Can there be peace without war?

Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
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.

not true. we feel that our pack's (brood's, colony's, school's, pod's, etc.) survival is more important then the pack next to us. the real problem is who is considered a part of what pack, and by which people. for example, i hardly consider my brother part of my pack, but i'm sure my parents do.

Edit: Move this to Medihv's Tower?
 
Last edited:
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
you don't need to be a member to post, just to start new threads. anways, i still want to know what will happen while Bush is around.

hmm, another reason war will never really be gone is that people like Kivenmage are ambiguous enough to leave LOTS of room for interpretation. that leaves lots of room for being offended.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
...when people stop caring about all the little differences like religion, race, coloured posts;...

Ha ha! (Well, I'm not really a "ha ha" person, but I found that very funny.)

As for no joy without sadness, those are just things that we feel, we can feel however we want.
Light does not create darkness, darkness is the default. It can be defined without light.
As for good and evil balancing each other, good has the upper hand.
Hydrogen and helium rise without falling because they do not have enough mass to be pulled down by earths gravity.

Humans have wars because they can't all agree. They have evolved beyond instincts and can make their own decisions. They still want to survive and find mates (well, mostly), but not because of instincts. That used to be the reason. War is not our means of evolution, we have destroyed any hope of mass evolution with hospitals. Their will always be criminals and terrorists and people who would kill, but that's not war. There are a lot governments that still will start wars, and as long as there are those government there will be war.

As long as a small group of people can control an army there will be war.
If everyone voted about everything there would be no war.
The internet is helping to inform everyone of everything so that that will happen.

But, it may take a big war to push everyone to peace.

:exhales deeply:
Didn't expect my first post to be that long.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
As for no joy without sadness, those are just things that we feel, we can feel however we want.
agreed

Light does not create darkness, darkness is the default. It can be defined without light.
darkness is the default, but you can't define it without light.

As for good and evil balancing each other, good has the upper hand.
Hydrogen and helium rise without falling because they do not have enough mass to be pulled down by earths gravity.
NO. helium and hydrogen rise without falling because oxygen/nitrogen is being pulled under them. they are being pulled down, they're just floating on top of the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. like a cork floating on water.

Humans have wars because they can't all agree. They have evolved beyond instincts and can make their own decisions.

They still want to survive and find mates (well, mostly), but not because of instincts. That used to be the reason.
if it ISN'T the reason, then why? habit?

War is not our means of evolution, we have destroyed any hope of mass evolution with hospitals.
agreed, if there's something wrong with something, it's not meant to do as well as the similar things that perform better. that does not happen with humanity any more.

Their will always be criminals and terrorists and people who would kill, but that's not war.
as long as there are terrorists, some government will be declaring a war against them. therefore, presence of terrorists = war.

There are a lot governments that still will start wars, and as long as there are those government there will be war.
there will always be these governments

If everyone voted about everything there would be no war.
okay, but this would be highly impractical.

The internet is helping to inform everyone of everything so that that will happen.
the internet is full of false information along with the truth.

But, it may take a big war to push everyone to peace.
it would take a big war to push the general population to peace. you know the cliché you don't know what you have till it's gone? that's what war does for peace.

Didn't expect my first post to be that long.
nothing wrong with talking too much, i do it all the time. believe me, this post was not "long"
 
Level 13
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
971
No, unfortunatley, there will always be war, wether it be physical, political, or emotional, there will always be conflict and strife.

The only way that worldly peace will exist is if everyone is of the same body, mind and soul, thinking the exact same thoughts, doing the exact same things, and agreeing on the exact same topics.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
Well, they still don't fall.

People want to survive because they fear death or they want to do something before they die. People want to find mates because it is an emotional need. Other animals just want to pass on their genes.

If all the governments cooperated then war would not be declared against a government because it has terrorists, terrorists come from everywhere.

If enough governments decided that it was time for the world to have a single government then the other governments would either surrender or go to war (which I don't think enough would win for war to continue happening).

Well, the voting system would have to be fixed.

The internet is helping spread all information (a few conspiracy theories here and there makes some people take action (usually for the better)).

After a big war (assuming that radiation levels are low enough to support human life) people would push for peace more than ever.

Respectively.

People can disagree without war, but sometimes they disagree too much.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
People want to survive because they fear death or they want to do something before they die. People want to find mates because it is an emotional need. Other animals just want to pass on their genes.
finding mates means finding someone to pass your genes on to. that is an instinct, not an emotional need. finding partners would be the emotional need.

If all the governments cooperated then war would not be declared against a government because it has terrorists, terrorists come from everywhere.
wars don't need to be between governments. have you ever heard of a civil war? that's a government (sometimes not even) having war with itself.

If enough governments decided that it was time for the world to have a single government then the other governments would either surrender or go to war (which I don't think enough would win for war to continue happening).
if somebody goes to war over something, there's going to be a war until total A) total extermination or B) one side has given up. chances of any nation surrendering a war for sovereignty are ZERO. it's how America happened, it's how North Korea happened, it's how Vietnam happened. if you're fighting for freedom to control your damn homeland, you're going to keep fighting until you're either dead or missing enough limbs to fight.

Well, the voting system would have to be fixed.
it would take an obscene amount of time, money, and resources to amend the fact that not every single idiot in the world is allowed to voice his opinion. not to mention that the general public is usually wrong. do you know what prohibition is? do you know what that "good" idea did to the US? do you know that prohibition is now gone, and admittedly a bad idea?

The internet is helping spread all information (a few conspiracy theories here and there makes some people take action (usually for the better)).
yes, because conspiracies usually spawn terrorism and idiocy, terrorism and idiocy are always always always for the better. [/sarcasmOff] do you have any idea WHAT the internet consists of? honestly, do you? you seem to live a woefully sheltered life to believe that the internet is full of truth, which, by the way, it sure as hell isn't. the internet is as truthful as the author of the content you are currently reading. do you live in some really rich all-white neighbourhood where you have people gather research on your papers for you? the VERY FIRST THING your school librarian will teach you in regard to research is to NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET.

After a big war (assuming that radiation levels are low enough to support human life) people would push for peace more than ever.
after a big war, people will hold on to their old hatreds. because it's a big. war. a few people will push for peace through understanding, the VAST majority will push for peace through isolation. once bitten, twice shy. i'm talking about people perceived to be behind wars, not the wars themselves.

example: WWII. After Germany lost WWI, did Europe brush everything under the carpet and try to start new? hell. no. they wanted their damn compensation, and you can bet your ass they took as much as they could. that, in turn, caused a vicious economic depression in Germany, which in fact is what allowed Hitler to start the second world war. he took advantage of the desperate German peoples, their desire for a better economy and vengeance on the rest of Europe.


by the way, what I meant by "big war" is humanity coming close to extinction.
People can disagree without war, but sometimes they disagree too much.
people can, countries... not nearly as much as you'd hope. countries can disagree without direct conflict, but there will be conflict, and there will be lots of it.


by the way... the act of defining something is to distinguish it from the things around it. if there is nothing different, you can quantify it but not define it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define said:
de·fine
...
4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of: to define property with stakes.
if there is nothing else to compare it to, then it has no boundaries, and cannot be defined. you cannot define something without simultaneously defining something else as being different from it.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
Teh_Ephy:
Well, people are actually looking for partners (for the most part).

From time to time there may be a civil war, but when (I really do think this will happen) it becomes widely accepted that everyone is equal, we can all start agreeing a little more.

If I know I can't win I would prefer to live for today and fight fo tomorrow. Either way I think that every country will eventually settle on some kind of similar government.

Yes, the voting system would take a lot of time to fix (peace would/will take a lot of time), but it can be fixed.
And you would have to take a test before you vote so that you can prove you know what you're doing and will make an informed decision.

And I don't trust the internet, but it is letting everyone communicate with everyone else.

A really big war might kill everyone. That kind of war would not bring peace. But it may take a fairly large war to bring peace. (fairly large < really big.)

If every country had some kind of similar government then we could all disagree, and our governments too, about things without war.

P.S.
How does defining fit in to all this?

Captain Griffen:
I don't care what the dictionary defines peace as,
A few murderers running around is not war.
Conflict is good.
Without conflict we wouldn't need to do something better, we would just do enough. Enough is not enough. We need to do things better than other people, but we don't need war for that. Businesses try to do things better for their customers so that they will get more money than the competition. People want their sports team to win, people want their government to have better technology than everyone else.
That doesn't have to mean war.
Without conflict, we wouldn't have anything to brag about.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Well, people are actually looking partners (for the most part).
Okay, but looking for "mates" is very instinctual.

From time to time there may be a civil war, but when (I really do think this will happen) it becomes widely accepted that everyone is equal, we can all start agreeing a little more.
Equality has nothing to do with views on any subject volatile enough to create wars. Equality has to do with basic treatment, and may result in wars, but is far from the singular cause of every last war in history.

If I know I can't win I would prefer to live for today and fight fo tomorrow. Either way I think that every country will eventually settle on some kind of similar government.
So... you'd let foreigners take control of your life and tell you what you should think about things? Just so that you could hold on to the pathetic life that wouldn't even die for a belief, an inborn right? I'd rather die for a cause as noble as my people's freedom then live on without it.

Yes, the voting system would take a lot of time to fix (peace would/will take a lot of time), but it can be fixed.
And you would have to take a test before you vote so that you can prove you know what you're doing and will make an informed decision.
That would
A) Make voting more trouble than its worth if you aren't willing to die for a worthy cause (not to mention lazy people), which leads to
B) Drastically lower voter turn-out
C) Be ass-loads of trouble, because you'd need a new test for every new topic/subject to be voted on, otherwise you're weeding out a LOT of people who know about some things but not others
D) Be completely ineffective. Would you like to know how? Just because you know about what you're voting about doesn't mean you have a right to, just because you don't grasp what you're voting about to the entirety that something as picky as a LEGAL SYSTEM wants doesn't mean you don't have the right to.
E) For the reasons mentioned in D, hit more people than the ones involved in what's being voted on, and not hit all of the involved people.

And I don't trust the internet, but it is letting everyone communicate with everyone else.
Then stop talking about the internet like it's some magic fountain of truth.

A really big war might kill everyone. That kind of war would not bring peace. But it may take a fairly large war to bring peace. (fairly large < really big.)
Well... I'd have to say WWI was a fairly large war, and it actually set the stage for WWII. So yes, something as drastic as near-extinction would be necessary to reunite terrorists that don't distinguish between innocent and guilty, and regimes that only care about money.

If every country had some kind of similar government then we could all disagree, and our governments too, about things without war.
Well too freaking bad that that's never going to happen. Socialism vs Capitalism. Considering the fact that both have worked fairly well in the history of the world, and that Capitalist countries tend to be run by the rich that enjoy staying that way, similar governments are going to be hard.

P.S.
How does defining fit in to all this?
you said in your first post that you can define darkness without light. I didn't address that in my reply to that, but still wanted to get that out.

I don't care what the dictionary defines peace as,
A few murderers running around is not war.
He never said that was the dictionary's definition of peace...


Conflict is good.
Yes and no. If the conflict is open, acknowledged as conflict, and most importantly, over a reconcilable subject matter, then yes. If it's the kind of conflict that comes from old hatreds, discrimination, bigotry, then no.

Without conflict we wouldn't need to do something better, we would just do enough. Enough is not enough. We need to do things better than other people, but we don't need war for that. Businesses try to do things better for their customers so that they will get more money than the competition. People want their sports team to win, people want their government to have better technology than everyone else.
That doesn't have to mean war.
Without conflict, we wouldn't have anything to brag about.
A)Competition != conflict. Competition DEFINITELY != conflict. Conflict is an inability to coexist (existence of opposition). Competition is a refusal to exist on par with others (existence of rivals).
B)you know all across America, standards are actually being LOWERED? Like some pansy-ass schools have banned tag for some reason like only one kid can win, and that might hurt the other kids' feelings. Lots of schools hand out "completion ribbons" on Field Day, as opposed to traditional 1st 2nd 3rd so that nobody's feelings get hurt for not winning ribbons, because everybody is special.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
I forgot that slavery was not the cause of the American civil war. My mistake.

I would die for my beliefs. I would prefer to use my pathetic life to regain freedom instead of die when it was hopeless and leave my country without freedom forever.

Not a full test just a few questions about some specific matters. Also I would rather have better choices than in the last 2 presidential elections. (Sorry, I will try to talk as a citizen of the world in the future.)
I'm just suggesting a way to partially fix the voting system.

I didn't intend to say that the internet is a fountain of truth. I'm sorry if I made a anyone believe so.

I'm just saying that some kind of war may be necessary for peace.

I don't want to argue about the kind(s) of governments a peaceful world would have, I think we can have a world with governments that can get along eventually.

I think it can, but I'm not sure.
I don't want to try to define it. My main point was that light does not create darkness.

I know.
I read this whole thread before I dared to even think about posting (I read the post about the definition).
If we keep arguing about the definition of peace, we will never even get close to an answer to the question.

...Yes and no. If the conflict is open, acknowledged as conflict, and most importantly, over a reconcilable subject matter, then yes. If it's the kind of conflict that comes from old hatreds, discrimination, bigotry, then no...
Definitely.

War is competition then.
And I'd rather this does not turn into a "What's wrong with America" thread. (Because that would be very long.)

I'm not sure that peace can stay.
If you were born into a world without war would you take it for granted?
The average person probably would.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
I forgot that slavery was not the cause of the American civil war. My mistake.
Good on you for admitting it. The American civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about state's rights VS federal rights. Slavery just happened to be the right that was being fought over.

I would die for my beliefs. I would prefer to use my pathetic life to regain freedom instead of die when it was hopeless and leave my country without freedom forever.
Then forgive me for not stating my first thing as strongly as I intended. I meant that if it was the only option, and in many cases it would be, you'd be fighting until you were dead/dying or missing enough limbs to do so.

Not a full test just a few questions about some specific matters.
Then they'd have to be some damn good questions.*

I'm just suggesting a way to partially fix the voting system.
The literacy test was a good idea, but they took that away.

I didn't intend to say that the internet is a fountain of truth. I'm sorry if I made a anyone believe so.
You're not making anyone believe, you're just talking like it is.

I'm just saying that some kind of war may be necessary for peace.
And I'm debating the size of that war, not that it will not be necessary.

I don't want to argue about the kind(s) of governments a peaceful world would have, I think we can have a world with governments that can get along eventually.
That get along, yes. That are similar, no.

My main point was that light does not create darkness.
Agreed, but it's fairly common to see clever sayings like "The brighter the light, the darker the shadow it casts." A nice one from KH2: "The closer you get to light, the taller your shadow becomes." It's not so much that light creates darkness (like in the second quote) as much as light is the only thing you can use to identify darkness (as can be interpreted from the first).*

If we keep arguing about the definition of peace, we will never even get close to an answer to the question.
If we can't define peace, then we can't answer the question "Can peace happen without war" anyways. Edit: Maybe a little clearer, if you can't define something then you can't answer a question about it.*

War is competition then.
No, war is conflict, not competition. Tournaments are competition.

And I'd rather this does not turn into a "What's wrong with America" thread. (Because that would be very long.)
I'm just citing examples of humanity going the opposite way you're talking of. They just happen to be in America, sorry if I bring those up a lot.

I'm not sure that peace can stay.
If you were born into a world without war would you take it for granted?
The average person probably would.
Which is why it would be so easy for somebody that wasn't average to go and change it.

Note: I was rushed when I originally wrote this, anything followed by a * was added after the original post.
 
Last edited:
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Not really, because in complete anarchy (rather far from peace) there are no people trying to kill massive amounts of other people, but there are still large amounts of people being killed.

Let's define peace as a state of existence in which a large majority of the involved parties are in agreement, and are not trying to affect other parties in a negative manner.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
That's a good definition.

-- Back to the debate --

Well, a few questions is better than none. (One head is better than zero.)

It may not even have to be a big war, it could be a war that disgusted everyone. Maybe a war against all those who would start a war for anything other than peace.

Actually the brighter the light, the less of the dark. Light doesn't just travel in a line, it curves around objects like all waves, not to mention ambient light (except that I just mentioned it). And as you shadow gets bigger, your clothes become brighter.

We have the ability to coexist (as most of us are not actually at war), but sometimes we refuse.

In a state of peace we would have to teach our children about how bad war is, even if it means showing them things that cause them to lose their lunch, if we want to keep peace.

P.S.
Is it just me or whenever someone says 'agreed' do you imagine the dreadlord saying it?
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
That's a good definition.
Thank you.

Well, a few questions is better than none. (One head is better than zero.)
And a literacy test is just as good, but they took that away :thumbs_down:.

It may not even have to be a big war, it could be a war that disgusted everyone. Maybe a war against all those who would start a war for anything other than peace.
That war would have to disgust people in a very specific manner. The Vietnamese war disgusted lots of people; it disgusted them right into organizing large riots and oft-violent demonstrations.

Actually the brighter the light, the less of the dark. Light doesn't just travel in a line, it curves around objects like all waves, not to mention ambient light (except that I just mentioned it). And as you shadow gets bigger, your clothes become brighter.
Actually, waves travel straight. Umbra/penumbra and lunar eclipse diagrams:

They oscillate, but they travel straight. Sine wave diagrams:

Light does not deviate from its perfectly straight path except by means of gravity, refraction, and reflection edit: and also diffraction, see below. Thanks to Captain Griffen and Dalaran_Guard for fixing that up.
Ambient lighting is the lighting used in pictures to set a certain mood about, as opposed to the traditional meaning of "ambient", as in naturally there (light is never "naturally there"; it comes from light sources, typically anything undergoing: combustion (fire), significant friction with something else (flint to light a wood fire), nuclear fission/fusion (stars), chemical reactions (glow sticks), electric charge balancing (lightning), and demolition-by-super-hero). Anyways, brighter light makes darker darkness because of contrast (the same way that they define each other). Try it: if you're in a dimly lit area, there won't be much difference between the shadows and the light. If you're standing in front of a flood light, there's going to be a massive difference.

We have the ability to coexist (as most of us are not actually at war), but sometimes we refuse.
We always do, but for many reasons we either refuse or behave as if we didn't.

In a state of peace we would have to teach our children about how bad war is, even if it means showing them things that cause them to lose their lunch, if we want to keep peace.
If you can get past pansies that worry about hurting their feelings :bored:, and the rest of the world that

P.S.
Is it just me or whenever someone says 'agreed' do you imagine the dreadlord saying it?
It's just you :p.
 
Last edited:
Level 13
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
1,156
If you think peace is the absence of war, go to Baghdad. There is no war there.

Enjoy your 'peace'.

As for light propogation, it's quantum. Therefore stop trying to get your head around it like it is deterministic. Photons travel in curves and all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. Those paths just cancel out.

Best model is waves, with each point on each wave propogating out waves from there.
 
Level 7
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
431
This post is entirely off topic, but I post for the sake of truth...

Thank you.
Actually, waves travel straight...
Light does not deviate from its perfectly straight path except by means of gravity, refraction, and reflection.


You've overlooked one of the four main properties of light: diffraction. This is the bending of light around a corner. All waves bend to a certain degree; its just that sound waves, etc. bend more than light waves do, explaining why we can hear someone talking from around a corner, but we cannot see them. There is but one exception to the bending rule, and that involves lasers, which have a property called cohesion that allows them to stay together and have minimal, if any, bending. So ya, ummm....learn your physics...
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
If you think peace is the absence of war, go to Baghdad. There is no war there.

Enjoy your 'peace'.
A) Or is there?
B) Thanks very much for the example of total anarchy.

As for light propogation, it's quantum. Therefore stop trying to get your head around it like it is deterministic. Photons travel in curves and all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. Those paths just cancel out.

Best model is waves, with each point on each wave propogating out waves from there.

You've overlooked one of the four main properties of light: diffraction. This is the bending of light around a corner. All waves bend to a certain degree; its just that sound waves, etc. bend more than light waves do, explaining why we can hear someone talking from around a corner, but we cannot see them. There is but one exception to the bending rule, and that involves lasers, which have a property called cohesion that allows them to stay together and have minimal, if any, bending. So ya, ummm....learn your physics...

Thank you for correcting me. >_> we didn't get that far in my high school physics class (so really, I have no right to talk physics at all, but I do anyways :p). I'll edit my previous post to mention diffraction (which I'll assume is what Griffen was also talking about), but I'm too lazy to go and get a significantly accurate description of it.


Again, thanks to both of you for fixing up/bettering my explanation of light.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
It's not off topic:
Personally, I think that peace can happen without war, but humans are going to take the war way out.

That much...:
Yeah, yeah, we all fully understand the sine wave. If you drop a stone in a pond the waves travels outward in all directions. When that wave gets to an object part of it it stopped by the object and part of it isn't. It bends around the rock slightly instead of going in a straight line from the point of rock drop to the edge of the rock. Try moving one shadow of the sun closer to another, they jump towards each other, its fun...

The shadow looks darker by comparison because the rods and cones in your eye adjust to the levels of light, this changes what is sent to your brain.

Maybe I play the undead too much...

Captain Griffen:
For our needs we don't need to get down to the quantum level, up on this scale we know certain things about light.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Personally, I think that peace can happen without war, but humans are going to take the war way out.
Edit: I feel like an idiot for forgetting this. Until the quote with the "Darn, and ... Guard", everything after this is said after the original post. Personally, I believe that humanity is incapable of peace happening without a significantly large war. War is the only thing significant and horrendous enough to cause a dramatic and swift change of opinion.

Yeah, yeah, we all fully understand the sine wave. If you drop a stone in a pond the waves travels outward in all directions. When that wave gets to an object part of it it stopped by the object and part of it isn't. It bends around the rock slightly instead of going in a straight line from the point of rock drop to the edge of the rock. Try moving one shadow of the sun closer to another, they jump towards each other, its fun...
lol okay, I totally got owned there.

The shadow looks darker by comparison because the rods and cones in your eye adjust to the levels of light, this changes what is sent to your brain.
I said it makes it darker through contrast. Ironically enough, in your argument against why light doesn't make darkness darker, so did you, and then you explained how it happens. And anyways, your explanation is wrong about why, though. This will explain why, (yes, it's talking about Star Wars, get over it.)
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/starwars2_oops.html said:
Bad: In a scene from high above Tatooine, we see a fleet of Trade Federation ships silhouetted against the planet, and beyond that the sky is full of stars.

Good: This is a common scene in science fiction movies, but ask yourself a question: have you ever seen anything like it in real life? The answer is no. When NASA broadcasts live scenes from outside the Space Shuttle, you usually see the Earth in vivid blues, browns, greens and dazzling white, but you never see stars at the same time. And if you can see stars, the Earth is tremendously overexposed. The reason for this is contrast. Stars are fairly faint, while the Earth (or the Shuttle, or astronauts floating in space) are very bright. They're sitting in full sunlight!

So the Earth, when lit by the Sun, is many hundreds or thousands of times brighter than the stars behind it. When the astronauts set the camera to take pictures, they need to adjust it for that brightness. To expose the Earth correctly, they need to shut out most of the light hitting the camera, and the faint stars cannot be seen. If they adjust the camera to let in enough light to see stars (or more accurately, use a camera which amplifies the light of the stars), the Earth floods the camera with light, vastly overexposing itself. So even though the sky looks black, there will be no stars in the picture.

Maybe I play the undead too much...
Yes. Yes you do.

Edit: @Hakeem thank you for reminding me to answer that. By the way, YOU'RE the one that said rods and cones do that.

The shadow looks darker by comparison because the rods and cones in your eye adjust to the levels of light, this changes what is sent to your brain.
 
Last edited:
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
Our eyes adjust to the light automatically, just like the camera has to be adjusted to take different pictures. But it's not the rods and cones that do that: it's the dialation of the pupils. EDIT: Sometimes it's confusing to know so much about a subjuect, I was wrong a first.

On topic:

Can there be peace without war?
We can stay at peace, but it might take a war to get there.
 
Last edited:
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Since we started using light for elaborate metaphors, and light waves for debunking our debate opponent's elaborate light metaphors. So, your opinion (again)?

Edit: @Below: lol. Nothing else to say but lol.
 
Last edited:
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Until we agree on what 'peace' and 'war' mean, this debate is pointless.
:sad: does that mean we didn't agree on this?
Let's define peace as a state of existence in which a large majority of the involved parties are in agreement, and are not trying to affect other parties in a negative manner.
Anyways, let's define war as a state of existence in which a significantly large amount of the involved parties are attempting in an organized manner to negatively affect another involved party in a manner that adversely, but mostly negatively, affects parties uninvolved in the original conflict.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
Many things exhibit wave behaviour without being waves, we can still talk about what we can see light does, even if we have no idea how.

We are at war with viruses, but we are talking about human vs human war in this thread.

Monkeys war without religion or money.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
this would have been a better thread had this been about peace and conflict, not peace and war, because it really distorts your view of what, exactly, do people mean by peace.
 
Level 13
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
1,156
Wars are mainly an act perpetrated by a few upon the majority.

Example: WWI, most of the time the majority weren't trying to shoot each other. Fire a few shots above their head in the morning to keep the officers happy, and of course to boil the water on the machine gun.

And for the general population? No real attempt to cause harm to the other side.

Religion isn't the cause of war; ideology, stupidity or greed are.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Could there be war without religion, money? man are made to make war to, just like in nature, only i think they are just foolish butchering they're own race.

I'm feeling a little foolish for missing the bulk of this post. Anyways, humans are not foolish for attacking each other. Take for example, spiders: shortly after birth, many are likely to try and make a meal of their brothers and sisters. Wolves: territory is respected, but the instant it isn't BAM, several score tooth wounds on your leg alone, applies to everything big enough to be a threat, including other wolves. Ants: perfectly capable of coexistance within their own colonies, but they'll definitely attack other colonies. Lions: males are likely to kill their own cubs.

There's nothing wrong with assaults on members of the same race, the problem is when they don't happen over resources.

Religion isn't the cause of war; ideology, stupidity or greed are.

Religion usually ends up as an excuse, but it seldom is the actual cause.
 
Top