it's that time again

your sociopolitical position(s), as briefly as you can.

>>80

I already told you on /b/, you don't have to like me.

Sure is samefag in here

>>82

Actually it's not. Use your head.

>>82
I'm not so sure about being the same but we certainly are fags. Latino, ebony, asian, arabica, all different shapes and sizes of exotic muscular men are welcome here.

>>> I'm an anarchist: There is no reason for me to be subject to any other person from time of birth
wrong. If nothing else, you should be subject to the obvious fact that we have to live on this rock together. That implies a NECESSITY of working out harmonious life together, in one way or another.

that implies law
law implies authority, conviction, punishment, coercion, etc

>>85
What if a harmonious way of life requires that you impose your will on others?

>>86
It doesn't. Dumb argument.

>>87
Actually you would have to concede that you must defend yourself from usurpers.  So you would have to fight back or perish.

>>88

Those who initiate violence are responsible for the consequences of it. When their women are raped or killed, when their men have been opened from belly to throat or hung from overpasses, I will go home and sleep soundly with a clean conscience because they started it.

>>89
That's the spirit. Now consider the advantage of pre-emptive strikes. If there is a power vacuum that will inevitably lead to a scramble to fill it then victory is more likely if you are ahead of the curve, if you are truly good then it is justified for you to obtain more power.

>>90
what makes you think that the good deserve to conquer power?

fuck off

>>91
Ex.  There is a neighboring tribe who have made it known they mean to conquer everyone else. Do you wait for the attack or do you take precautions?

>>89
No, because each individual is responsible for their actions. While it may be justifiable to kill someone who tries to kill you, it is not justifiable to kill their wife and children.
>>90
>>92
Go away, Glenn Beck.

>>93

Then I will live with being unjustified. And it will be easy.

If one group initiates violence, they are responsible for whatever means is required to defend myself. If that means picking them off while they sleep, when they go to the bathroom, when they forage one by one, woman by child by man, that is none of my concern. Prosecute the war until they are all dead or dispersed to ground like rabbits.

>>92
>>90

Or you could just use ultimatums and alliances. If you have the ability to launch and win a 'pre-emptive' war, they probably weren't a threat to you in the first place. Which is why every pre-emptive war in history has been a badly disguised war of aggressive conquest and enslavement. A pre-emptive war cannot be justified no matter how you stretch your hypothetical. It will always be an unprovoked war of aggression.

>>95
exactly.

>>94
Who are you?
Evil Incarnate?

>>97
He is Anonymous, and Anonymous does not forgive!

>>97

Defending myself is not evil. You need to re-evaluate your kool-aid morals. There is no honor in war. It's crass violence. Everyone has a biological imperative to survive and defend themselves against aggressors.

Nothing is sacred in war. Don't start it if you aren't prepared to face the consequences of war.

>>99
What is it good for, anyway? Absolutely NOTHING!

>>100

Conflict helps weed out the weak and spread winning genes to losing clans via rape. Also, violence solves quite a lot. I'm in favor of a violent class war against the rich, and hanging them and their pawns from overpasses as a warning to others.

>>101
Oh, go shoot your friend accidentally in the face.

Seriously, though, you really should consider living as a hermit and never spreading your poisonous ideas to impressionable children.

>>99
You need to re-evaluate your PCP morals.

>>102

Are you calling me Dick Cheney? Rude. I don't think he advocates a class war against the rich.

So let me get this straight. I'm an evil sociopath, twisted with depravity, for advocating total war and guerrilla war to unconditional victory in defense of myself and my family but the guy who is trolling with pre-emptive wars of conquest and enslavement is just Glenn Beck?

See, now that's more than just a casual fail. That is indicative of some serious brain damage on your part. You care more about HOW people speak rather than WHAT they say. Let me guess: raging Politically Correct "liberal?"

Though probably, you're not really liberal. You're a middle of the road statist patriot whose ears bleed whenever a militant or anarchist suggests doing something that requires more sacrifice than pressing 'like' on facebook or marching around holding a sign for more than a couple of hours and chanting tired slogans. Just a guess.

>>103

middle of the road statist patriot unwilling to sacrifice

Um. Wrong.
I'd bet money that I sacrifice a hell of a lot more than you do every day. I sacrifice to buy (or grow, or trade for) only locally grown organic food; to buy (or trade for) only locally made products, or go without, or make my own; to spend time with my son and not work all day every day (less money is the sacrifice here); to send him to an anarchist school; to invest time and energy in community, to live without a car... just a few things off the top of my head.

You: let's see, all I know about you is that you advocate hunting down and killing innocent women and children because someone in their group attacked you. Sounds Cheney-ish to me. Only difference is that you specifically advocate killing the rich, whereas he advocates killing people who are inconvenient to him. But at the end of the day, dear, children are children. people are people. You are advocating violence. And not just self-defense.

>>104

Okay, Blossom. Hold hands and call up to the sun and the moon and maybe if you ask nicely the owner class will just go away and leave you to your self-determination in peace. Non-violence is fine, IF you sacrifice, and sacrifice means being willing to go to jail, to be attacked and murdered by state thugs. But you know what? Violence is fine too. You say that I'm advocating violence as if it's damning. It isn't. Violence gets things done. There is nothing noble or intellectual about it; it's crass force and it has its place. Children are children and people are people? What does that even mean? I hope you're not posting while high (and then saying I'm on PCP simultaneously).

I'll say it again, if a group isn't prepared to take the consequences of war, they shouldn't start one. Let the broken bodies of their wives and children make them think twice before casually committing murder and aggression in the future. The universe is not a soft, kind, and caring place. A hundred trillion worlds circling ten trillion stars, and the meek won't inherit a single one. You non-violent pandering faggots need us militants a hell of a lot more than we need you. Your supposed lifestylism is great, but it won't change anything; it won't even help provide the backbone of a new and sustainable economy or even sustain you until you're 100% self-sufficient. And that's not a condemnation, that shit is hard. But it is the truth.

>>105
Not high.

How can you not even understand that you are mirroring the beliefs of the oppressors???
Your violent militantism doesn't accomplish much change in the long run. Just more death and misery. Then _ what? Once you are in charge, you rule with a violent iron fist? No thanks.

Children are children : what does that mean?
It means that rich or poor, a child is just a child and killing them is always wrong and abhorrent. At least kidnap them and raise them with better values! Geez.

war; shouldn't start one, etc
I'm guessing that somehow you don't know that the people who start the wars are never the ones who fight them, or die in them.

non-militants need you
No. We don't. You make us look bad, for one thing. Also, you add more violence, death and destruction to the world, which we do not need.
Focus less on killing and more on destroying infrastructure and power plants and oil refineries, and I would be more supportive.

>>106

The O^ppressors!

Mirroring the beliefs of the oppressors? Violence was not invented by the owner class, it was invented by the universe; by nature. Violence is a total solution, complete in its finality. Only the reasons for violence are the 'beliefs of the oppressors,' and they are not at all mirrored in militancy against them. Violence for liberty, for self-determination, for blind and true justice, and all the other peacocked justifications for revolution - whatever you think of them, there is no way these things can be said to be what the oppressors and exploiters of this world initiate violence for.

| Slippery Slope! If you have a successful revolution you'll be a violent despot!

Cool story, bro. I'm sure your non-violent methods will do much better at stepping up just as their capitalist pyramid scheme collapses to supply a new economy in perfect working order to provide for 7 billion people. Certainly no despots will rise up in that situation to rule with violent fists. I like how this argument isn't actually cemented in any kind of logic at all.

In fact, it will be the pacifists who condemn the militant people of their own ideology as an 'embarrassment' while the fascists and autocrats rise up. You're the embarrassment and a demerit to whatever ideologies you people belong to. Unfortunately it's almost always the left in latter times and as a result we've been castrated and kept disorganized and impotent to resist as our rights are sacked and our victories eroded. Cool to see all those working poor without healthcare and working 12 hour days at two jobs. You're doing real bang up work.

Those who start wars don't suffer in them.

This is true in these days, but I've been operating on the scenario of a neighboring clan or tribe threatening violence as per the offered hypothetical. In which case those who started the wars would be suffering in them.

And people are responsible for the leaders they have. Even in an industrial society, the people mandate the kind of leaders they want. 1932 Germany mandated the rise of the Nazis and spurred them ever onwards as long as things were going well. Only when things started to go poorly did they start griping. You know how people in Africa and elsewhere are being tricked into killing their babbies by Nestle? Well they don't organize, so they deserve it, don't they? It's not like they don't have breast milk. They choose to believe Nestle's campaign, and their babbies die. You'd think they'd fucking learn, but they don't. I have a hard time having sympathy for people that stupid. It goes just as much for those in the developed world who choose sociopathic politicians. The people are to blame for their own stupidity and torpid pacifism to the kind of evil they see around them. You call me evil, but I call you ten times more evil for standing by condemning those who would oppose evil with violence rather than joining in.

>>104
I fucking hate the whole liberal anti-violence gig - and I'm an anarchist. You have to meet violence with violence. You can't spend the rest of history muddling around with lawyers and the legal system currying for your rights. You need to fight, someday or another - and having guns closer just means that you'll be prepared the day when you have to fight. Maybe not a gun, maybe just a baseball bat; it doesn't matter.

Preparing oneself for violence is all a part of being a human. Stop resisting your humanity.

>>108
>>107
Again: violence against ACTUAL oppressors, such as police, I have no problem with. Fighting to defend yourself from attack?( or oppression) Go for it!
Hunting down women and children related to oppressors? Not cool.

And I could say the same to you, re: great job you're doing so far.

>>107
your lack of sympathy for Nestle's victims is enough for me. I have NO respect for you, sir.
Try walking outside your front door and getting to know the oppressed a bit before you start fighting on their behalf.

>>109

So you had respect for me when I was Dick Cheney, but now that I criticized the stupidity of Humans who don't organize, that was the last straw? Lol, okay.

But what if I told you I don't buy nestle products? Meanwhile, those who do would never say anything so heartless and wicked buy their crunch bars and drumsticks and chocolate milk mix. Are those people more deserving of respect? They don't say such MEAN things, after all!

>>93
HURR GLENN BECK FOX NEWS SO EDGY HIPSTER AM I
Whatever dude.
>>95
If you issue an ultimatum you'll lose the element of suprise, then you'll lose the war, which as I mentioned before is inevitable due to the power vacuum.

You have 2 options before you.

1: Do nothing and your opponent takes the opportunity instead of you.
2: Issue an ultimatum and lose the element of suprise, your opponent knows as well as you that the ultimatum is just a meaningless political tool and invades before you gaining the advantage.
3: You decide to "back the freedom fighters on the borders" and quickly occupy the region, your opponent realizes your operation was pre-planned months in advance and has missed an opportunity so there is no point antagonizing you over something they will inevitably lose. War is averted, you are free to build mines, ports, roads, rail, plantations and light industries and turn the country into an egalitarian 1st world democracy.

>>95
Did I say 2? I meant 3.

>>111

The element of surprise doesn't apply to strategy. It applies to individual battles. Ultimatums are a very useful diplomatic tool. It finds out just how far your enemies want to take things. They violate the ultimatum, and you pack up your shit, go into war mode, burn their villages and salt their fields. Using an ultimatum at the right time is important, of course, but saying it guarantees defeat is absurd. A pre-emptive strike has zero value whatsoever. Just look at the Japanese and Pearl Harbor. Your arguments are weak and flaccid, like your cock when looking at attractive females, you homosexual.

>>110
So you don't by Nestle products. So join the club.
Look, I obviously have no idea who you are as a person, but the things you have been writing about, such as hunting down and killing children, and glorifying violence, disturb me.
I think it is very easy to get caught up in an ideal and lose sight of the actual flesh and blood people right next to you. You say you would hunt down a child. Well, I hope that when you would actually see that theoretical child before you, when it would look into your eyes, that your human soul would not be able to carry out your intellectual edict.
Try a little sympathy and empathy.Try, maybe, a little less arrogance, and a little more awareness that we are all just folks here on this planet trying to figure it all out.

Start the day off with a smile.

100% HARD BASS
100% ADIDAS
1488% ANTI GYPSY

>>115

Sorry, I read that in Heath Ledger's joker voice and it completely changed the intended meaning.

>>113
I could say "an ultimatum has 0 value whatsoever, just look at Neville Chamberlain", but that would be a weak and flaccid argument, sometimes pre-emptive strikes are a good option, sometimes ultimatums are, sometimes both and neither are. In the situation I described a pre-emptive strike is optimal, in the situation you describe where you are in a position to inflict that sort of damage an ultimatum is also a good idea.

Let's look at my situation again, except ignoring the means with which to achieve them and focussing on the ends, which are the only thing that matters anyway.

1: Your opponent takes the opportunity instead of you.
2: Your opponent invades before you gaining the advantage.
3: War is averted, you are free to build mines, ports, roads, rail, plantations and light industries and turn the country into an egalitarian 1st world democracy.

Now let's change the situation to one where an ultimatum is useful, let's say an ultimatum for North Vietnam in 1957.

1: Do nothing, North Vietnam escalates hostilities leading to a grinding guerilla war.
2: Launch a pre-emptive strike, South Vietnam suffers heavily from corruption and inefficiency, the campaign is a disaster and the military suffers from mass desertions, North Vietnam takes advantage of the situation and wins a quick victory.
3: Issue an ultimatum, declare a defensive alliance with South Vietnam and Laos and that indiscriminate carpet bombing followed by a full scale invasion would commence if North Vietnam declares war on South Vietnam or Laos, flood the countries with UN inspectors and other diplomatic trifles to make it impossible for their activities to go unnoticed by the world. North Vietnam keeps funding the guerilla campaign but with the Ho Chi Minh trail gone and hope of total victory fading this gradually becomes a token measure. Laos and South Vietnam become asian tigers like South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

And now without the means.

1: North Vietnam invades.
2: North Vietnam invades, your strategic blunder leads to their quick victory.
3: War is averted, you are free to build mines, ports, roads, rail, plantations and light industries and turns Vietnam and Laos into 1st world egalitarian democracies.

like your cock when looking at attractive females, you homosexual
Real mature, I'm not a homosexual but you are a homophobe, the last thing I'd expect from a lefty liberal.

>>118

You're on 4chan, ad homs and name calling are mandatory, "faggot".

Your post was horribly flawed and at times incoherent. The first thing I'd expect from a righty cuntservative.

LOJIKS:

IF: You issue an ultimatum;
THEN: Your opponent disregards it SO war begins AND you gain allies or political capital.
ELSE: War is averted.

IF: You do nothing;
THEN: Your opponent continues its actions AND war is inevitable since it will continue to push the envelope until it meets resistance.

IF: You launch a pre-emptive strike;
THEN: War is certain AND you lose allies and political capital.

Ignoring the means, and taking the event of war as desireable to avoid, the ONLY logical choice is the use of diplomacy such as alliances and ultimatums to avoid armed conflict as any other path will unavoidably lead to war.

Now, your argument is that a pre-emptive strike will convey some magical strategic advantage. This is not true. An ultimatum may do nothing, but diplomacy is the ONLY option that will lead to an avoidance of war. Nothing prevents you from being prepared for war while simultaneously giving the ultimatum.

I have already contested your claim, stating correctly that the element of surprise applies only to battle. Catching them with their pants down. While they sleep, while they forage, overwhelming inferior and isolated targets with shock and awe. It has nothing to do with grand strategy. An invasion takes days or weeks: far longer than the element of surprise lasts, which can be scant seconds. You ignored this point in the midst of your laughably contrived logic, so I take that as you conceding defeat on the matter. I accept your apology. Please seek out a church-led ex-gay program to cure yourself of your faggotry.

>>119
This isn't /b/ and using ad hominems in place of an actual argument is not going to win the debate.