|
|
Post by MikDaTv on Sept 25, 2007 12:38:49 GMT -5
A little rule of thumb i like to go by. If you think one way, someone's going to think the other way. Set up a world government and someone's going to try and take it down. Of course dont set one up and someone will try and set one up. thats probably true. and to put an addition onto that is the rule "No matter how outlandish or insane the idea you come up with, there's someone out there who agrees with you." but this all comes back to Si's point. "True Peace" needs to be defined. Are we talking absolutely no violence in the world at all? There will always be criminals and there will always be bar fights. But a world without war is possible, in my opinion at least. |
|
|
|
Post by Cain on Sept 25, 2007 15:31:45 GMT -5
*pokes sig*  |
|
|
|
Post by Zilfer Of Shadows... on Sept 25, 2007 21:00:18 GMT -5
Well now you have to define what WAR means. Becusae there are many types of war, war's between familys, countries, the world, Ect.
*pokes cain's sig*
|
|
|
|
Post by Si Quan on Sept 25, 2007 21:04:58 GMT -5
Why do you need to define war to define peace? Peace isn't always just the absence of war. (If you're gonna poke Cain's sig, do it right  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Zilfer Of Shadows... on Sept 26, 2007 0:10:31 GMT -5
Why do you need to define war to define peace? Peace isn't always just the absence of war. (If you're gonna poke Cain's sig, do it right ) Becuase in his description of Peace, he said war, and i need to know HIS definintion of WAR. btw..... *pokes monkey's since he was the last one to post* |
|
|
|
Post by Cain on Sept 26, 2007 11:18:11 GMT -5
War is when I knock you down and take your milk money. In less simplified terms, War is an attempt at political, economic, military, or cultural gain by means of force. In the case of your milk money, economic. |
|
|
|
Post by Zilfer Of Shadows... on Sept 26, 2007 11:30:39 GMT -5
and by that definintion of war, mik's peace is impossible. There will always be war. The only way to stop force, is to use force.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cain on Sept 26, 2007 11:37:09 GMT -5
I disagree. By that definition peace is possible. But you have to think of peace as I have come to think of it. Not as an image of fluffy bunnies and dewy medows and all that hands across America BS.
I'll use the Soviet Union under Stalin as my example. There was no war, no battles going on, not even any conflict. The Soviet ppl by and large had accepted Stalin as their leader. But still they were dying by the millions, many starving to death. Is that peace? No. So I shall repeat what my sig says: Real peace is not the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zilfer Of Shadows... on Sept 27, 2007 14:11:03 GMT -5
I disagree. By that definition peace is possible. But you have to think of peace as I have come to think of it. Not as an image of fluffy bunnies and dewy medows and all that hands across America BS. I'll use the Soviet Union under Stalin as my example. There was no war, no battles going on, not even any conflict. The Soviet ppl by and large had accepted Stalin as their leader. But still they were dying by the millions, many starving to death. Is that peace? No. So I shall repeat what my sig says: Real peace is not the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice. >.> Alright and there was ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT IN SOVIET UNION?!?!?!? I bet there where people who still had personal conflicts which by your definition is war. |
|
|
|
Post by Cain on Sept 27, 2007 14:23:02 GMT -5
There was no civil war going on at the time. The "conflict" was one that Stalin was waging on his own people. And they took it with no resistance. While this may not be a war, it certainly is not peace. I remember listing political, military, economic and cultural gains as being the causes of war, but not personal. |
|
|
|
Post by Zilfer Of Shadows... on Sept 27, 2007 15:17:06 GMT -5
There was no civil war going on at the time. The "conflict" was one that Stalin was waging on his own people. And they took it with no resistance. While this may not be a war, it certainly is not peace. I remember listing political, military, economic and cultural gains as being the causes of war, but not personal. If he was waging it against his people, that would be political would it not? I woudl say military since they are proably the one's enforcing it but no clue. AS for personal..... There's always a reason for that, Political, economical, or cultural gains. Most likely it would be cultural gain of a certain family or person(s) against another family or person(s). |
|
|
|
Post by Cain on Sept 27, 2007 16:48:26 GMT -5
The point z is that peace is not simply about there being no bloodshed. Just like saying that creation is the opposite of war is an overly simplistic definition, saying that destruction is the opposite of peace is also an overly simplistic definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zilfer Of Shadows... on Sept 27, 2007 22:33:32 GMT -5
The point z is that peace is not simply about there being no bloodshed. Just like saying that creation is the opposite of war is an overly simplistic definition, saying that destruction is the opposite of peace is also an overly simplistic definition. ok, so where on the same page. works for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Cain on Sept 28, 2007 12:38:55 GMT -5
If you say so slick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zilfer Of Shadows... on Sept 29, 2007 16:07:25 GMT -5
=P i do say so.
|
|
)