• SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Nah brother, what’s sissy is being so afraid for your wallet you carry a gun around. Can’t feel safe in public without the capacity to kill a motherfucker is real sissy ass behavior. I walk around raw dogging any conflict I might come into contact with cause I’m confident in my ability to escape it with my life and i didn’t even have to kill someone over it. Wittle baby

      • dubious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        i guarantee you i could take care of you without a firearm, but i’m smart enough to know that there are some problems fists and feet can’t solve.

        if you don’t believe me, you can always PM me your address.

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          We both know you’d keep it in your car or even on you up till you tactically ascertained that I didn’t bring one myself. Then you’d hand off to the buddy you know you’d be too scared to roll without. And then I still wouldn’t fight you, cause I’m not a wittle baby with hurt fee fees cause someone thinks I’m lesser for carrying a gun. You are lesser for it. Keep being angy.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I once had someone get in my face and say, “Are you man enough to fight me?” I responded with “I’m man enough to find non-violent solutions to my problems.” Why should someone be proud of the problem-resolution method of choice for 3-year-olds?

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Violence is for situations when one’s choice of other resolution methods is gone. Such situations do exist.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes, and the vast majority of scenarios where that is the case is where one party made completely unreasonable demands or turned to violence as the first option.

      • dubious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        there aren’t always non-violent solutions. i accept that reality. it’s nothing to be proud of, but i would be ashamed if i couldn’t deal with that truth.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re correct, there aren’t always non-violent solutions, but those are often due to people who insist on engaging in violence, whether it be invading another country or taking offense at someone pulling into their driveway.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yes. It only takes one party to initiate violence involving two parties.

            This is why it is necessary to be prepared for violence even if one never initiates violence.

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m not sure what your point is. It is completely orthogonal to mine. In the same vein, no, you aren’t responsible for other people’s choices, and yes, rabid dogs (or people who act like them) are unlikely to listen to reason. Neither of those are good reasons to start fights, and that statement neither says that all fights are avoidable or that one mustn’t defend oneself.