Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
"IF war is, indeed, as you say, occurring from within conflict, Peace... it's opposite, must actually be born from a convergence of self interest. "
"so I suppose peace would occur when all people's interest are the same."
i don't know i feel the bases are already covered as to your three posts.
Why do you repeat what I say as a response? Three posts of you repeating what I said.
|
Umm, I started out by saying you had hit upon the most relevant point to be made so far in this discussion. I just said that in a mean way to even out the compliment.
Calm down.
Breathe.
Read.
You get so excited by an argument you lose track of it, kahl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
Really I wonder whether or not war is a natural process of the human enviroment and if it can even be overcome...
|
Well, we already established peace beats war. BPG calls me Hegelicious partly because I wear my positivity on my sleeve (partly also probably because I'm a mish-mash of BS that sometimes sounds like it might make sense,) so you know I'm gonna say peace is in fact possible.
I find Kevin's original question to be much more important than all the little tangents that can spring from it. You say we can claim negative feelings to be "unpeaceful." Does that mean you want to expand the definition of peace to include only sunny days where everybody gets a lollipop like Grislygus?
Seth brought up a tier system, which should be looked at. "International, domestic, and personal..." Can we say we live in a peaceful world if it is free of war even if maybe one or two of us live in violent neighborhoods or households? THAT's why we have to define peace.
Democrats argue that Iraq is less peaceful now because "personal" "unpeacefulness" has increased. Republicans say Iraq is more peaceful now because it's leadership is democratic and not threatening it's neighbors with war. Neither position is entirely RIGHT, in my mind, but the central disagreement on Iraq is what peace is. Factoring in for time, I believe the hawkish position is more correct in the shortest timeline, even though it's still uncomfortably a long one.
I could take the easy way out and say a peaceful world is one without war. I fully see that world happening. I think war is on the road to being proven impractical as a means to any end. Instead, I took the position that peace is meeting political goals without the use of violent means. Peace is a world of representative governments. I think those two positions are pretty much the same thing, but the second is a little harder to imagine happening I suppose.
Representative "Democracies" are the path to peaceful and productive personal lives for all of us. The absence of that government style is the path to war.