you who 'PRRWOOAARRRGHHHS' when running around with your weapon in the army:

do you;

a: concider it 'manly' and have to do it mainly to selfrealise yourself?
b: actual belive it helps anything?
c: concider it cool?
d: because your enviroment as young was so ****ed up that you dont know anything else?
e: have a mind block/defunction?
f: want to impress your 'gang' or a group of people you look up to?
g: actual belives that you have no other choice?

please help me.. this question have haunted me for years and i just CANT understand it... JUST CANT!!!!

[Spearhead]

i'm tired :/ but i would say that people tend to be violent because its in there nature, all of the choices above can be valid at some point or another, to me most ppl are wankers...Dont trust anyone!!!!! and you'll be ok ;-) sorry that i cant add anything more to your thread mate, but it was a long weekend
back to 'work'

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Spearhead
i'm tired :/ but i would say that people tend to be violent because its in there nature

That's a complete absolute copout - people are responsible for their actions. People blaming their 'nature' when they choose to act like retards is disgusting.

[meglamaniac]

I don't start barfights.
I'm too short.


I'd say that A, C and F account for most of the population.

[Spearhead]

well you are right about that, but look at the judicial system, people dont take responsibilty for there actions, they just tell the judge they are 'crazy' (sorry dont know the english word) and need psychiatric help, that way they dont take responsibility and in most case are let go after psych evaluation of a few years (thats the common way lawyers use here) to get there clients of the hook, and nodrog some ppl are assholes you cant deny its in there nature

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Spearhead
well you are right about that, but look at the judicial system, people dont take responsibilty for there actions, they just tell the judge they are 'crazy' (sorry dont know the english word) and need psychiatric help, that way they dont take responsibility and in most case are let go after psych evaluation of a few years (thats the common way lawyers use here) to get there clients of the hook

Well yes of course, but that doesnt mean it isnt a crock of shit.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by LISELOTTE

a: concider it 'manly' and have to do it mainly to selfrealise yourself?
b: actual belive it helps anything?
c: concider it cool?
d: because your enviroment as young was so ****ed up that you dont know anything else?
e: have a mind block/defunction?
f: want to impress your 'gang' or a group of people you look up to?
g: actual belives that you have no other choice?

I dislike starting fights in bars, or anywhere, and I don't really do it. Even if I train martial arts it doesn't mean I'd be super-aggressive - rather, it makes me less aggressive in civil. Of course I know how to defend myself, but so far I have seen no need to fight with anyone.

Now, what comes to army, I'll be heading to the Finnish military service in a year and a half - I was thinking of spending around a year there, maybe going for Military Police Officer School. Now, some answers to your questions:

a. Yes, I consider it manly to go to the army, and if I didn't go to army, I'd have to rot in civil service for longer than I have to be in army (a tradition for Finnish males, yes, males always have to suffer here to go army or civil service, or jail). Besides, it's a tradition, and in many places having served in army, especially as an officer, is considered honorable, and many people value it when it comes to recruiting to jobs. It' highly unlikely that the Finnish Army would ever go to war though, so you can forget wet dreasm about slaughtering ragheads.

b. It might seem in vain, but actually it teaches a lot - mainly in two areas: discipline and leadership (officer schools). One of the greatest international corps, Nokia has it's leadership training schedules almost similar to the ones used by the Finnish army Officer schools - wich are considered as the best places in the country for what comes to learning leadership skills, in theory and in practise.

c. Yes, I consider it as 'cool', if you are refering to it as an experience. In the service, people get to do many things they normally prolly couldn't (driving an armored van, et cetera).

d. I am still young, further to that I deny answering to your insulting question.

e. If I was mentally somehow disabled, unstable, or irrational (scitzophrenic, murdrous) they would D-file me (release me from the Military service, aka not let me go to army).

f. In a way, yes, I consider (as many here) going to serve in military as an officer, a honor and a thing to be proud of - but I refer to the fact that it's highly unlikely that we're going go to war with anyone in the near (100 years or so) future. There's no need for us to.

g. the other choices here are jail conviction (13 months) or civil service (low wage, **** jobs, 13 months), in addition to military service (6 months at shortest, 12 months with officer school, 9 months with MP, radar crew, etc). The other choices are, so to say, despisable.

[meglamaniac]

Good answer!

h: believe there isn't anything wrong with violence or aggression

[acropolis]

women prefer to have sex with violent agressive asshole types.

men respond by acting like violent agressive assholes.

women also claim to prefer sensitive types with 'a good sense of humor'

which is pretty much the same as them saying they prefer platonic friends

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by Idi
h: believe there isn't anything wrong with violence or aggression

why not?

[Snurx]

I never start fights. But if somebody is trying to, i wont stop them. It's their problem, even if they beat the crap out off me.
Also, I think violence can be used as a means to a end, in a political way. If a hope for a revolution is ever going to get more then a hope, then i will probably have to fight for it.
But, i will never enter the military, i would rather go to jail. I will never start violence against somebody, or shoot a guy for looking strangely at me. I defend myself and my friends.

So, im probably B. But i dont really think it helps anyways. So i dont really know.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by LISELOTTE

c: concider it cool?

before you pacifist types try to claim it isn't 'cool'

tell me this:

name three good movies that didn't have guns.



(ps: if you try to cheat by naming movies that are historicalish and involve times before guns were invented, i automatically change the question to read: 'without guns or swords')

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
I dislike starting fights in bars, or anywhere, and I don't really do it. Even if I train martial arts it doesn't mean I'd be super-aggressive - rather, it makes me less aggressive in civil. Of course I know how to defend myself, but so far I have seen no need to fight with anyone.

Now, what comes to army, I'll be heading to the Finnish military service in a year and a half - I was thinking of spending around a year there, maybe going for Military Police Officer School. Now, some answers to your questions:

a. Yes, I consider it manly to go to the army, and if I didn't go to army, I'd have to rot in civil service for longer than I have to be in army (a tradition for Finnish males, yes, males always have to suffer here to go army or civil service, or jail). Besides, it's a tradition, and in many places having served in army, especially as an officer, is considered honorable, and many people value it when it comes to recruiting to jobs. It' highly unlikely that the Finnish Army would ever go to war though, so you can forget wet dreasm about slaughtering ragheads.

i did refuse the army and spent time with kids in a 'youthclub', i didnt feel less manly cus i did so... my mother did, but she is kinda 50 years old so i dont expect her to be 'open minded' about spending sivil cervice... And i the fact that you can do education in the army shouldnt be an excuse to serve, as it comes for me as a principal question about learning to deal with conflicts with violent actions... Most people dont realy think about why they server the army... they do it educate themself or cus everyone else is doing it. I think its a shame that so many people isnt aware of the seriousity the army is all about. It isnt a playground. It may seem like it, but it isnt.


b. It might seem in vain, but actually it teaches a lot - mainly in two areas: discipline and leadership (officer schools). One of the greatest international corps, Nokia has it's leadership training schedules almost similar to the ones used by the Finnish army Officer schools - wich are considered as the best places in the country for what comes to learning leadership skills, in theory and in practise.


See the part of principals questions above...


c. Yes, I consider it as 'cool', if you are refering to it as an experience. In the service, people get to do many things they normally prolly couldn't (driving an armored van, et cetera).


i thought tanks and machineguns was 'cool' when i was like 10 years old. Then i grew up. I wasnt talking about the army itself tho.. i was talking about the actual violent action.


d. I am still young, further to that I deny answering to your insulting question.


Im sorry... didnt meen it as insulting. Dont realy understand why you did so tho..


e. If I was mentally somehow disabled, unstable, or irrational (scitzophrenic, murdrous) they would D-file me (release me from the Military service, aka not let me go to army).


heh... and thank god for that!


f. In a way, yes, I consider (as many here) going to serve in military as an officer, a honor and a thing to be proud of - but I refer to the fact that it's highly unlikely that we're going go to war with anyone in the near (100 years or so) future. There's no need for us to.


I dont 'get off' by having power over people, and i abselutely dont consider it 'cool'. People should be able to think for themself, and be responsible for their own actions. Not doing things because someone defined as overhead, or 'man in charge' thinks you should do it.


g. the other choices here are jail conviction (13 months) or civil service (low wage, **** jobs, 13 months), in addition to military service (6 months at shortest, 12 months with officer school, 9 months with MP, radar crew, etc). The other choices are, so to say, despisable.

honestly... i would have spent time in jail instead of serving the army. It is that important for me, its maybe the cause i belive the most in. Gladly my country is so sivilized that i actual have an option to serve in a more meaningfull way. Not everyone in the world have that option.

i dont mean to bash you with this.. just my thoughts about it!

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
why not?

because there is nothing wrong with it...

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by acropolis
before you pacifist types try to claim it isn't 'cool'

tell me this:

name three good movies that didn't have guns.



(ps: if you try to cheat by naming movies that are historicalish and involve times before guns were invented, i automatically change the question to read: 'without guns or swords')

i dont realy see the point you are making, cus film isnt reality, and murder shouldnt be considered okay, just cus it looked good in Pulp Fiction. If you think so, ill get VERY worried.

Btw: Amelie, ****ing Åmål and Ghost World

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by Idi
because there is nothing wrong with it...

So if someone murdered, raped or kicked the **** out of your mother or whoever you love and care about, its nothing wrong about it?

[acropolis]

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
i dont realy see the point you are making, cus film isnt reality, and murder shouldnt be considered okay, just cus it looked good in Pulp Fiction. If you think so, ill get VERY worried.

Btw: Amelie, ****ing Åmål and Ghost World

Trueish. But it is a reflection of our society, and what is considered 'cool' by us ends up in movies.

I haven't seen any of those, but I heard 'ghost world' was good

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
So if someone murdered, raped or kicked the **** out of your mother or whoever you love and care about, its nothing wrong about it?

That is not the same as violence. Also, murder does not have to be a violent crime, a drop of poison in someones food isnt exactly violent now is it?

How ever circle pits can become really violent, but they are good.. what about boxing, or martial arts tournaments? They are also good!

Violence isnt bad!

[LHC]

I would never start a bar fight for no reason.

I reserve the right to defend myself at all times though. And if somebody attacked me I wouldn't be afraid to make sure he wasn't getting back up again.

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by Idi
That is not the same as violence. Also, murder does not have to be a violent crime, a drop of poison in someones food isnt exactly violent now is it?

How ever circle pits can become really violent, but they are good.. what about boxing, or martial arts tournaments? They are also good!

Violence isnt bad!

You didnt answer my question. Anyway; rape, kick the **** out of your mother or slaugher her with a ****ing chainsaw is ,by me at least; definded as violence. I see no amusement in boxing or other martial arts btw. Tho, i dont define i.e Judo as violent, as some of those martial arts have become a competive sport instead of an 'art of kicking the **** of someone' and have rules that prevent people getting hurt.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Liselotte

a. i did refuse the army and spent time with kids in a 'youthclub', i didnt feel less manly cus i did so... my mother did, but she is kinda 50 years old so i dont expect her to be 'open minded' about spending sivil cervice... And i the fact that you can do education in the army shouldnt be an excuse to serve, as it comes for me as a principal question about learning to deal with conflicts with violent actions... Most people dont realy think about why they server the army... they do it educate themself or cus everyone else is doing it. I think its a shame that so many people isnt aware of the seriousity the army is all about. It isnt a playground. It may seem like it, but it isnt.


b. See the part of principals questions above...


c. i thought tanks and machineguns was 'cool' when i was like 10 years old. Then i grew up. I wasnt talking about the army itself tho.. i was talking about the actual violent action.


d. Im sorry... didnt meen it as insulting. Dont realy understand why you did so tho..

f. I dont 'get off' by having power over people, and i abselutely dont consider it 'cool'. People should be able to think for themself, and be responsible for their own actions. Not doing things because someone defined as overhead, or 'man in charge' thinks you should do it.


e. honestly... i would have spent time in jail instead of serving the army. It is that important for me, its maybe the cause i belive the most in. Gladly my country is so sivilized that i actual have an option to serve in a more meaningfull way. Not everyone in the world have that option.

Now, some of my opinions to what you said;

a. Learning leadership skills in army is a one-time opportunity, though many corporations take their would-be project leaders et cetera to courses quite similar to army trainings. I underline, F. army leadership schools aren't only to show you how to guide your troops in war - but they also have many psychological stances and a lot of general leadership tips and hints. In broad, they are about dealing with your co-workers and getting them to work with high morale, discipline, and efficiency. I bet that applies to corporations' and firms' world as well as armies'.

I don't see anything wrong in babysitting for thirteen months if you wish to do it instead of army, but I personally prefer army. Not because it's violent. Because it is an experience of a kind - I can apply for babysitting job later if I feel like it, but I won't be getting the experience of a tight group-spirit on camps, and yes, I won't get to 'play' war - I am fascinated by it, but that does NOT make me an aggressive bastard. Even if you think it does.

It's no playground, it's serious - I don't think you'd consider, for example, your job as a playground, nor your university studies. I wouldn't - even if my job was to watch over children.

c. So, because some people are fascinated in warfare, you think they are somehow retarded or not grewn up? What would you say, if I said you were feminine and girlie for willing to watch over kids instead of going to army? OR, if I claimed you skipped army just because you are physically frail, weak, and not motivated, or don't desire to do anything about it? It's a proven fact that in general the physical fitness of people who go to army is improved in the army. What about that, lazy, feminine weakling? I wasn't talking about the violent action, I thought I told you already that one can be willing to go to army withtout lusting for violence. Another fact is, many people who aren't otherwise violent, are willing to be violent in order to defend their country from violent attacks (don't bring US warfare into this, as the policies in where I come from are very different). I was merely trying to point out that one can be going to army without being a bloodlusty murderer.

d. I don't think you should go around shouting and making descisions that violent people are ones abused in their childhoods and know nothing else than violence. That is a sign of your narrow-mindency and lack of respect towards other people - a violent person can change, you know, but it's not going to happen by people shouting that he is retarded and has had a ****ed up childhood. For even writing so, I despise you, as you clearly are no expert on the subject to say anything like this.

f. when you enter the world of business (if you ever riddance your feminine and frail traits ), you'll notice that there are leaders (WOH??) in the world. Your countrie's prime minister, for example, is one. And the CEO of the firm you later on might be working for. I don't think they all get kicks for having power (though some might) over people, but still, they do. Wonder why. If the man in charge thinks you should treat the kids in another way from how you do, do you think he is a bastard who has been mistreated as a child and who knows nothing except for bossing around? Even if he had a higher (psychological?) education than you? Wonder wonder. Welcome to the real worlds. Here be leaders, here be their assistants and co-workers. Behold the horrible world. Tell me when the time comes, when nobody is above anyone when it comes to REAL world of business - in any area.

e. Glad my country also offers an alternative for the army. It's not as beneficious (for what comes to learning, and future jobs), and it takes more time (usually), but it is there. And I have a friend who has chosen it.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Idi
That is not the same as violence. Also, murder does not have to be a violent crime, a drop of poison in someones food isnt exactly violent now is it?

How ever circle pits can become really violent, but they are good.. what about boxing, or martial arts tournaments? They are also good!

Violence isnt bad!

Consensual violence doesnt really count, I assume he was referring to initiation of force...

If people want to beat the **** out of each other, fair play to them.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

If the army is so cool, why does your country have to force people to join it under threat of being thrown in jail? Surely they should be beating off applicants with sticks?!?

I dont understand why people try to rationalise injustice to avoid having to admit its occurring.

[seventh]

listen to the irony of it all by the streets, that covers the entire 'beer drinking shouty ****er' thingq

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by Tietäjä


c. (...) I was merely trying to point out that one can be going to army without being a bloodlusty murderer.


Thats the part i dont understand... The army will always be, and always have been about prepearing for war, even if the war is likely never to come. And again; i dont care of all the benfits. If you get a first class leadership education in the army, it still doesnt justify it for me. Because behind all the good things, all the benefits and all the fysical improvments the army gives you, there is he serious side, the side that if the war comes, you have to prepared to kill. To end someones life.

I want the benfits... without the killing part

I know that 90% of the people who choose the army isnt bloodlusty murders as most of my friends have been there and they are good guys. I guess its realy about how serious you take the army...


d. I don't think you should go around shouting and making descisions that violent people are ones abused in their childhoods and know nothing else than violence. That is a sign of your narrow-mindency and lack of respect towards other people - a violent person can change, you know, but it's not going to happen by people shouting that he is retarded and has had a ****ed up childhood. For even writing so, I despise you, as you clearly are no expert on the subject to say anything like this.


I dont have lack of respect to other peoples childhood. And i REALY dont want diss the ones that might have/or had a childhood that wasnt the best for them.

My point was: its a fact that childs that have been living in war all their life is more likely to get violent themself. Same with a child that have a father that daily beat him have a great change to become violent too when he himself gets a child. Because they dont know of anything else, or any other way to deal with things when they get angry. Luckily it can also turn the other way... and it sometimes/often does...

When i used the word '****ed up' i didnt mean to disrespect anyone and i am sorry if i did, it was only a definition...


f. when you enter the world of business (if you ever riddance your feminine and frail traits ), you'll notice that there are leaders (WOH??) in the world. Your countrie's prime minister, for example, is one. And the CEO of the firm you later on might be working for. I don't think they all get kicks for having power (though some might) over people, but still, they do. Wonder why. If the man in charge thinks you should treat the kids in another way from how you do, do you think he is a bastard who has been mistreated as a child and who knows nothing except for bossing around? Even if he had a higher (psychological?) education than you? Wonder wonder. Welcome to the real worlds. Here be leaders, here be their assistants and co-workers. Behold the horrible world. Tell me when the time comes, when nobody is above anyone when it comes to REAL world of business - in any area.


oh.. i DO think we need leaders... i just dont think we should blindly follow them. A leader should guide and advice people. Not command them into business or actions that goes across a mans/womans princips. The one who actual do the action i.e; "kill that person!" , should do it because he feel its the right thing to do, and not because someone tells him its the right thing to do. Do the men/women who are awaiting to attack iraq any moment now aware of the the actual seriousity of Bush's wishes? Is Bush wishes what USA realy wants and needs? Are the men and women that are willing to sacrifise their lifes for USA realy aware of what they are doing, or WHY they are doing it?

Would you attack Iraq?

[Texan]

The last time I was in a fight was 20 years ago. The guy tried to punch me. I dodged. Grabbed hold of him and threw him against the wall. He tried to kick me between the legs, but I blocked and threw him on the ground. Then I grabbed his leg, wrapped it around a handy table leg, grabbed his head and told him that I would kill him if he did not stop attacking me. Then my boss ran around the corner and said, "Let that boy go." I tried to explain that he attacked me first. She said I shouldn't be picking on little boys. The guy weighed 30 pounds more than me and was about two inches taller. I was, however, 17-years old and he was only 16.

I will have to admit, I was not being very nice to him. My job was to take cook food and his job was to wash the dishes. He was not working very hard which means after I had finished cleaning my work area I would have to spend hours washing dishes with him until the kitchen was clean. It is normal for the cooks to help the dishwashers at the end of the day, but this guy was farther behind than anyone I had seen in three years of working there.

In this case violence on my part was appropriate as I was defending myself from a violent physical attack.

A couple of times since then guys have tried to start a fight with me, but they wanted me to hit them first. I refused to do so.

With that said, I was a soldier for 14 years. During that time I never shot anyone, never got into a fight with anyone and did not practice any violent sports either. I was an Army journalist.

I believe that sometimes violence is necessary -- usually in response to violence. For example, I think overthrowing the German military during World War II was acceptable violence.

Defending your home or your mother from murderers and rapists is acceptable violence.

Bar fights are idiotic unless the guy is trying to rape or murder your mother. I mean if the guy is being all nice and polite, but it is obvious he wants to take your mother home for a night of sex, you can tell him to get lost, but physically assaulting the guy is not only wrong but illegal.

I'm sure I have left a lot out, but that is all I can think of at the moment. Oh yeah, I don't normally end up in bar fights, so I am not one of those people who you asked to respond. The bottom line is I expect you will not find too many people on this forum who regularly end up in bar fights.

To anwer your question though. I suspect it has to do with hormones. Go figure. I have the hormones that make me want to have sex all the time (at least once a day anyway), but those same hormones don't also make me want to fight other men in order to get that sex. Even though, as was posted earlier by some brave young man, women say they like nice guys most women seem to want to have sex with those hormonally imbalanced men who most often engage in bar fights.

[Aryn]

very interesting thread.. i didn't read all the long posts as i don't really have the time now.. but i will when i get to school :P

i have never thought that fighting (barfights etc) was cool. i have even stopped a few because the people were being morons. (actually they were fights at school, not barfights). even girls who start fights are retarded.

anyone who starts a fight or finishes it (unless they had to for self defence) loses respect from me. it's pointless, and it proves nothing.

[Texan]

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
Do the men/women who are awaiting to attack iraq any moment now aware of the the actual seriousness of Bush's wishes? Are Bush's wishes what USA really wants and needs? Are the men and women that are willing to sacrifise their lifes for USA realy aware of what they are doing, or WHY they are doing it?

Would you attack Iraq?

The U.S. men and women who are waiting to attack Iraq know what they are doing. They are following the orders of the officers appointed over them as they swore to do when they joined the military.

Bush's wishes are not really what the people of the United States want. Bush's wishes probably are what they need though. The United States was designed around the use of an automobile that uses cheap gasoline. Without cheap gasoline the U.S. economy will go to hell in a handbasket. Iraq would like to make gasoline expensive so as to destroy the United States. The United States cannot afford that.

The United States is a representative democracy. That means the citizens of the United States vote for people to represent them, then those people decide what is best for the state. That is why what the people want and what the leaders think is sometimes different.

U.S. military service members are probably generally better informed than are you. I have known thousands of them over the years. True, some have no idea and don't care. They just look at it as a job to do. About one third are against war in Iraq, but the U.S. military does not overthrow the government as is common in many countries. Members of the U.S. military follow orders according to the Constitution of the United States that they have sworn to defend.

I would not attack Iraq, because my military days are over. Saddam Hussein has not killed nearly as many people as Hitler killed. He has killed at least a million people (no cite here, figure it out for yourself). He should spend the rest of his life in a prison in the Netherlands, but the United Nations cannot seem to agree that a special war tribunal should be set up for Iraq. Why is that? Most of the United Nations Security Council would prefer to do business with the Butcher of Baghdad and let him continue to massacre (use violence) the Kurds and Shiite Muslims who are citizens of his country.

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
You didnt answer my question. Anyway; rape, kick the **** out of your mother or slaugher her with a ****ing chainsaw is ,by me at least; definded as violence. I see no amusement in boxing or other martial arts btw. Tho, i dont define i.e Judo as violent, as some of those martial arts have become a competive sport instead of an 'art of kicking the **** of someone' and have rules that prevent people getting hurt.

Raping or dicing my parents up with a chainsaw would be not a good thing (TM) but that is not that does not mean that violence is bad. Anything that happens to you that you dont want to happen to you is a bad thing.

As for using violence to resolve a situation, then if the situation calls for it, its reasonable, Knowing when that situation is, is a different matter though.

I see no amusement in bowls but I let them get on with it.

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by Idi
Raping or dicing my parents up with a chainsaw would be not a good thing (TM) but that is not that does not mean that violence is bad. Anything that happens to you that you dont want to happen to you is a bad thing.

As for using violence to resolve a situation, then if the situation calls for it, its reasonable, Knowing when that situation is, is a different matter though.

I see no amusement in bowls but I let them get on with it.

So basicly it is: as long as it doenst affect on you personal in any way, they can butcher all they want for all you care? Whoever it is, and whatever the cause is?

[Dante Hicks]

Being a true total pacifist is totally unacceptable in my book since there is sometimes a need to defend your family/friends or just the innocent in general.

But clearly indulging casual violence against those who don't really want to be involved is obviously retarded. I've no problems with consensual violence though. I'd have no problems with legalised dueling or a fight club style situation for instance. And I'd never advocate banning boxing despite my belief that it seems to be a sport for fk'n idiots. Only problem with any of these activities is violence "spilling" out to civilised society.

The main problem, as others have noted is hormones. To be honest, there's been a couple of ocassions (generally when in a large group of friends) when the idea of violence has seemed quite thrilling (wanting to bash in some guys head in a night club because he was basically molesting a teenage girl for instance). Again, it's totally irrational but the rush of chemicals is quite real. It's the Nieztschean thing I suppose. As generally a dodgy pseudo-intellectual a lot of the time you go through life being "afraid" of various things. Glorification of the body and of power is essentially via violence and is one helluva trip.

Oh, and what Acropolis said. Every time I've seen a _really_ fit woman she's generally on the arm of a violent twat.

Here's towards societal enlightenment.

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
So basicly it is: as long as it doenst affect on you personal in any way, they can butcher all they want for all you care? Whoever it is, and whatever the cause is?

I actually didnt say anything of the kind that you could possibly have twisted into that statement. You just totally made that up hoping that the extreme viewpoint would make me bend over and cry!

There is nothing wrong with violence, it's how people use it that can be wrong. The same applies to everything else in this world. A banana is a pleasent and tasty fruit, but if someone went around sexually molesting people with one would you start calling a banana a bad thing?

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by Idi
I actually didnt say anything of the kind that you could possibly have twisted into that statement. You just totally made that up hoping that the extreme viewpoint would make me bend over and cry!

There is nothing wrong with violence, it's how people use it that can be wrong. The same applies to everything else in this world. A banana is a pleasent and tasty fruit, but if someone went around sexually molesting people with one would you start calling a banana a bad thing?

i didnt come with any statement... i just asked.

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
i didnt come with any statement... i just asked.

do you actually speak english? or atleast understand it? or atleast understand enough to understand what you have written in this thread?

[Xillah]

there arent many times i'd start a fight with somone in a bar. infact i only have once and that was because some guy was properly beating the **** out of a girl. i jumped in and hit this big guy (really big guy, i cant believe i jumped in), luckilly about 3 other people jumped in before he had a chance to kill me or somthing so we gave him the beating he deserved. Theres not really any reason to start punching a woman in the face, and he was a big guy, he'd have took my head off and this girl was half my size.

I've had fights when i've been ont but thats the only time i can think of where i swung first.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Nodrog

*Irrational, out of air accusations and general crap*

I urge you to reread my post before starting post obviously provocative **** coming from your twisted mind sire.

There is an alternative, as I said, twice or thrice. It's called civil service.

Originally posted by Liselotte
c.
d.
f.
(please stop answering in quote so I can quote your answers - Tie)

c. That's the part that I do understand. If the war comes, the civil servants are also unlikely (very) to end up in front (as they have no higher class military skills) or to the bullet factory (HEY, where did we hit that first air bombardment into, supply lines, eh?).

d. without any experience of my own, I can tell you, even if you didn't mean it, it looked very insulting. Very very insulting. But 'apology accepted', I'll dig a grave on this one subject.

f. DID I NOT TELL YOU NOT TO MESS THE STATES ARMY INTO THIS (Yes, I did, and there's a tad good reason for me asking you not to mix our military (Fin) to the Americans (USA). Now, that's the fact that we aren't the ones running killing the 'Raqees in the front with the Americans and the USA - to be exact, we've been in awfully few offensive wars (we had one against Russia, beyond to that, we've been in no offensive wars, unlike the Americans)). So please cut the crap before even posting any, as I clearly told you not to mix the yankees in. It's a whole different story.

Originally posted by Tietäjä
(don't bring US warfare into this, as the policies in where I come from are very different)

I don't know how the army of your country works today, but even if warfare includes killing, the commands are unlikely to sound like 'KILL THAT NEGGARBITCH', rather impulsive self-defensive maneuvers (I would kill a bloke trying to kill me if I could). Now, I think you'd be prepared to go into extreme force in order to protect your life/your loved ones' lives.

Dunno then.

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by Idi
do you actually speak english? or atleast understand it? or atleast understand enough to understand what you have written in this thread?

well.. im not 'mistar understand english well' and yes; i often missunderstand things people write. Tho... i am fully aware of what i myself write, or at least what i try to write. So please drop your arrogant tone to me boy, and you dont have to act stupid to me. I will gladly show you what i wrote and what i meant. Even if it will take my whole morning tea to do it.

First you stated:

Originally posted by Idi
h: believe there isn't anything wrong with violence or aggression

Then i asked simply: why not?

and you managed to answer me:

Originally posted by Idi
because there is nothing wrong with it...

I myself understood that reply as you ment it was nothing wrong with violence itself. That you somehow suported violence. I didnt think of martial arts, boxing or other consensial violence, as it wasnt the topic. Even tho: then i tried to ask more specific about your wievs on violence (cus i actual got interested when i thought you suported it) and asked:

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
So if someone murdered, raped or kicked the **** out of your mother or whoever you love and care about, its nothing wrong about it?

a simple question, wich you COULD have answered yes or no.. alltho you choosed to answer:

Originally posted by Idi
That is not the same as violence. Also, murder does not have to be a violent crime, a drop of poison in someones food isnt exactly violent now is it?

How ever circle pits can become really violent, but they are good.. what about boxing, or martial arts tournaments? They are also good!

Violence isnt bad!

Wich wasnt what i was asking about... You even stated that Rape and 'kick the **** out of someone' wasnt defined as violence. And you stated: 'Violence isnt bad!' again.

Even noddy understood what i meant tho and helped me out here by posting:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Consensual violence doesnt really count, I assume he was referring to initiation of force...

If people want to beat the **** out of each other, fair play to them.

And i somehow clumsy tried again:

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
You didnt answer my question. Anyway; rape, kick the **** out of your mother or slaugher her with a ****ing chainsaw is ,by me at least; definded as violence. I see no amusement in boxing or other martial arts btw. Tho, i dont define i.e Judo as violent, as some of those martial arts have become a competive sport instead of an 'art of kicking the **** of someone' and have rules that prevent people getting hurt.

and you replied (damn getting tired of all this copy/paste ****):

Originally posted by Idi
Raping or dicing my parents up with a chainsaw would be not a good thing (TM) but that is not that does not mean that violence is bad. Anything that happens to you that you dont want to happen to you is a bad thing.

As for using violence to resolve a situation, then if the situation calls for it, its reasonable, Knowing when that situation is, is a different matter though.

I see no amusement in bowls but I let them get on with it.

The underlined sentence got me to answer following questions, and i will help you out by underline all the questionmarks in the sentences just so you can SEE (TM) what i wrote. Cus it looks ****ing CLEAR (c) to me:

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
So basicly it is: as long as it doenst affect on you personal in any way, they can butcher all they want for all you care? Whoever it is, and whatever the cause is?

You however though i came with a statement here... i cannot see where, but fair enough. And you actual tried to accuse me for 'trying to win a discussion board fight thingie' by stating this:

Originally posted by Idi
I actually didnt say anything of the kind that you could possibly have twisted into that statement. You just totally made that up hoping that the extreme viewpoint would make me bend over and cry!

There is nothing wrong with violence, it's how people use it that can be wrong. The same applies to everything else in this world. A banana is a pleasent and tasty fruit, but if someone went around sexually molesting people with one would you start calling a banana a bad thing?

Again.. i simply asked a question, i didnt try to win any discussion with you, and abselutely didnt want you to bend over and cry. And everything i get from you is another statement that violence isnt bad and the fact that you are being very rude to me

So it is, for me at least; a question if there is something I wrote that you didnt understand? I wont state it, I WILL JUST ASK!

with love from Lise.

[W]

I'm in the norwegian home guard by choice.

Originally posted by LISELOTTE

do you;

a: concider it 'manly' and have to do it mainly to selfrealise yourself?

Not in that sense, but yeah, to have abilities is a good thing, and while it doesn't make me a "man", it makes me a "human". But these abilities aren't just for show, they can save mine or comrades lifes.

b: actual belive it helps anything?

Yes, I believe having a good defence in a country helps reduce the chance of war, not just in it, but in the region. If someone invades us (which is the only likely scenario where we'll see action), then I seriously think our effort will make a difference

c: concider it cool?

Yeah. Perhaps you don't, but hey, tastes differ. Power is addictive.

d: because your enviroment as young was so ****ed up that you dont know anything else?

Being raised in a very christian community I don't really see why my current values are anything but a product of my mind, as opposed to my environment.

e: have a mind block/defunction?

Quite possibly.

f: want to impress your 'gang' or a group of people you look up to?

Not really.

g: actual belives that you have no other choice?

Nope, I have all the choice in the world. I guess my view on pacifism is inspired by Heinlein

please help me.. this question have haunted me for years and i just CANT understand it... JUST CANT!!!!

It's a matter of how you look at existance. By existing in your current form at all, you are excerting power; you're changing inert things, moving air if nothing else, and the molecules of your body. You kill things necesarry for your survival. To exist is to excert "I am in control" to do as you want, for whatever reason. But wills differ, and there will always be conflict. To back down, to always yield when your will clashes with someone elses, goes against everything which existance entails for me. I might as well stop moving at all, stop making any choices.

Martial skills is something which first and foremost help you survive, and second lets you do as you want. I cannot understand that anyone who by choice remains alive and acting can see these values as negative. We do the same thing, just in difference of degree.

[LISELOTTE]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
I urge you to reread my post before starting post obviously provocative **** coming from your twisted mind sire.

There is an alternative, as I said, twice or thrice. It's called civil service.



c. That's the part that I do understand. If the war comes, the civil servants are also unlikely (very) to end up in front (as they have no higher class military skills) or to the bullet factory (HEY, where did we hit that first air bombardment into, supply lines, eh?).

d. without any experience of my own, I can tell you, even if you didn't mean it, it looked very insulting. Very very insulting. But 'apology accepted', I'll dig a grave on this one subject.

f. DID I NOT TELL YOU NOT TO MESS THE STATES ARMY INTO THIS (Yes, I did, and there's a tad good reason for me asking you not to mix our military (Fin) to the Americans (USA). Now, that's the fact that we aren't the ones running killing the 'Raqees in the front with the Americans and the USA - to be exact, we've been in awfully few offensive wars (we had one against Russia, beyond to that, we've been in no offensive wars, unlike the Americans)). So please cut the crap before even posting any, as I clearly told you not to mix the yankees in. It's a whole different story.



I don't know how the army of your country works today, but even if warfare includes killing, the commands are unlikely to sound like 'KILL THAT NEGGARBITCH', rather impulsive self-defensive maneuvers (I would kill a bloke trying to kill me if I could). Now, I think you'd be prepared to go into extreme force in order to protect your life/your loved ones' lives.

Dunno then.

Hello my dear Fin... you are another one that is not understanding me very well!

I also wont bother re-reading all the stuff we wrote. And im sure its thousands of things that can be missunderstood from what i wrote, and i will again have to say that i am sorry for any convinience i might have caused you. Im from norway btw, and my english is good, but not perfect. I realise that.

Anyway: Ill just stop the crap and try to define my point as clear as possible. I used the USA as an example for a situasion that people in a army might end up with facing. The political issue here isnt important. It doesnt matter where you are from. It can be UK, USA, Finland, Norway, Cuba or ****ing Sudan... i was simply asking a principal question.

My point was: Will you, whoever 'the man in charge' is, or whatever your nations political wievs is, be willing to murder people for that actual cause that might come up? Even if you are not sure its the right thing to do?

Once you enter the army, you actual take that statement. At least you do so in my country. In USA too. And im pretty sure in Iraq too.. to serve your country and to serve 'the man/or men in charge' as they/'we' think fits your nation the best.

Thats whats the army is all about.. nothing more, and nothing less.

And yes, i know i myself will be the first to die in the front during wartime, or the first to get executed for national betray. I am only (how ironic it is) pacifist during times in peace. As rules dont seem to matter much in wartime. But at least ive taken a statement against war now. And against solving problems in a way where its pretty much innocent men, women and children that suffers the most.

With love from Lise.

[roadrunner_0]

I have never started a fight in my life, but i can safely say, yes, i have commited violence, but i do not consider myself a violent person. Why commit violence then? The one and only good reason (in my view) is self defence, and every time (about 3/4 times in all) i have hit somebody, it has been for that reason. (except when me and my mates re-created fight club when we were drunk one night, but that doesn't count)

[W]

Oh and since this is "fess up" time, yes, I've used violence to assert my will. I tend to hit people when they keep being annoying after being warned that continuing to be annoying is sure to lead to a beating. I've never actually had to defend myself.

[quote]
acropolis : women prefer to have sex with violent agressive asshole types.

men respond by acting like violent agressive assholes.

women also claim to prefer sensitive types with 'a good sense of humor'

which is pretty much the same as them saying they prefer platonic friends
[quote]

"All women say that they want a kind, senitive man. Then as soon as they find one, they run off with one of the Hells Angels"
A quote from somewhere, wish I knew where.


As for violence, Im a semi-pacifist.
i dont belive violence is an acceptable answer to anything except violence itself. War and violence is the result of mass stupidity. Often when no-one can think of an inteligent way of doing things. Weapons, especially guns give people a feeling of power when they have cntrol over them directly or indirectly. Directly is obvious. Indirectly it could be a government, dictator or just the people in a country. Using the USA as an example, a large army with lots of weapons, do they fear invasion? No of course they dont, not with lots of weapons behind them. Though some may feel understnadbly nervous about weapons of mass destruction. But essentially they can feel secure in that they arnt going to be invaded by people with more weapns than themselves. they, in the form of their country can easily invade or destroy most of the countries around the globe (though other large nations are hardly going to let them go on a complete rampage.)

As for violence for myself, I have hit people before, one offs, for various reasons, usually self defence. but I would not hesitate to protect a friend or family member, or other innocent, it would be instinctive and I would have no regrets.
I would do what I felt I had to.

[Deffeh]

Originally posted by W
Oh and since this is "fess up" time, yes, I've used violence to assert my will. I tend to hit people when they keep being annoying after being warned that continuing to be annoying is sure to lead to a beating. I've never actually had to defend myself.

would you not consider this a character flaw on your part?

You did not have to resort to violence, you chose it. From what your saying, this was out of impatience and irritation. Sometimes showing a bit of self restraint is unsatisying, but altogether more moral. What these people have done to you does not constitute being punished by physical violence.

Myself, i am confused. I dont think ive ever really started a fight, but i wonder whether this might be partly to do with my physical ineptitude. Im only 16, and i look 16. I dont work out, im average height, and i look like a bit of a bit of a pushover if im being honest. Living in glasgow, this is no good. Even walking down the main street in my middle class suburb risks a beating at the age i am. Its despairing, that less than 5 minutes walk, in a relatively well off area, i risk getting beat the **** out of by either groups of violent thugs from around here that are trying to convince themselves that they are "hard" like their heroes Tupac and Biggie, or that ganging up and beating up people unlike them is somehow fun. The other option is i would be beat up (as happened last month) by idiots from other suburbs. Some better off, most worse off. They think they are acting under some sort of form of "town pride", beating the **** out of people from different little villages. True, power is an addictive, but there are appropriate and otherwise times for it. What bothers me is the complete clouding of judgement it can bring. I got bottled because i happen to live in clarkston, and for some reason, "ah pure must be gay then".

I feel i have got the definitive answer though.

You can only truly appreciate what you dont have.

If i was strong, would i have the restraint to not throw my weight about even though it would advantageous?

If i was attractive, would i be shallow, like the people i have grown to hate?

Id like to think that i am a strong enough character, and my morals would prevent me from turning into those i hate. But im human, and as such, im weak. Morals can be bought.

[W]

Originally posted by Deffeh
would you not consider this a character flaw on your part?

If I had, I wouldn't do it. "If you want to change your mind, you already have"

You did not have to resort to violence, you chose it. From what your saying, this was out of impatience and irritation. Sometimes showing a bit of self restraint is unsatisying, but altogether more moral. What these people have done to you does not constitute being punished by physical violence.

I chose it, knowing it would A) stop someone from intentionally annoying me B) give more weight to the threat later

"self restraint" is an oxymoron to me; I always do what I want to do, why would I restrain myself from doing that?

Oh, and our morals obviously differ ;p

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by LISELOTTE
to all of you that normaly ends up in barfights and maybe even provoke to one, you who thinks murder and violence actual solves a problem, you who 'PRRWOOAARRRGHHHS' when running around with your weapon in the army:

do you;

a: concider it 'manly' and have to do it mainly to selfrealise yourself?
b: actual belive it helps anything?
c: concider it cool?
d: because your enviroment as young was so ****ed up that you dont know anything else?
e: have a mind block/defunction?
f: want to impress your 'gang' or a group of people you look up to?
g: actual belives that you have no other choice?

please help me.. this question have haunted me for years and i just CANT understand it... JUST CANT!!!!

Well, I'm a moderately violent person, in that my part time job is helping to kill things (game keeper). Also, I'm more than willing to defend my self/my friends, and have had som instruction to this effect.

a. no. If I'm killing something it's because it needs killed. I've never killed/hurt anything just to show off.
b. Yes, sometimes it does. Vermin destruction for example. Or if someone's drunk and decides to "have a go" at you, a pre-emptive boot in the knackers can save everyone a bit of grief.
c. Well, nailing a fox from 175 yards was kind of cool.
d. Admitedly I was raised in that enviroment, but I honestly don't see any better way of stopping vermin other than killing them.
e. I play PA ffs. Ofc I've got a mind defunction.
f. see a.
g. see d.

Oh, and by the way, you want to become a hairdresser, don't you?

[treelo]

h) convince myself that the reason why i am pointing a gun/smashing someone over the head with a bottle is something worth fighting for.

if i was going to kill someone then it would have to be for a reason that i believe in and not because someone else thinks it is worth risking my life by sending me into an extremely harsh situation where i might die......

damn politicians.....

[Deffeh]

Originally posted by W
If I had, I wouldn't do it. "If you want to change your mind, you already have"I chose it, knowing it would A) stop someone from intentionally annoying me B) give more weight to the threat later

"self restraint" is an oxymoron to me; I always do what I want to do, why would I restrain myself from doing that?

Oh, and our morals obviously differ ;p

Whilst you may have achieved A and B, was your action neccesarily fair or justified from a neutral point of view?

Trying to see the neutral view is a bitch, but thats how i try and live, (or at least id like to).

The thing is, such is life that you cant always do what you want to do. Its more about what you should, and have to do. Im sure wed all love to play by our own rules, but despite what some may think, we dont, and cant.

I think your right we have different morals. I cant quite put words to it correctly at the moment. Perhaps you could describe my mindset as 'submissive' or something.

For now i must submit to school anyway. Ive already taken the morning off.

(so much for doing what i have to do, etc. though i do have a headache.)

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by LISELOTTE


Anyway: Ill just stop the crap and try to define my point as clear as possible. I used the USA as an example for a situasion that people in a army might end up with facing. The political issue here isnt important. It doesnt matter where you are from. It can be UK, USA, Finland, Norway, Cuba or ****ing Sudan... i was simply asking a principal question.

My point was: Will you, whoever 'the man in charge' is, or whatever your nations political wievs is, be willing to murder people for that actual cause that might come up? Even if you are not sure its the right thing to do?

Once you enter the army, you actual take that statement. At least you do so in my country. In USA too. And im pretty sure in Iraq too.. to serve your country and to serve 'the man/or men in charge' as they/'we' think fits your nation the best.

Thats whats the army is all about.. nothing more, and nothing less.

And yes, i know i myself will be the first to die in the front during wartime, or the first to get executed for national betray. I am only (how ironic it is) pacifist during times in peace. As rules dont seem to matter much in wartime. But at least ive taken a statement against war now. And against solving problems in a way where its pretty much innocent men, women and children that suffers the most.

With love from Lise.

Beloved Lise,

In case you didn't already read it between the lines of my former posts, I wouldn't attack Iraq, that, make it clear YET again, the point was of inrelevance. The Finnish army policy (I thought I said we'd very unlikely go to a war, I hoped that'd tip you off about the fact that we have no interest attacking Iraq et cetera, nor do we have resources) isn't really about attacking, rather defending ourselves from threats. We don't do attacking plans. We don't have good offensive gear. Our units are mainly air defence, some armored vehicles, and mines (don't whine about them, we make maps about them in one meter accuracy, so we know where to seek them when the potential war ends). We aren't on slaughter-basis as USA. Our army is about self-defense. I could paste you links about our army policies, I'll do it later on mkay (hoping they are in English too)?

Made it clear? Besides, I thought I made it, myself, clear, that I personally don't consider violence as an answer, but am willing to do it when threatened with it myself.

And I wasn't complaining about your English, as I know how stupid that is. Neither am I native, to say, and there have been native people whining to me about my English, so I am very (truly on this one) sorry if you feel I insulted your skills in English.

What comes to the last pacifist on peacetime, I agree. I am pacifistic when there's no need to be aggressive. But I find it intelligent to be ready when you need to defend yourself, or your country.

Defending, that is.
NOT attacking Iraq, or Cuba, or Norway. And I am willing to 'murder' people if they are attempting to 'murder' my fellow Finns, attacking to Finland with armed force. We aren't an offensive country, that's our military policy number one. Ditto. I am willing to serve in the army in order to learn the skills needed to protect my country if (and only if) a situation should arrise.

Sincerely yours, Tie

[W]

Originally posted by Deffeh
Whilst you may have achieved A and B, was your action neccesarily fair or justified from a neutral point of view?

I don't believe in "fair" (nothing is), nor in justifications. Justifications are for when you invent a category of things to do "right", then try to convince yourself what you did belongs in this category. Objective morals is a fairy tale, without humans there would be no morals anywhere.

Trying to see the neutral view is a bitch, but thats how i try and live, (or at least id like to).

If I see the neutral view, and some other guy see his own view, I lose out.

The thing is, such is life that you cant always do what you want to do. Its more about what you should, and have to do. Im sure wed all love to play by our own rules, but despite what some may think, we dont, and cant.

I do, and thus obviously can. Moreover, I think everyone else does too, and that this "morals" thing is just talk, just justifications for doing what you want.

I think your right we have different morals. I cant quite put words to it correctly at the moment. Perhaps you could describe my mindset as 'submissive' or something.

No. You believe in morals at all. I don't. I believe in values.