World Peace isn't cool.
It's just not. When I picture world peace, I see idealist hippy cartoon characters holding hands and singing campfire songs. When I think about who will bring world peace, I think about Ghandi. Not that I don't think he's a great guy, it's just not cool.
What I'm really saying is, world peace needs to change it's image, because I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. And I'm pretty sure everyone else who does is just dismissing world peace because of it's image (not necessarily actively, more like passively) rather than pushing for it on a basis of logic while trying to forget about its image (like I do).
World peace needs what Tyler Durden did for anti-consumerism, not what Richard Simmons did for gay rights.
New Stalinberg
26-08-2007, 18:53
Well I guess you're in luck, because as long as there are men, there will always be wars.
The Dark Bringer
26-08-2007, 18:55
Is it actually possible to have world peace? There is always someone with some issue. Not that I'm not for no wars or anything, but I don't think people can just get along. Also the everybody-happy-everything-perfect concept is kinda frightening.
Markeliopia
26-08-2007, 19:01
BULL$#!+ - Gandhi
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QK35hYIWo
yes I get all my info from youtube
It's just not. When I picture world peace, I see idealist hippy cartoon characters holding hands and singing campfire songs.world peace=hippies=sexual freedom=cool ;)
When I think about who will bring world peace, I think about Ghandi. Not that I don't think he's a great guy, it's just not cool.I dunno, seems pretty cool to me to defy an armed oppressor with passive resistance and win.
Johnny B Goode
26-08-2007, 19:06
world peace=hippies=sexual freedom=cool ;)
Oh, schnap!
world peace=hippies=sexual freedom=cool ;)
While I agree that is pretty cool, the majority of people who decide all there opinions based on image probably don't think that far.
Sohcrana
26-08-2007, 19:12
Well I guess you're in luck, because as long as there are men, there will always be wars.
HAH! Women are just as malicious as men; they (and this is a generalization) just express it in a different way. Wars would probably take longer to begin, but pervasive backstabbing and subtle cruelty will eventually spark them.
In general, men shoot first and ask questions later; women talk smack about each other first, and then shoot as soon as innuendo becomes ineffective.
Well I guess you're in luck, because as long as there are men, there will always be wars.
And without men there'll still be cat-fights.
The Blaatschapen
26-08-2007, 19:18
Is it actually possible to have world peace? There is always someone with some issue. Not that I'm not for no wars or anything, but I don't think people can just get along. Also the everybody-happy-everything-perfect concept is kinda frightening.
It's very easy to bring world peace: No people -> no war.
So we should bomb the sh*t out of ourselves :D
Actually, if you want to know how world peace could work, 1984 is a good possibility. Just in reverse, obviously.
Well I guess you're in luck, because as long as there are men, there will always be wars.
And women. Women can start wars too. :(
In general, men shoot first and ask questions later; women talk smack about each other first, and then shoot as soon as innuendo becomes ineffective.
Woman - gun - PMS. A very dangerous and deadly combination. :D
Well I guess you're in luck, because as long as there are men, there will always be wars.
SEXIST!!!!! :D
Hydesland
26-08-2007, 19:44
It's the US's fault, UK hippies weren't so... hippy, if you catch my drift. We just seemed to pull it off better, with out looking like a bunch of dumb kids.
While I agree that is pretty cool, the majority of people who decide all there opinions based on image probably don't think that far.
Honestly, people who decide things based purely on image don't drive government policy, when it comes down to it. Even in a democratic country, policy is still decided by people with the ambition and capability for critical thinking that tends to ignore image, except for certain select things.
But, as regards world peace, it isn't necessarily a good thing. Do I think a lot could be accomplished if countries pursued things other than their silly little wars? Yes. But, at the same time, we'd probably lose a lot in terms of progress. Nietzsche hit on something when he claimed (paraphrasing here) that competition drives progress.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
26-08-2007, 19:51
world peace=hippies=sexual freedom=cool ;)
hippies=poor hygiene=ewwww
The OP should probably define "World Peace" a bit better. Are we talking about the death of the Nationstate, and therefore the end of war, or are we talking about everyone living in perfect harmony and love? The second case is just lame and completely impossible anyway, but the first would be nice.
hippies=poor hygiene=ewwww
The OP should probably define "World Peace" a bit better. Are we talking about the death of the Nationstate, and therefore the end of war, or are we talking about everyone living in perfect harmony and love? The second case is just lame and completely impossible anyway, but the first would be nice.
The first.
I dont know about your image of world peace but thats definetly not how the whole world views it. All I see is co-operation between countries and fair goverments. Not a bunch of drugged out hippies...
Honestly, people who decide things based purely on image don't drive government policy, when it comes down to it. Even in a democratic country, policy is still decided by people with the ambition and capability for critical thinking that tends to ignore image, except for certain select things.
I have just one thing to say: American Politics.
But, as regards world peace, it isn't necessarily a good thing. Do I think a lot could be accomplished if countries pursued things other than their silly little wars? Yes. But, at the same time, we'd probably lose a lot in terms of progress. Nietzsche hit on something when he claimed (paraphrasing here) that competition drives progress.
Who said competition has to be bloody?
But, as regards world peace, it isn't necessarily a good thing. Do I think a lot could be accomplished if countries pursued things other than their silly little wars? Yes. But, at the same time, we'd probably lose a lot in terms of progress. Nietzsche hit on something when he claimed (paraphrasing here) that competition drives progress.
well yeah, radar, nuclear power and jet propulsion were totally worth WWII