Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5299976" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, first, it's not clear at all to me (or the law for that matter), that the threat of violence isn't itself violence.  The threat of violence is assault.Secondly, the threat of violence only works as deterence if its actually believable.  If you have no reason to believe that negative consequences will result from your failure to cooperate, the 'intimidate check' is certain to fail.Thirdly, humans are emotional as well as rational creatures, and the threat of violence frequently provokes anger and violence as a responce, so if you are bluffing the threat of violence you better be prepared for the escalation that is likely to result.  No they don't.  But they have to be willing to do these things, which a pacifist by definition is not.  They also have to have reputation for being willing to commit violence, which a pacifist won't have.  And the fact of the matter is that, people don't always surrender when faced with a threat even when resistance has no hope of success and makes the situation worse.Some will.  But don't bet on 'flight' in the 'fight or flight' instinct.  Humans are very poor runners and can't hide very well.  As a species we are built to fight and kill, and we are very good at it.  Nothing else in nature has a natural instinct to pick up a stick and hit things with it.  Nothing else in nature can take that stick, or a rock, or a spear, or a gun, and instinctually use it to hit a target and with practice to hit it with accuracy rivaling that of a purpose built machine.Sure, it's called 'morality'.  But if pacifism is to mean anything, it must be a distinction between itself the near universal assertion by all societies that violence is a last resort.  Banshee</blockquote>[/QUOTE]

Verification