Thread: Peace
View Single Post
  #31  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Oct 18th, 2006, 03:39 AM       
"people will always be assholes"

would people not be assholes if their interests were fulfilled to some extent? is it even possible to fulfill people's interests and provide them with a worthwhile existence that doesn't require animal nature?
I don't know ;( Usually the more equitable the community, the more "happiness" and "peace" there is, but equity becomes difficult with overpopulation.

"Firstly, to end war. Secondly, to resolve domestic disputes. Thirdly, to best accomodate the reality of "the pursuit of happiness""

Yea the ideal of "Peace" should be eudomonia for everyone. But that's human-societal ideal, anyway, so I wonder if "peace" is better left as a contrast for war. Anyway, "peace" to some extent has always come from some type of social contract idea, sort of like pax romania, especially relating to the community/political/ other interpersonal levels. "peace" is an abstraction of compromise for stable function, war would be it's counterpart-- compromise of a compromise, with instability aimed towards future stability. Kind of like any cultural advancing, except with HUMAN LIVES.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote