Is peace possible?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

something that has been rattling my brain for a while. I dont think it is possible due to hate towards each other. i especially find this between british and americans (im not trying to be offensive here) how some british (not all!!!) start trash talking america and america (not all!!!) replies with more trash talking! i know i know im not even both but i think its pretty stupid that two people keep trash talking each other and cant just agree that were equall!!! but that was an example, i dont think peace will ever be. theres always going to be that one person who says "I HATE YOU!" and the other person says "I HATE YOU!".


what is your thoughts on this subject?


again i have nothing against britons or americans your both great countries who have helped shape everyones world.

[whyidie]

I agree with you 100%. If the rest of the world would just accept their inferiority to America, everything would be fine!

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

....that wasnt my point

[spmetla]

I don't really think there's much trans Atlantic hate between us and the Brits. Some of course are angry that the US drew Britain along in it's war in Iraq while others will never come to terms with what we think football is.

[whyidie]

....that wasnt my point


I'm from America. We have big cars and guns. I think I understand what your point is.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You, sir, are my new favorite Orgah! :2thumbsup:

[master of the puppets]

nope, peace is impossible. we are animals built to congregate, like ants we are bent on preserving our lives, which we believe is best attained by staying in a loyal family group. these family groups, as society becomes more complex, extends to the larger group of people who we consider our allies and help defend one another. it is for this reason that any group that comes to live in congregated "families" (ants, lions, termites, hyenas, wolves) a kind of inferiority factor arrises as we are naturally built to justify that we deserve the food more than our opponents. thus global tensions arise. its basicly one large family group...a nation, sees itself as superior and uses that to justify it taking what it wishes of other groups. when more stable societys arise the competition is still there, just not being expressed in physical violence, verbal is not so much condoned.

...plus war is just human nature, look at my sig:2thumbsup: :charge: :duel:

[Rodion Romanovich]

peace as in no violence ever is impossible, but peace as in no major conflicts into which people not related to the matter of conflict are drawn into are possible to avoid. If conflicts stay between those whom it concerns, there's no problem. For instace if two people fight about a piece of land they both have good claims to, nobody can step in as referee and claim either to be worth it more than the other. But if one group tries to seize land they don't deserve just for their desire for expansion, or uses killing of civilians and neutrals, then their immorality concerns everyone and everyone should step in and crush that group as quickly as possible. That is what has happened in history (though not always quickly enough unfortunately) and if only people in general and especially politicians would read history they would learn from the past in that aspect. The result would be lack of unjustified expansion and oppression attempts, but conflicts between groups were both have valid claims would continue until either of those two groups gain the upper hand without outer involvements. In such a case, when both sides have suffered enough bloodshed they will realize the importance of meeting the demands of their opponents' side.

Now if you look at biological things and human nature, you find that violence is in human nature, but not in the forms it takes today. You can have a fight over a woman, but such fights would require a code of honor so that immediately after the fight both sides can go back to peaceful cooperation and feel the outcome was fair. I classify conflicts in two cathegories - survival fights and rank fights. Survival fights are over resources and things necessary for survival, rank fights are for status. Rank/status fights must always be fair play, and can occur frequently, and it's necessary for minimizing hatred that both sides get to play out the fight as early as possible after feeling there's a need to have it. Survival fights on the other hand are almost without rules, and involve atrocies and horrible cruelty and backstabbing. Under normal circumstances in nature, most herd animals have behaviors that means there are almost no survival fights and mostly only rank fights. Such a system makes for a society with violence, true, but violence, pain and death can always be avoided if only you accept having a low rank/status. The problem of our modern society is that we don't plan ahead, overpopulate, find new resources that are absolutely necessary to our new lifestyles, and our society has plenty of survival fights but almost no rank fights. Rank and status is nowadays achieved by fighting patterns remniscent more of survival fights than natural rank fights. The result is increasing violence of the form known as war.