Can there be peace without war?

[Dalaran_Guard]

You see, I just don't recognize why the whole "under God" part is such a big deal; you are pledging allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic, not to God nor monotheism. People seem to have such a problem with saying 'under God', even though it means nothing if they don't believe in it.

On a side note: this is getting to be quite a heated debate. I think I'm enjoying this whole devil's advocate thing way too much...

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Ephy, citizens' rights should NEVER be violated, even in times of crisis or war.

i'm not saying it's right, i'm saying that it tends to happen. and it happens worldwide, too.

Slavery: once again, I was disputing the above quote. When you take just about anything out of context it sounds pretty ridiculous, so read things for what they are...

okay, but you worded it as if america was the ONLY country that ever had slavery. the romans did, the greeks did, most of freaking europe did. you're ignoring the human tendency to lessen the consequences upon frowned-upon acts if somebody else is committing disdainful ones. not to mention the human tendency to follow the crowd. i'm not saying it justifies or makes slavery any better, but that the light you're putting it in is very one-sided. hmm, blind "me-too"ism right here: most of the world that isn't being paid by america hates america. you probably are paid by americans, but you seem to be following the larger majority (see my definition later in the post).

HARDCORE SECULAR PROGRESSIVES: make up what percent of America? 5%? Maybe 6%? Now, knowing this, saying that "America is a place that seeks to acknowledge everyone and provide them the same rights" is dumb, considering only a small portion of Americans are aspiring toward this common goal. America is made up of lots of people, and yes, a few devoted individuals can make a difference, but the nation must be represented as a whole...

okay, but hardcore secular-progressives know how to use the court systems to their advantage, leveraging every last bit of power out of their relatively small group. 5% of a WHOLE country as large as the US being devoted to being pussies is a lot of people, especially if their ideals are being considered by moderates. have you noticed that a very low % of most of anything is fanatical about what they do? if 5% of america is hardcore secular-progressive, what % of america is secular-progressive overall? "me-too"ism is really easy, because you don't need to stop and think (see my definition later in the post)

Nothing wrong with a step in the right direction, but if two groups march in opposite directions, how can they ever expect to be unified?

who the hell is marching in different directions? it's generally agreed upon that america could stand to be better, and most of the ways in which it could are also well-defined. spitting back your low% at you, maybe only 10% of americans disagree with the rest of the nation about where the US should be going, if even 10%? the only real dispute is how to get there.

Finally, qualify/define this 'me-too-ism' so I at least have a proper chance to defend myself...

Ephy's definition of "me-too"ism: the tendency to follow the crowd and not make one's own judgments as to what should and should not be allowed. what YOU seem to be saying is that because america has been so bad and ugly in the past, why should it even consider stopping to think about things that it's doing bad and ugly now?

If america is so negative, what is wrong with taking a step to make things right? If america has to be represented as a whole, let that whole be neutral. Let's not have our children recite a pledge every day in school to monotheism as if that's the only true type of religion. I'll refer you to one of my previous posts

The US is predominantly white. Does that mean we should only acknowledge the white people and throw away the rest of the people? If the US wants to be represented as a whole, does that mean we should just say "screw the black people, the asians, and the rest of them. We're a white nation"? This is not a matter of majority, it's a matter of morality.

QFT

You see, I just don't recognize why the whole "under God" part is such a big deal; you are pledging allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic, not to God nor monotheism. People seem to have such a problem with saying 'under God', even though it means nothing if they don't believe in it.

but YOU ARE pledging allegiance to God! "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the US of A, and to the republic for which it stands ... under God ... with liberty and justice for all." THE COMMAS IN BETWEEN "ONE NATION" "UNDER GOD" AND "INDIVISIBLE" MEAN THEY ARE LIKE ITEMS IN A LIST, YOU ARE PLEDGING YOUR ALLEGIANCE AND LOYALTY TO GOD EVERY TIME YOU SAY THE PLEDGE. also, this has been said before, but "under God" wasn't in the original pledge. wait, another example of "me-too"ism: "we've done so for practically forever, why should we stop just because we've only now realized it's at best controversial, and at worst fascism?"

On a side note: this is getting to be quite a heated debate. I think I'm enjoying this whole devil's advocate thing way too much...

so is THAT why you're coming off as wrong to the point of criminal ignorance, or are you really? honestly, commas separating individual items to form a list is a BASIC. ENGLISH. WRITING. PRINCIPLE. the people that don't get that need to stop whatever they're doing and talk with an elementary-school teacher about their writing skills.

 

[Darth Trhite]

please don't make up statistics

that was the statistic last time I checked...ill have to check my sources...
but then again...while the odds are slim to none...if you get 10,000 random people and ask them if they are openly gay (by the way, im only using this as an example) there is a chance that 100% of them are. The only 100% accurate way to get ur statistics is to ask everybody of the specific group of people or region they are studying. In other words, ask ALL AMERICANS if theyre homosexual/lesbian or not.

not to mention you did a poor job of making those up, 94 + 4 != 100, what about the other 2%?

Ignoring my previous rant, I was hoping ud have some sort of imagination
Im guessing its polytheistic religions, and things like satanism, buddhism, church of the Flying Sphagetti Monster.

The ironic thing is that racism and discrimination is impossible to destroy. Even more ironic is that theres a more 'racist' attitude some minorites have over majorities, but its not considered "racism". Its only a hate crime if a white man does it to a minority member. What is it if a black man kills a black man? what about when a black man does it to a white man? Nobody can commit a 1st degree murder without HATING the other the murdered person. If you want an intentionally racist and discriminating country, refer to the middle east.

I can understand "me-too"ism. Wadaya think caused nazism to spread like it did? Hitler actually was intelligent. He brought together a ruined Germany, made them all part of something, gave them a common enemy. They were willing to die for Hitler. I can imagine he hacked his Charisma Attributes. Before people acknowledge my clearly unpopular view of what happened in the late 30s in Germany, I hate Hitler as much as you do, and WTF WOULD I BE DOING PRAISING THE DEATH OF 12M PEOPLE?!?

Nothing wrong with a step in the right direction, but if two groups march in opposite directions, how can they ever expect to be unified?

Not every democrat agrees with ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING their party believes in (see FDR and his tax cuts) same thing with republicans. (sorry cant think of any examples). But...yea i can kinda agree with that statement.

okay, but hardcore secular-progressives know how to use the court systems to their advantage, leveraging every last bit of power out of their relatively small group. 5% of a WHOLE country as large as the US being devoted to being pussies is a lot of people, especially if their ideals are being considered by moderates. have you noticed that a very low % of most of anything is fanatical about what they do? if 5% of america is hardcore secular-progressive, what % of america is secular-progressive overall? "me-too"ism is really easy, because you don't need to stop and think

Absolutely. How do u think they killed Terri Schaivo?! Starvation is one of the worst deaths i can think of!! Theyre fanatical about what they do? Refer to antibush protesters. I cant say i hate bush as much as the next guy...i support our president!

 

[GST_Nemisis]

LOL at the flying spaghetti monster thing, +rep for showing this hilarious thing to me

 

[Teh_Ephy]

that was the statistic last time I checked...ill have to check my sources...

i provided THREE sources that said % was in the 70s, one of them being PBS.

Ignoring my previous rant, I was hoping ud have some sort of imagination
Im guessing its polytheistic religions, and things like satanism, buddhism,

A) luciferien (luciferian?), not satanist , B) you still need to say what the other 2% is.

church of the Flying Sphagetti Monster.

lol i made a comment about that in the religion in the future? thread

The ironic thing is that racism and discrimination is impossible to destroy. Even more ironic is that theres a more 'racist' attitude some minorites have over majorities, but its not considered "racism". Its only a hate crime if a white man does it to a minority member.

that's already been said.

Nobody can commit a 1st degree murder without HATING the other the murdered person.

actually, 1st degree murder only means it was a calculated killing, and not just something like getting really mad at somebody and beating him/her to death with a nearby metal object.

If you want an intentionally racist and discriminating country, refer to the middle east.

that's a little harsh. people of every ethnicity travel to mecca for religious pilgrimage, i doubt many anglos or otherwise are beaten or anything.

I can understand "me-too"ism. Wadaya think caused nazism to spread like it did? Hitler actually was intelligent. He brought together a ruined Germany, made them all part of something, gave them a common enemy. They were willing to die for Hitler. I can imagine he hacked his Charisma Attributes. Before people acknowledge my clearly unpopular view of what happened in the late 30s in Germany, I hate Hitler as much as you do, and WTF WOULD I BE DOING PRAISING THE DEATH OF 12M PEOPLE?!?

imo you're not praising him, but acknowledging that he did know what he was doing when he took over. what you said is exactly what he did.

Absolutely. How do u think they killed Terri Schaivo?! Starvation is one of the worst deaths i can think of!! Theyre fanatical about what they do? Refer to antibush protesters. I cant say i hate bush as much as the next guy...i support our president!

agreed. i would have preferred to not just sit around effectively brain-dead, but starvation is painful, even if "you" aren't in your body any more. i don't know if they did anything to anesthetize her or not, but if you're in hospice care, they don't do anything to keep you living (not feeding), just take care of your lavatorial needs, hook you up on morphine, and let you "live" the rest of your life in peace. being anesthetized would have made it much more pleasant.

not to mention those "breast-feeding" nazis. if there's anything wrong, and you're not breast-feeding, they get way up in your face about it. *cough cough fascism cough*. even if breast milk is a healthier, it's the parent's choice. however, i have come up with a great argument against them: mommy being stressed is bad for the baby, arguing with you is making mommy stressed, go away.

LOL at the flying spaghetti monster thing, +rep for showing this hilarious thing to me

lol yeah, it's funny as hell. btw the actual religion is "pastafarianism". Edit: Pastafarian "Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

You see, I just don't recognize why the whole "under God" part is such a big deal; you are pledging allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic, not to God nor monotheism. People seem to have such a problem with saying 'under God', even though it means nothing if they don't believe in it.

On a side note: this is getting to be quite a heated debate. I think I'm enjoying this whole devil's advocate thing way too much...

that's just the thing. by putting "under god" in the pledge, it means we ARE pledging allegiance to god. it is a big deal because the children are reciting it every day in school, and children just happen to be the most easily influenced people in the world. do we want to teach our children to be narrow minded and believe that the only type of religion that could possibly be right is monotheism? it's like putting white power in the pledge and on our money (third time i'm referencing that, and for a good reason).

 

[lorothrigs]

it's like putting white power in the pledge and on our money

Not really.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Not really.

usually, when people make a statement, they back it up.

 

[lorothrigs]

usually, when people make a statement, they back it up.

O rly?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

O rly?

ya rly

 

[lorothrigs]

ya rly

Oh, well in that case.
It's different because "In God we trust" doesn't refer to a specific god. God could mean a plethora of things. It could mean the Christian God, money, the Muslim god, the jewish god. "God" is a generic term for something being worshiped. I'll admit that it's probably the Christian god, but still, it's very different from saying something as blatant as "White power!!!!11!". Which is entirely bias towards a specific view point.

 

[Dalaran_Guard]

87.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. Philosophy is that wonderful realm of thought wherein one needs absolutely no statistics, so why waste time making up numbers?

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Okay, well, to start off, don't ever insult my grammar or my knowledge of the English language because firstly, it's not nice, and secondly, though I may choose to intentionally break rules of grammar and proper English, I have a better understanding of the language than 95% of people on Earth. That's what results from 14 years worth of reading constantly and another 3 of studying grammar...

Nextly (which I realize isn't an accepted English word), you obviously do not understand commas. While these do separate items in a list, the entire list is describing 'one Nation.' I could just as easily say 'one Nation, under a rock, with three green eyes and agoraphobia for all,' but I wouldn't be pledging allegiance to agoraphobia, freakish monster people, nor rocks. Similarly, by reciting the Pledge, you are not swearing allegiance to Liberty nor Justice nor any god of any sort, but to the flag and the Republic. Ask your English teacher; oh, and if she says otherwise, look it up in the Modern Language Association's handbook and then tell her she's dumb for teaching you the wrong stuff...

And finally, the cooldown moment: I hope you are not offended by this post because, though I know I was a bit abrasive, there was no wrong intended.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Oh, well in that case.
It's different because "In God we trust" doesn't refer to a specific god. God could mean a plethora of things. It could mean the Christian God, money, the Muslim god, the jewish god. "God" is a generic term for something being worshiped. I'll admit that it's probably the Christian god, but still, it's very different from saying something as blatant as "White power!!!!11!". Which is entirely bias towards a specific view point.

they both target only a certain group of people. the only difference is the number.

87.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. Philosophy is that wonderful realm of thought wherein one needs absolutely no statistics, so why waste time making up numbers?

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Okay, well, to start off, don't ever insult my grammar or my knowledge of the English language because firstly, it's not nice, and secondly, though I may choose to intentionally break rules of grammar and proper English, I have a better understanding of the language than 95% of people on Earth. That's what results from 14 years worth of reading constantly and another 3 of studying grammar...

Nextly (which I realize isn't an accepted English word), you obviously do not understand commas. While these do separate items in a list, the entire list is describing 'one Nation.' I could just as easily say 'one Nation, under a rock, with three green eyes and agoraphobia for all,' but I wouldn't be pledging allegiance to agoraphobia, freakish monster people, nor rocks. Similarly, by reciting the Pledge, you are not swearing allegiance to Liberty nor Justice nor any god of any sort, but to the flag and the Republic. Ask your English teacher; oh, and if she says otherwise, look it up in the Modern Language Association's handbook and then tell her she's dumb for teaching you the wrong stuff...

And finally, the cooldown moment: I hope you are not offended by this post because, though I know I was a bit abrasive, there was no wrong intended.

Uhh...who are you talking to?

 

[Dalaran_Guard]

Uhh...who are you talking to?

Ephy... sorry if I confused you...

 

[Darth Trhite]

A) luciferien (luciferian?), not satanist , B) you still need to say what the other 2% is.

I already said, things like buddhism, *luciferism*, Hindu, random cults, ridiculous or not, scientology, ya know...
BTW i dunno where "pastafarianism" fits in, because the FSM appears to be one thing. I say it *maybe* fits under monotheism

It's different because "In God we trust" doesn't refer to a specific god. God could mean a plethora of things. It could mean the Christian God, money, the Muslim god, the jewish god. "God" is a generic term for something being worshiped. I'll admit that it's probably the Christian god, but still, it's very different from saying something as blatant as "White power!!!!11!". Which is entirely bias towards a specific view point.

He is right. We can all see it as being the one Christians refer to as "God", but it can also be interpreted as referring to "Allah" or to "Buddha". Even an atheist man can be caught saying OHMYGOD sometimes.

imo you're not praising him, but acknowledging that he did know what he was doing when he took over. what you said is exactly what he did.

Im just clarifying my point, so its not misinterpreted into making me look like a neonazi
And I forgot something major about "Me-too"ism. Wat do u think made *all* the German people keep silent about the death camps?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

87.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. Philosophy is that wonderful realm of thought wherein one needs absolutely no statistics, so why waste time making up numbers?

if statistics are introduced, they must be accurate for their true scope and meaning to be truly appreciated.

While these do separate items in a list, the entire list is describing 'one Nation.'

actually, they're describing "the republic for for which it stands", which you actually state later in your post.

I could just as easily say 'one Nation, under a rock, with three green eyes and agoraphobia for all,' but I wouldn't be pledging allegiance to agoraphobia, freakish monster people, nor rocks.

yes you would be, by pledging your allegiance to a flag, you are pledging allegiance to everything it claims to represent. you may not necessarily pledge your agreement with it, but you are pledging allegiance and loyalty nonetheless.

Similarly, by reciting the Pledge, you are not swearing allegiance to Liberty nor Justice nor any god of any sort, but to the flag and the Republic.

okay then, let's say you only say up until the republic part. but since the republic represents liberty, justice, and a monotheistic god, you are indirectly pledging your allegiance to all of those.

Ask your English teacher; oh, and if she says otherwise, look it up in the Modern Language Association's handbook and then tell her she's dumb for teaching you the wrong stuff...

i will do that, although i don't have a Modern Language Association's handbook handy.

And finally, the cooldown moment: I hope you are not offended by this post because, though I know I was a bit abrasive, there was no wrong intended.

there's nothing wrong with being abrasive because you're backing your points up. i'm offended because you're asserting blind "me-too"ism about the pledge.

He is right. We can all see it as being the one Christians refer to as "God", but it can also be interpreted as referring to "Allah" or to "Buddha". Even an atheist man can be caught saying OHMYGOD sometimes.

i say "oh my God" all the time, but the problem is that you are pledging allegiance to a monotheistic god.

Im just clarifying my point, so its not misinterpreted into making me look like a neonazi
And I forgot something major about "Me-too"ism. Wat do u think made *all* the German people keep silent about the death camps?

i realize that you were clarifying your point, but your points were presented in an objective manner and in no need of clarification, unless the reader was an overactive secular-progressive zealot. about "me-too"ism, many did help, and many did not. some of those that did help faced extremely harsh repercussions, which helped spread their lack of moral action. it eventually became "me-too"ism of "well this happened to them for doing the right thing, what if it happens to us?". not exactly "me-too"ism, but comparable

 

[Dalaran_Guard]

actually, they're describing "the republic for for which it stands", which you actually state later in your post.

The two are synonomous... the Republic and the one nation are the same thing!

yes you would be, by pledging your allegiance to a flag, you are pledging allegiance to everything it claims to represent. you may not necessarily pledge your agreement with it, but you are pledging allegiance and loyalty nonetheless.

No. You are not. You are promised the rights to liberty and justice by the nation that the flag represents, but you aren't pledging yourself to those rights. You are going into an excessively loose interpretation of the pledge that doesn't represent the true ideas of the pledge at all...

okay then, let's say you only say up until the republic part. but since the republic represents liberty, justice, and a monotheistic god, you are indirectly pledging your allegiance to all of those.

Just because a majority of the people in a country have monotheistic beliefs, it doesn't mean that the nation as a whole represents that. The pledge doesn't say "with Liberty, Justice, and a single God for all." In fact, it doesn't mention any god or gods granted to everyone. It says simply that liberty and justice are to be ensured for all.

...you're asserting blind "me-too"ism about the pledge.

I disagree, contesting that you are the one who seems to be supporting the modern trend to protest "under God" in the pledge. Just because two poeple have similar ideas doesn't mean that one of them is copying the other or that they are blindly following the whims of society. I am a strong believer that Americans need more "God" in their lives, whether that be a deity of some sort or just a good set of moral standards. So enough with your 'me-too-ism' stuff...

 

[Darth Trhite]

i say "oh my God" all the time, but the problem is that you are pledging allegiance to a monotheistic god.

"I pledge allegiance (COMMA) TO THE FLAG (COMMA) of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (COMMA) one nation (COMMA) UNDER GOD (COMMA) indivisibe (COMMA) with liberty and justice for all.

You pledge alliegence to the flag of the USA. Not to God. I highlited key points, so it might be a good idea to rethink it. The under god part is simply complimenting the nation. The indivisble part is also a compliment. Oh yea...thats right. Im swearing loyalty to indivisibility.

i realize that you were clarifying your point, but your points were presented in an objective manner and in no need of clarification, unless the reader was an overactive secular-progressive zealot.

secular-humanist extremists have a thing against people like me and their leverage on just about every media outlet in the universe allows them to easily spread their lies. Dont trust everything you read or see in the news.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

is "me-too-ism" another word for bandwagon, or is it something else?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

The two are synonomous... the Republic and the one nation are the same thing!

yes, but the list is descriptive of the Republic. not to mention that the "one nation" is in the list. meaning that if "one nation" is part of the list but what you are pledging allegiance to, then you are also pledging your allegiance to a single God. what you have said later in the post makes this effectively pointless, but i'm going to argue until i get to it anyways.

No. You are not. You are promised the rights to liberty and justice by the nation that the flag represents, but you aren't pledging yourself to those rights. You are going into an excessively loose interpretation of the pledge that doesn't represent the true ideas of the pledge at all...

any time you pledge allegiance to anything, you pledge yourself to their (its) ideals and beliefs.

Just because a majority of the people in a country have monotheistic beliefs, it doesn't mean that the nation as a whole represents that.

which is why people are so upset about it.

The pledge doesn't say "with Liberty, Justice, and a single God for all." In fact, it doesn't mention any god or gods granted to everyone. It says simply that liberty and justice are to be ensured for all.

it doesn't directly say that, but it implies it.

I disagree, contesting that you are the one who seems to be supporting the modern trend to protest "under God" in the pledge. Just because two poeple have similar ideas doesn't mean that one of them is copying the other or that they are blindly following the whims of society.

then i return this statement at you, as i have my own reasons for disliking the "under God" portion of the pledge. my full counter-point is in my reply to what you said next.

I am a strong believer that Americans need more "God" in their lives, whether that be a deity of some sort or just a good set of moral standards. So enough with your 'me-too-ism' stuff...

then we have very different definitions of God. my definition of "God" is the single deity shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. my definition of "a god" is any sort of powerful being that is more than human. this entire argument is over the literal meaning of "God" in pledge. that is what i'm irritated by, pledging allegiance to a single way of arriving at a moral quality strived for by many different religions.

"I pledge allegiance (COMMA) TO THE FLAG (COMMA) of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (COMMA) one nation (COMMA) UNDER GOD (COMMA) indivisibe (COMMA) with liberty and justice for all.

You pledge alliegence to the flag of the USA. Not to God. I highlited key points, so it might be a good idea to rethink it. The under god part is simply complimenting the nation. The indivisble part is also a compliment. Oh yea...thats right. Im swearing loyalty to indivisibility.

you're pledging your allegiance to a republic that is individual, the exact same way you're also pledging allegiance to republic under God.

is "me-too-ism" another word for bandwagon, or is it something else?

it's a term for blindly following what the majority of the people around you are doing, and usually refers to doing so with behaviours or activities that are deemed to be immoral, idiotic, and in general wrong. bandwagon is more like following something because you'd heard it was fun or profitable, and may be for behaviours or activities that are positive (or at least not very negative) as well as (very) negative.

 

[lorothrigs]

You're not pledging allegiance to God. You're pledging allegiance to a nation that is under a God. It doesn't say which one it is. For all it says, God could be the United States itself.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

You're not pledging allegiance to God. You're pledging allegiance to a nation that is under a God. It doesn't say which one it is. For all it says, God could be the United States itself.

well like i said, my definition of "God" is the single deity shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

 

[lorothrigs]

well like i said, my definition of "God" is the single deity shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

You are 1/301,139,947.

 

[Xlightscreen]

mmk first of all here a few things
athiest STFU We don't care that you don't believe in god
relgius fanaticts STFU We don't care if you believe in god
This thread was about if war could bring peace not if you believe in god,china, or the god damn motherland.

Now if you obsultly have to get one of those following (not part of the subject) things then try putting them as a example of peace without war. Otherwise don't say anything at all.

Now back to the ORGINAL SUBJECT!

If there was no war there could not be peace becuase the concept of peace was developed as a opposite of war. I believe as man evolves out of there primitive minds (Some faster then other I believe.)

 

[Teh_Ephy]

mmk first of all here a few things
athiest STFU We don't care that you don't believe in god
relgius fanaticts STFU We don't care if you believe in god
This thread was about if war could bring peace not if you believe in god,china, or the god damn motherland.

Now if you obsultly have to get one of those following (not part of the subject) things then try putting them as a example of peace without war. Otherwise don't say anything at all.

Now back to the ORGINAL SUBJECT!

If there was no war there could not be peace becuase the concept of peace was developed as a opposite of war. I believe as man evolves out of there primitive minds (Some faster then other I believe.)

ow, we just got put down. well said, on getting back on-topic and on the on-topic material. so anyways, like i said some 30ish (45ish?) post backs, there will always be at least the seeds of war because... something about no such thing as unlimited resources? i don't remember what the unlimited resources thing was stuck on to, ty for getting us back on track

Edit: i looked back, and the off-topic started on page 9. i believe Darth Trhite may have been the proverbial pebble that started the avalanche with this post

Ok really, war ended nazism, fascism, and the roots of communism.

(either that or one of the two/three subsequent posts afterwards about foreign countries) but it was MySpaceBarBroke with

no arguments there. so many people hate america because of its lack of ability to keep to itself these days, giving a view of imperialism to other countries, but i have doubts about it dragging itself into another depression. also, i don't say stood, but i would never say "under god"

that dragged religion into it. unfortunately, i am as much at fault for perpetuating the off-topic as everyone else for not returning to the topic.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

rofl it started with me saying "i would never say 'under god'" or something similiar to that. then dalaran said something like "why not?" and it snowball'd. XD

 

[lorothrigs]

It's kind of like that whole "With no evil in the world, how would we measure good?". If there were no war, what would be peace?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

It's kind of like that whole "With no evil in the world, how would we measure good?". If there were no war, what would be peace?

war is not the opposite of peace. if there were no wars, there'd still be crime, hate, etc.

 

[Dalaran_Guard]

Okay, considering a certain individual (who will remain unnamed) is unable or unwilling to appeal to reason and sense in his arguments, would anyone else like to continue on with the original topic of war and peace?

 

[lorothrigs]

Okay, considering a certain individual (who will remain unnamed) is unable or unwilling to appeal to reason and sense in his arguments, would anyone else like to continue on with the original topic of war and peace?

What are you talking about? The last like 4 or 5 posts have been on-topic.

 

[Dalaran_Guard]

What are you talking about? The last like 4 or 5 posts have been on-topic.

Ya. Well, I finally got sick of trying to reason with the individual with whom I have been arguing over the past couple of days and was too frustrated to read those last 4 or so posts.

I guess the problem with this thread now is that just about anything that anyone says has been stated and possibly restated previously. I'm thinkin' it's time for a new discussion...

 

[GST_Nemisis]

yeh Dalaran_Guard i totally agree, religion does suck, you are right.

nah im only joking religion is cool

i think the thing is when people are determined not to change their veiws, the wont; no matter how hard you try.

i think can there ever be peace comes down to the definiton of peace:

Peace is a state of harmony, the absence of hostility. This term is applied to describe a cessation of or lapse in violent international conflict; in this international context, peace is the opposite of war. Peace can also describe a relationship between any parties characterized by respect, justice, and goodwill.

quote from wikipedia.

anyways, i think from that definition there cant be peace, because there is always going to be hostility just as there have been in this very thread. i do think however that the international peace that it talks about is possible. i think a world without international war will happen one day.

if you counted how many times i said think, it turns out i think alot of things ;P

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Okay, considering a certain individual (who will remain unnamed) is unable or unwilling to appeal to reason and sense in his arguments, would anyone else like to continue on with the original topic of war and peace?

unwilling, and from my perspective i was being just as reasonable as you were, except you were wrong . in my first post on this page i (think i) was working towards some sort of cease-fire, but i can't really see how anymore and it's a moot point anyways.

Ya. Well, I finally got sick of trying to reason with the individual with whom I have been arguing over the past couple of days and was too frustrated to read those last 4 or so posts.

I guess the problem with this thread now is that just about anything that anyone says has been stated and possibly restated previously. I'm thinkin' it's time for a new discussion...

bah, the reason our argument started is because we were arguing about different yet similar things that were being described with one hardly objective word. not to mention the context we were taking it in is very hard to consider "objective" (i'm still against what i see it as, but i understand that what (i think) you see it as is totally fine, but it still wasn't in the original pledge).

when somebody says "God" i take it for the literal meaning as the God shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, whereas you take it as the morals defined by that God (i think). this profanely large difference in our interpretations of God is what caused the argument, and now that i (think i) know what you take the "God" in the pledge of allegiance for, it is totally fine now.

and to relate that to the topic (and as such justify this post), things like that are why peace is such a far-off and almost impossible goal. things, words, and names that have highly different, and polarizing, meanings (such as rap music, God, Jesus) and people who are arguing about different facets of those words/names. ie: i was arguing about God Himself/Herself, and Dalaran_Guard seems to have been arguing about the morals represented by God, from my perspective. and if he wasn't, then we should really try to stop debating with each other because we obviously have very large differences in our interpretations of things.

it's a lot like war: war heroes to one side are fiends and devils to the other. hmm, comparing peace to war.

 

[Darth Trhite]

Okay, considering a certain individual (who will remain unnamed) is unable or unwilling to appeal to reason and sense in his arguments, would anyone else like to continue on with the original topic of war and peace?

War is the natural order of things. While nobody wants to 'be' in war, sometimes, war is what is needed to abolish certain evils. Some people say that evil cant be destroyed by destroying evil people, thats how evil spreads. Evil person to normal person.

 

[Dalaran_Guard]

If we look at it in a more scientific manner, peace is movement toward a more organized world and war is a movement toward chaos (also referred to as 'entropy'). The earth naturally favors entropy, so war is inevitable...

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

war is not a movement towards chaos. it's a movement towards peace that utilizes massive amounts of chaos.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

biological organisms are a direct violation of the laws of entropy, we bring order where they should be chaos. by simply being alive you are doing something that would at first seem impossible. war cannot be explained in terms of entropy.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

i don't even know what "entropy" is...ima look on wikipedia.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

entropy is a measure of randomness in a system

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

i keep thinking your avatar is an eyeball until i look at it directly..

 

[Dalaran_Guard]

biological organisms are a direct violation of the laws of entropy, we bring order where they should be chaos. by simply being alive you are doing something that would at first seem impossible. war cannot be explained in terms of entropy.

Who ever said that we controlled the goings-on of wars? Let's take a little test...
1. During war, do people die? (YES)
2. Can dead people create order in the world? (NO)
3. Do dead people fall victim to entropy as they decay? (YES)
4. Does war encourage entropy? (YES)

And biological organisms pass on, as well. They live, they apply work/energy to a system, they die, and they become worm food. We may think we have such a huge impact on things, we may think that we bring order to a world of chaos, but we are simply pawns -- pawns that will die and decay and then get crapped out of a worm. Humankind is a zit on the earth's face, but puberty only lasts so long...

 

[Teh_Ephy]

War is the natural order of things. While nobody wants to 'be' in war, sometimes, war is what is needed to abolish certain evils. Some people say that evil cant be destroyed by destroying evil people, thats how evil spreads. Evil person to normal person.

unfortunately, this is not how evil propagates. in a book titled something like The Lucifer Effect it talks about how a bunch of college volunteers set up a fake "prison" that fostered anonymity (prisoners got numbers, not names; guards wore aviators to hide their faces; etc.), but the study was shut down because of how much of a fiasco it was becoming. in the article it recieved in Discover Magazine, the author (who was the professor running the study) was actually talking about the similarities between the project and the abu ghraib prison fiasco. evils happen with anonymity; part of that article was also talking about ancient BBSs, with limited access (upper end of middle-class) and there were still horrendous things posted on it. that explains idiots in places like the internet, and XBox Live.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

@Dalaran_Guard

ok well whatever, im just saying that entropy as i see it is used as a mathematical value not to explains wars and stuff. i know what you mean but for me having studied entroy in chemistry its not the same, its like trying to explain the oceans in diffusion or brownian motion terms, i means sure you can but its not the same for me.

 

[Dalaran_Guard]

@Dalaran_Guard

ok well whatever, im just saying that entropy as i see it is used as a mathematical value not to explains wars and stuff. i know what you mean but for me having studied entroy in chemistry its not the same, its like trying to explain the oceans in diffusion or brownian motion terms, i means sure you can but its not the same for me.

Would you like me to relate war to entropy using the Gibbs free energy equation? j/k

Offtopic: Just finishing up my last year of chem, and excited because we're making gun cotton as our final lab. 18 molar sulfuric acid, 15 molar nitric, and cellulose = big boom!

 

[Teh_Ephy]

@Dalaran_Guard

ok well whatever, im just saying that entropy as i see it is used as a mathematical value not to explains wars and stuff. i know what you mean but for me having studied entroy in chemistry its not the same, its like trying to explain the oceans in diffusion or brownian motion terms, i means sure you can but its not the same for me.

lol that's what happened to chaos theory... it applies to too much to be able to be quantified into a sensible theory, it's more like a frequently-used constant. like it happened in this thread when it went violently off-topic, but it was corrected. in this sense, humans do violate laws of entropy.

 

[lorothrigs]

War is necessary. People are organisms. Our instinct from ~5 million years ago is still intact. We have the carnal instinct for sex, blood, etc. Rape, murder, and theft are all natural. You can clearly see that people are just the parasites of the Earth just as a tapeworm is a parasite inside of us. We will eventually destroy everything unless we die first, or both simultaneously. Since people are instinctually supposed to kill, rape and commit other acts of violence, peace is impossible. Keep in mind that instinct came long before the structured bullshit that we have today: government and religion. Those two are both things that society accepts as normal, but will eventually fall because our instinct does not coincide with them. When our natural resources disappear, what do you think will happen? I fully believe that anarchy will ensue and all former instinct will resume: Survival of the fittest. Peace is impossible because war is necessary.

I realize this isn't structured as it's just a bunch of thoughts and statements formulated in my head.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

war, or in a more general sense, violence, is the result of conflicting views. from a fist fight to World War I and its sequel, it's only caused by conflicting views. we, as humans, all see others as inferior in that they are different. in that sense, violence will always happen unless we no longer have the ability to cause conflict, i.e. we all die.

 

[lorothrigs]

war, or in a more general sense, violence, is the result of conflicting views. from a fist fight to World War I and its sequel, it's only caused by conflicting views. we, as humans, all see others as inferior in that they are different. in that sense, violence will always happen unless we no longer have the ability to cause conflict, i.e. we all die.

That's only in a civilized world. Down to basic human nature, it's caused by resources, mates, territory, etc. The basic needs.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

even in the most basic situations like that, it's still conflicting views, just in a different form. You think the food should go to you. Mr. Enemy thinks otherwise. Conflict ensues.

 

[FrostyisdaKing]

even in the most basic situations like that, it's still conflicting views, just in a different form. You think the food should go to you. Mr. Enemy thinks otherwise. Conflict ensues.

very true. To some degree we all feel that our survival seems more important than the person next to us. IN that sense peace is hard to come by when there isn't enough for me and you to survive off of.