You're accusatory and insinuative nonsense is reflection of the same combative and rude bullshit you've given my sincere and simple question which you avoid and keep avoiding. I never asked you what to think, never implied such demands then you twisted it into combat because I challanged you bullshit fact that you knew me before I changed my screen name. I remarked that you have no argument or shit to say to the question instead you're blabbering blathering on making demands while you're not busy trying to evade the guilt of actually standing for something but really doing nothing about it by denying and making insinuations that I was asking you anything to do with "how or what to think".
how can you be for Zero Aggression in a society so tolerant of aggression?
Meerely a fucking question old man, if you don't want to answer it say fuck off or whatever but projecting your crap while evading the obvious point of this discourse while hurling crap at your imaginary pleble that's begging to be your slave is your freudean slip.
I am telling you to think instead of throwing around logical fallacies which you still have to explain why and how they pertain and how and why it invalidates my argument. Think: How are you for Zero Aggression in an Aggression Tolerant Society?
Let's say we are slaves when slavery of the africans was still around.
And I as a slave said to you as a slave : I believe in the zero slavery principle.
would you ask me then;
How can you be for zero slavery principle on a slave plantage?
Do you see how that can be possible. And If more and more slaves woke up to the fact that they ought not to be slaves ( because more and more stated that they are not slaves) that slavery would end. Of course action would be needed. But everything starts with people saying it's wrong I will not cooperate, or get around, or try to escape, that system
You do know that the zero aggression principle is not a pacifistic stance?
Because you say:
This is absolutely no true If you think this is what the zero aggression principle is or means you don't understand it.
First, to make something clear, if you defend yourself against an attacker ,aggresor (the one initiating violence) you are not the initiator of violence (you are not an attacker or agressor), you defend yourself.
You may defend yourself against those who attack you. I would even say I must, where I can, defend myself (and eventual others) against the state aggressors and other aggressors or aggressions.
This can have many different forms.
(defending is not aggressing)
I'm not convincing the slave owner that would be ridiculous.
I'm trying to get through to the other slaves that think they ought to be slaves.
It's a bit like being born in a giant cult. If you want to take a aim at destroying the cult it would not help to convince the cult leaders, they do not believe their own story (well maybe they do but that's not the point), you try to deprogram the cult members,
the believers, if no one believe the BS of the cult leaders there is no cult.
Thank you for the reply.
Most of the people don't know that, and most will defend the state and even other agressors.
The following I write just to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
It requires violence or better said force?
What do you mean with complete and total war?
And how are you now at war?
do you shoot all the bureaucrats, politicians, judges ,police, military, and all that voted for them and want them to boss them around and worse you around?.......for if you are at war with the state you are at war with almost everyone.
Ok . One question I still have though is; what do you mean with Total War. What does that consist of.
I think you do not mean the thing I have in mind when I think of war. You just would not be alive today.