Poll: World Peace?
- Thread starter rvbnut
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yep, you should give up on hoping for it because it will never ever happen. You'll be happier if you just accept that war is a part of human nature and civilization.
If that's the case they shouldn't accept people like Sarah Palin as their leaders and should strongly discourage people from coming to their rallies with signs like "Obama is a terrorist" and equally retarded things.SonicWaffle said:
I'd disagree with the word 'active'. It's a grass-roots movements, so it has many active members attending rallies, presumably lobbying politicians, signing petitions and so on. However, they don't receive media focus, because they're not as funny or ridiculous as the extremist fringe. Conservative news sources likely use these people to draw attention to the movement while more liberal sources like to point at them and say "look how ridiculous these people are!", but both sides marginalize the majority.tellmeimaninja said:
While this is true to an extent, it still doesn't mean that the majority of the Tea Party are extremists. It just means that the extremist faction grows due to some high profile figures with insane views, and the silent majority just struggles by and pretends not to know the crazy ones. I can't help feeling sorry for them, despite being politically opposed to them; imagine being undeniably linked in the public consciousness to people like Sarah Palin or Andy Schlafly.tellmeimaninja said:
probably not... which is for the best... war is good for the economy and without war (and world hunger, etc, etc) the world's population would soar out of control until we're all hungry and we all die, rather than just some of us
I don't see how they could stop them. Like it or not there are many, many people who think Obama is a terrorist, out to destroy the country or bring it under Marxist or Muslim or gay rule, whichever it's supposed to be this week. Are these people idiots? Generally, yes. Is saying "please don't do that anymore, it makes us look bad" going to stop them? Fuck no.HK_01 said:
Humans are dickheads by nature, and will continue to be dickheads, which negates even the slightest possibility of world peace.
Yay! More Tea Party discussion!tellmeimaninja said:
/sarcasm
I think the real problem with the Tea Party is that they completely degenerate the republicans. Sure, a fair few republicans are idiotic rednecks or people still living in the 50s, but there are normal people too. That's what we as humans often forget when it comes to politics.
OT: Nope, never will happen, the best we can probably hope for is world cease-fire.
Bobby Kotick would never let world peace break out. The modern warfare franchise relies too much on the possibility of future conflict and I don't think Activision will be letting their golden goose die anytime soon.
No, I think they have both the means and the warped principles to give every new republic, terrorist cell and small business the firepower they need to cause quite a bit of a ruckus for the foreseeable future.
No, I think they have both the means and the warped principles to give every new republic, terrorist cell and small business the firepower they need to cause quite a bit of a ruckus for the foreseeable future.
Aw man, when I saw the title, I had this great response, and you just took it.Greyfox105 said:
I guess I second this
On the racism/sexism thing, no, I don't think we'll ever be free from that, in whatever form it takes in the future. Humans are judgemental by nature and, no matter what restrains you put on people, they will ALWAYS have their own opinions. A relative of mine is deeply homophobic and racist without any real reason for being so; he just is. Whilst people have freewill, then no.
On the war thing...more of a complex issue, because we don't NEED to be at war, but we are. Again, it's all about people and their natures. There will ALWAYS be people who believe their own race/gender/ideas to be superior and will, perhaps misguidedly more so than anything, attempt to enforce these things onto others.
On top of that, conflicts of interest will always mean there is SOME kind of battle going on, whether it be religious, over land, for money (read: greed)...unless we ALL believe in ONE religion (or none), the whole world becomes communist and the need for money eradicated then, no, we'll never have World Peace. It's a sad realisation, but humans just aren't at that stage yet, where we don't see our own values as superior, more accurate, or more intelligent than someone else's. And I don't know if we can become capable of this mindset.
On the war thing...more of a complex issue, because we don't NEED to be at war, but we are. Again, it's all about people and their natures. There will ALWAYS be people who believe their own race/gender/ideas to be superior and will, perhaps misguidedly more so than anything, attempt to enforce these things onto others.
On top of that, conflicts of interest will always mean there is SOME kind of battle going on, whether it be religious, over land, for money (read: greed)...unless we ALL believe in ONE religion (or none), the whole world becomes communist and the need for money eradicated then, no, we'll never have World Peace. It's a sad realisation, but humans just aren't at that stage yet, where we don't see our own values as superior, more accurate, or more intelligent than someone else's. And I don't know if we can become capable of this mindset.
There will not be peace. Not as long as there are two differing beliefs on this world. To quote an infinite source of wisdom, "As long as there are two people on this world, Someone will want someone else dead." Sniper-Tf2. Not as long as there is two cents to be made of another's misery. Not as long as one man can controll another, through either political or economic means. There might be that one moment were not a shot will be fired, but that won't be peace. That will be the troops looking at the nuclear detonations on the horizon. Sorry to sound grim, but that's the way it is.
peace is an oxymoron
violence in inherent in nature at every level
it is not that nature is violent, it is more to do with what we percieve as violence; is the willful slaughter of another creature for nourishment violent? does it inherently prevent a state of 'peace' from occuring?
peace and violence are but words, we give them meaning and context, then tend to forget that we made them up.
once you do away with the words and the idea, what remains?
gah . . . what do I know, I'm only a crab.
violence in inherent in nature at every level
it is not that nature is violent, it is more to do with what we percieve as violence; is the willful slaughter of another creature for nourishment violent? does it inherently prevent a state of 'peace' from occuring?
peace and violence are but words, we give them meaning and context, then tend to forget that we made them up.
once you do away with the words and the idea, what remains?
gah . . . what do I know, I'm only a crab.
No.
Freedom makes it so that people can harm each other,so it's either freedom or peace.
Limit people's actions to only doing good and you have peace,yet no freedom.
Give people a certain amount of choice to do things,and they'll eventually anger someone,somewhere.
That's actually rather depressing.
Freedom makes it so that people can harm each other,so it's either freedom or peace.
Limit people's actions to only doing good and you have peace,yet no freedom.
Give people a certain amount of choice to do things,and they'll eventually anger someone,somewhere.
That's actually rather depressing.