Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Okay. I want peace. I do. But, because of reasons I will explain, Universal peace cannot be achieved. PLease present any arguments.

For one thing, the foundation of peace is agreement. Now, for universal peace to ocurr, people will have to destroy all opinions and objections they have, and agree to whatever the others agree to, Opinion is something we need, or else no discoveries would be made, nobody like Einstien or great theorists would have come along. Everybody would have to agree, and to agree you must have no objective opinions, you would have to agree. And in doing that, we would become mindless freaks.

And then, there is what would ocurr. If total peace were to be achived, the would would live as one. The could not set out in any different feilds. Hence, conformity.Now that might not seem so bad at first, but look ahead. You woulod have to live the same exact lifestyle as everyone else.

I want to use Lennon's Imagine, as an example. You see, it is the perfect one, because all of the things he mentions(No hell, no heaven, no religion, no countries) are in our imagination, and we imagine those as the perfect, universal peace. But, peace wouldn't be like this. How could we have no religion? There would have to be some entity everyone believed in. This is just one of many examples(But don't get me wrong, LENNON IS AWESOME.)

So, in short-
You cannot achieve complete, universal peace. That would resuilt in catastrophe, and suck any creativity the human race has into oblivion.

_________________

I think this is pretty short-sighted. I ccontend that the foundation of peaces is tolerance of those you don't agree with.

_________________

For one thing: Just because we cannot ever achieve total peace does not mean that we should just give up trying.

I agree, though, that to truly enjoy life and the world in which we all live, we must embrace the variety that we are given, for it creates a balance. More of my thoughts on this found in the first paragraph of this thread. The differing opinions of what is right and good and moral makes this world all the more interesting, and I also agree that it helps us progress further as a society in general, even if it does involve taking a few steps back at times due to things such as religious intolerance.

Perhaps, however, Interrupter Jones is correct in that "peace" could be achieved and defined as having tolerance towards others' ideas and opinions, instead of simply agreeing on every little detail. Through everyone's achievement of inner peace, we may be able to achieve a collective outer peace.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

For the most part, if looking from a classic nation vs. nation (or alliance of nations vs. the same) war model. I don't think tolerance of other people factors into what I would find to be more noble casus belli. For example, if nation X is comitting genocide and nation Y invades nation X to protect those being killed off.

Well, you could say that nation Y could be tolerant of nation X's genocidal actions, but as I am using it, I see tolerance in this case as beng tolerant of what the other group is. Tolerance of religion, ethnicity, etc.

But on more lower social and civil models, yeah, I'd say tolerance is very much a required foundation--not the removal of ethnicity, religion, or other things that make us what we are. The anti-religious movement is very much prejudiced, hateful, and intolerant itself--in my book, someone going around spewing anti-religious diatribes is equal to someone going around supporting "ethnic cleansing."

_________________

World peace is possible. It would take a long time, but it is still possible nonetheless.

_________________

Carrying on from what the others have said, I'd say that you might be right up to a point, Rusty. There's no doubt that ideological divides and factors like that constantly crop as an excuse for wars, genocides, you name it.

But I'd say as well that mankind's quest for conflict goes deeper than that. Disagreements between peoples are just the spurs for war, imo, but it's the quest for land and power that are the real causes for war. And it's something that's inate in us, as a social animal - we want what our neighbours have, and we want to protect what we have from the neighbours.

But I agree anyway - until we can override those evolutionary traits of ours, we probably won't see world peace.

Untill the Lord's return, world wide peace cannot be obtained.

As long as sin still dewels in the hearts of people.

And that is all I have to say.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

_________________

I don't really agree with this. I'm sure that world peace is possible, one way or another. I don't mean there won't be arguements, and even physical fights, but in the big picture; no wars, bombs, massacres, genecides, street killings or murders. It is possible, but its not going to be in this millenium.



Yar.

The first step to obtaining world peace would be ridding all religioun(which will never happen), because there is to this day only one religioun to never be in a war, and religioun is always(just about) the source of war

I disagree. I think that people who initiate wars claim to be doing so for "religious reasons" because they've twisted around the constructive meaning of religion. As discussed at length in this thread, religion is just another tool that people use and twist for their own motives, whether those motives are benevolent or wicked....so I don't think it's fair to blame war on religion. People lusting for power and control would find anything they can to justify their cause, whether it's religion, politics, or whatever.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

true, true like the line between cult/religioun/and group, but many arguements do arise from religioun

That you can keep saying this with a grin and not realize the irony in your statement scares me. Do you realize how many innocent people have been tortured and slaughtered by atheist militants trying to purge religion from their borders?

Now, if you said "ridding all religious intolerance" I would have agreed with you. Promoting tolerance of one another's religious beliefs and opinions about God--atheism included--is the real key to ending wars and genocides fueled by difference of religion.

Blaming religion itself for war and other strife is just another example of prejudice, intolerance, and hatred.

_________________

Iv'e got nothing against other religions, although i'm really not in one, but there are always the people that can't deal with anything different than what they are

Differences and the inability to deal with them are far from being unique to religion.

Using the "people can't deal with anything different from them" argument would mean that you'd have to get rid of different ages, races, genders, heights, weights, etc.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

This whole thing is reminding me of "the giver"
although i never did finish that*back to toast

Centuries upon centuries...upon centuries.