NationStates Jolt Archive

Answer the poll! By the way...YOU'RE AMONG THE HUNDRED!

A world without war isn't necessarily good. It might be an evil dictatorship, and no war would mean no revolution.

Only 100? For no wars forever? You're joking, right? Do you have any idea how many lives that would save? And not just soldiers, civillians too.

There would probably be volunteers.

A world without war isn't necessarily good. It might be an evil dictatorship, and no war would mean no revolution.

Or successful non-violent revolution.

There would probably be volunteers.
All the Sheehans of the world can prove their stuff.

Sign me up!! I mean if there truly is to be no wars forever....
The lives saved will total more than that, and our money would be able to be put to better use elsewhere. Can I become a sponge? I could be all 100 of them right??

Ahem,
I wouldn't noramlly do all this shaz, but I'm taking a class of which this is the central theme.
A world without war is not necessairily a good world. It is not necessairily a world of peace. Peace as the simple absence of war is known as negative peace. To acheive positive peace, real peace, you also have to eliminate the more subtle phenomonon of structural violence. So although I'd kill the women and children, I wouldn;t expect the resulting world to be good, or truly at peace.

No, there's too much to gain from war still...it's best to allow it to fade on its own than to stop it completely.

To kill one innocent life is to kill the whole world.

No. Never.

To kill one innocent life is to kill the whole world.

No. Never.

What about watching a thousand innocents die, when you could have saved them?

No. Never. Only because I love war! War has been the greatest blessing to mankind.

"The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists."

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Or successful non-violent revolution.

Maybe I should have said it could mean no revolution. Anyway, when have revolutions ever been non-violent?

Maybe I should have said it could mean no revolution. Anyway, when have revolutions ever been non-violent?

Since war became impossible.

What about watching a thousand innocents die, when you could have saved them?

Now war does not mean no death.

I cannot accept the taking of an innocent life, regardless of how many it may save in the future. I would not go back in time and shoot Hitler or bin Laden or whomever, and I certainly wouldn't take part in this.

That is a moral absolute with me.

Now war does not mean no death.

True. But war does mean innocent deaths, so its elimination would be beneficial in that respect.

I cannot accept the taking of an innocent life, regardless of how many it may save in the future.

That is a moral absolute with me.

But you are taking innocent lives either way - in one case, not saving them when you have the opportunity, in the other, sacrificing them for the greater good.

If Bob Dole is one of the 100, then hell yes. :p

Btw, does this include "no more genocide," or just no more wars?

Answer the poll! By the way...YOU'RE AMONG THE HUNDRED!


but i am neither woman nor child??????

Well, if there were no more war, brutal dictators could rule with an iron fist and purge entire populations. Genocide, oppression, fascism, and communism aren't war. So how would we ever stop those without war?

:eek: :sniper:

Well, if there were no more war, brutal dictators could rule with an iron fist and purge entire populations. Genocide, oppression, fascism, and communism aren't war. So how would we ever stop those without war?

Genocide and violent oppression constitute state terrorism, which certainly counts as war, if one-sided.

To kill one innocent life is to kill the whole world.

No. Never.

no. that's called "not seeing the whole picture". of course its better to let a hundred die than a million.

To kill one innocent life is to kill the whole world.

No. Never.
A noble standard, but good luck trying to defend it.

War has brought good. More than one dictatorship has died a violent death at the hands of armed democracies (Hitler's Germany, Milosevic's Yugoslavia, Saddam's Iraq).

Not to mention there are several dictatorships left around. While some, such as China or Pakistan, may become democracies peacefully, Turkmenistan and North Korea are locked in powerful dictatorships

I will save my life, so I can fight in a war.

I would do it, but I would never support giving someone the ability to make that decision.

To kill one innocent life is to kill the whole world.

No. Never.

I do agree with this.

When you create a precedent of dispensible people, you devalue the life of every person.

But I would still kill them.

but i am neither woman nor child??????

I was about to say the same thing. I can't be among the hundred, because I'm a man.

Kill 100 so that an already overpopulated world would not even have the herd-thinning of the occasional war to relieve some of the pressures?
Not a good trade.
Not at all.

Hmm, as stated by a few posters already, a world without war is not perhaps the most peaceful ever. Having said this, it would probably be a lot better, so yes, I would.

Sure. Lets eliminate war, and let crime and disease do all the neccesary Killing.

I was going to click yes when I considered that I was neither a woman nor a child....

But then I came to my senses. War is the primary driver for technological development; we wouldn't all be sitting here using computers if it wasn't for WW2 for example.

So save the children, save them for Jesus!

[snip]

So save the children, save them for Jesus!

Save them from jesus.

To kill one innocent life is to kill the whole world.

No. Never.
Interesting. That idea would label Christianity immoral.

No

All people in any time are going to die someday, it is best to accept that other or fortune will continue to do wrong, than to embrace wrong doing to avoid the inevitable. It is not about living, but about living right. To answer yes to the murder of innocents to "save" the majority, is merely showing thats ones morality has a price, it is prostitution of ones honor. It is better that the whole die with a clear conscience and looking back on their lives satisfied (they will die anyway), than that the majority sacrifice (sell out) a few so as to avoid suffering.

I firmly believe that "life" is not about surviving, but living the life worth living.

Interesting. That idea would label Christianity immoral.

Yes, well. Most folks know my stance on that, too. To kill an innocent man and embrace it as the foundation of a religion is, to me, a sick, sick religion. Everything else about Christianity is very nice. Very nice, indeed! Why that one thing is so essential I will never understand. Are there any other religions in the world that required the brutal torture and slaying of its founder in order to be validated?

It is all my opinion, though.

Just incidentally, Jesus volunteered. Indeed, that's kind of what you might call "the-whole-goddamned-point". Self sacrifice may not be a popular idea in this decadent world, but lets at least understand what we're looking at here, hmm?

Anyway, war is beneficial for the advance of mankind and allows for the evolution of societies towards greater social justice. Peaceful societies stagnate. Look at ancient China. Now look at Europe. Social advance through conflict leads to the promulgation of such concepts as human rights, individual freedoms and religious/social liberty. I may object to such things on principle, but apparently they're quite popular.

When two cultures clash, the superior culture will win, to the betterment of mankind. Best example? Liberal democracy versus fascism, '39 - 45. And yes, I do know a totalitarian state was instrumental in the eventual victory, and when that state subsequently engaged in 'peaceful' warfare with the liberal democracies, it did eventually lose without recourse to active military conquest. However, the Cold War was far from absent of killing as proxies were manoeuvred into becoming pawns of the superpowers. Also, the 'peaceful' rapport between the West and the USSR allowed Stalin to kill a couple of million people. As many as would have been lost in battle? Who knows?

Soldiers go onto the battlefield knowing the danger they are in. For the most part they volunteer to be there, at least by not by more actively objecting to/avoiding military service. If they die, they die absorbing the weapons that the innocent would otherwise face. I will not end such a glorious tradition in the blood of the innocents I should be protecting.

Just incidentally, Jesus volunteered.

Aye ... but that's incidental to me. Just because someone volunteers, killing him/her is still wrong. Deeply, deeply wrong.

Aye ... but that's incidental to me. Just because someone volunteers, killing him/her is still wrong. Deeply, deeply wrong.

The act of the killing is wrong, without a doubt. But taking on the cost of death on someone elses behalf is the greatest gift you can give. It was deeply terribly wrong that Jesus should have to die, but thats the point the world had come to - someone had to die and Jesus decided that that it would be better if it was him.

Right or wrong, it was a gutsy decision.

Anyway, to prevent accusations of thread hijack, another relevant point;

Warfare is an objective element of society. It will always be, so long as humans are humans. I guess killing 100 innocent women and children would be one way to become inhuman, but I'd rather just evolve, personally, than take the easy route.

Dammit! I meant the 2nd one! (That happens when voting & reading is done at the same time!).