Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How to end wars and create peace on the planet

Page 4 of 5 [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ahaseurus2000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,546
Location: auckland

04 Feb 2010, 6:46 pm

fidelis wrote:
Every person has the right to control their own selves and their own possessions.

This is a rather anarchic idea. In theory, if everyone had a right to control themselves then it would violate this right to try and control someone else. No government, no war. And as long as people could handle this ONE rule, there would be no murder, rape, mind control, or theft. Plus nothing else that could violate this rule. We would of course still need police officers to enforce it and a court to make sure the police don't abuse their power, but otherwise, that is all we would need.


this rule would abolish parenthood. no-one would be allowed to raise or instruct children as this would count as controlling someone. Making an exception could constitute a double standard, unless children were reclassified as "not people".


_________________
Life is Painful. Suffering is Optional. Keep your face to the Sun and never see your Shadow.


ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

05 Feb 2010, 12:30 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
I would ban sex and any forms of human reproduction.


and you think that would, somehow, create peace?
you'd see world-wide riots within SECONDS after such a law...


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


x_amount_of_words
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 May 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,359
Location: Spokane, Washington

05 Feb 2010, 1:30 am

I know! :twisted:


_________________
theamazingjunkie.flavors.me


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Feb 2010, 1:39 am

And 4 pages later, I still think my idea was the best! :P



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

05 Feb 2010, 10:41 pm

ZEGH8578 wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
I would ban sex and any forms of human reproduction.


and you think that would, somehow, create peace?
you'd see world-wide riots within SECONDS after such a law...
Yes. But the riots would end within 30 years, and then, peace!

I assumed it referred to long term peace and I also assumed that any law could be done and that it would forcefully get executed, else the question is pointless.


_________________
.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Feb 2010, 10:43 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Yes. But the riots would end within 30 years, and then, peace!

Except possibly millions of years later when war might break out again. So, another temporary solution.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

05 Feb 2010, 10:47 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Yes. But the riots would end within 30 years, and then, peace!

Except possibly millions of years later when war might break out again. So, another temporary solution.

Yet you have to accept my solution is definitely the one that lasts the longest.


_________________
.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Feb 2010, 11:02 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Yet you have to accept my solution is definitely the one that lasts the longest.

Nope, mine does:

All you do is just define peace as the current state of affairs, meaning that peace always exists. Then you define war out of existence in some form or fashion, so that way it is never the current state of affairs anywhere. That way peace always exists, and war doesn't exist anywhere.



mjs82
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,166

06 Feb 2010, 2:20 am

Free candy for everyone!



(until the tooth decay problem destroys us all...)



AspiInLV
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 88
Location: The Unemployment capitol of the US

06 Feb 2010, 9:13 pm

mjs82 wrote:
Eliminate all boundaries - both real and imagined. People created boundaries for identification and protection - but this in turn created the fear of the 'other' - other tribes, other races, other species, other classes, other sexes, other ages. Whilst wars have many causes, the fear of the other has predominant in almost every war in human history. If there is no 'them' then there is only 'us'.

Also - if humans could fly like birds - they'd very likely give up trivial things like war.


Julius Caesar discovered that eliminating boundaries could be highly lucerative, and of great benefit to his political career. As a result of his invasion of Gaul, there were so many of his slain enemies lying around, decaying in the fields, that they had bumper crops for the next 20 years.

if all boundaries were eliminated, and everyone could understand each other, that would dramatically increase the number of wars as people manuver to get advantage over each other.



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

06 Feb 2010, 9:40 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Yet you have to accept my solution is definitely the one that lasts the longest.

Nope, mine does:

All you do is just define peace as the current state of affairs, meaning that peace always exists. Then you define war out of existence in some form or fashion, so that way it is never the current state of affairs anywhere. That way peace always exists, and war doesn't exist anywhere.


But then War will start to be used as a slang term for something stupid, like... let's say clowns playing drinking games. from there it works it's way into venacular and finally back into mainstream language. even if it's not in any dictionary, there will be a social concenus as to what "war" is. it will still exist.

I can think of two solutions to this problem. since one couldn't be done in the form of a law, I'll state the other:

Limit the maximum number of humans on earth to a VERY low population density. like, 20 people. maybe less. there would be enough reasources for everyone and anyone could avoid any disagreement simply by walking far enough away. there could still be conflict, but the number of people involved would be so low it's be more like a duel or a brawl than a war.

unless of course you consider not the number of people fighting to be significant, but the percentage. then every conflict would be a huge war.

of course, with that small a gene pool disease would probably screw us over eventually.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Feb 2010, 10:38 pm

Tensu wrote:
But then War will start to be used as a slang term for something stupid, like... let's say clowns playing drinking games. from there it works it's way into venacular and finally back into mainstream language. even if it's not in any dictionary, there will be a social concenus as to what "war" is. it will still exist.

I don't see the problem. We don't use a lot of letter combinations, so "War" doesn't seem as if it will come back. Additionally, we could just outlaw the use of the word, and provide a replacement term. Or some other such, eventually the change will happen and war will lose all applicable meaning.

I would certainly think that a law like this would be more stable than most other solutions.

In your solution though, I think war would just become more spread out.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Feb 2010, 1:52 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Tensu wrote:
But then War will start to be used as a slang term for something stupid, like... let's say clowns playing drinking games. from there it works it's way into venacular and finally back into mainstream language. even if it's not in any dictionary, there will be a social concenus as to what "war" is. it will still exist.

I don't see the problem. We don't use a lot of letter combinations, so "War" doesn't seem as if it will come back. Additionally, we could just outlaw the use of the word, and provide a replacement term. Or some other such, eventually the change will happen and war will lose all applicable meaning.

I would certainly think that a law like this would be more stable than most other solutions.

In your solution though, I think war would just become more spread out.


You are obviously quite taken with some antics with semantics as if "war" were merely a misfortune of the English language and all those other language with which people use to misunderstand each other reverberated in unconnected parallel universes. We are talking, not about words but people gutting each other, blowing each other to smithereens (whatever they might be) and the open unrestrained viciousness of violence in all its terrible faces. It's not a fun game.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Feb 2010, 4:01 am

Sand wrote:
You are obviously quite taken with some antics with semantics as if "war" were merely a misfortune of the English language and all those other language with which people use to misunderstand each other reverberated in unconnected parallel universes. We are talking, not about words but people gutting each other, blowing each other to smithereens (whatever they might be) and the open unrestrained viciousness of violence in all its terrible faces. It's not a fun game.

I don't see the reason to put up rules to prevent things that are impossible to not happen.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

07 Feb 2010, 4:39 am

Quote:
I don't see the reason to put up rules to prevent things that are impossible to not happen.

How about rules to limit or restrain their risks and their hazards?


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Feb 2010, 6:11 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
You are obviously quite taken with some antics with semantics as if "war" were merely a misfortune of the English language and all those other language with which people use to misunderstand each other reverberated in unconnected parallel universes. We are talking, not about words but people gutting each other, blowing each other to smithereens (whatever they might be) and the open unrestrained viciousness of violence in all its terrible faces. It's not a fun game.

I don't see the reason to put up rules to prevent things that are impossible to not happen.


That's what the Northwestern Conference of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals argued about and laws against rape and murder eventually came about. The said it was impossible but pre-human ingenuity managed to get some effect.