what we have to do peace in world

[jakerod 254]

Our Father of Nation Mahatma Gandhi have some follower around the world,like Nelson Mandela etc.these people believe in non violence which is far thing nowdays. all talk about peace but it is not possible.

Please explain why it is not possible.

[Daniel 0]

Col Faulkner's already stated we're living in what is arguably the most peaceful period of human existence to date. Give it another few thousand years; we'll either be living peacefully or cinders!

[riffleman 20]

Lets talk about my own countrx,there are few people who still believe in non violence such as Gandhi grandson Gopalkrishan gandhi,Megha patekar etc.people think about megha that she is corrupt and fool,but she never done anything wrong.

If now days anyone try to follow non-violence than all people make his fun or think that they are stupid.

Nowdays people uses Gandhism as a publicity stunt.

[vilas 473]

robbing bank issue - heh

but i think that topic about peace on earth concerns wars , mass murders etc.

not bank robbing

criminal action of individuals is other things than nation killing nations because of someone's gov. greed for something

thats why i would not mix peace in world with individual will to rob bank or. etc.

just like people mixed pollution and global warming , which for me are 2 different issues

but when you say - there cannot be peace cause someone want be millionaire and rob bank - no this not concerns why for example president X of country ABC make bomb raid on country XYZ

it may of course connect if president X is corrupted by lobby of fat pigs in suits who posses factory building planes, industry building houses and they want those planes to bomb other country because:

- their planes will fly and bomb their planes

- new country will need new planes because we bombed old planes

- they will rebuild what they have bombed

but between robbing bank and war i see difference in decision of rulers

by the way... i seen something last time

on YT there was movie about North Korean dictator and executions

comments of some (don't want name country, but you know) were "yeaaa, kill all Koreans, bomb them"

hmm... other person described that there are 2 Koreas - south and north and by bombing people from North you won't give freedom to people who suffer from dictator

but... what hurts - those idiots who wrote "bomb Koreans" "shoot Korean asses" "yeaaaa, kill all Koreans"

are voters, democracy....

according to some sources: people with IQ 100-110 are 25%, people with IQ 110-120 are 10-15% , people above IQ 120 are ... 10 or some more %

people with IQ below 100 is 60%, in this group according to data 35 under IQ 90 ???

they say IQ 90-110 is 50% of population

if only 20-25% is over 120 and 25-30 % are dumb idiots but voters :(

if people are idiots or not educated - they vote other way

to avoid wars - education level must raise, than people can judge what is true and what is lie

and noone will vote for some freaks who want bomb other country

people educated will know who is "bad leader" and who is "people under suffer" , not bomb nation cause leader is insane

another 2 examples from YT (not containing war) :

Polish metal band has name Flapjack, people from other continent come and insult band records for "stealing name" "wtf this is not Flapjack" etc.

why ?

our band formed in 1993, had records in 1993, 1994, 1997 and people from there moan that we stole name of popular cartoon made in 2008 ???

another Polish metal band - Quo Vadis , formed in 1988, played demo in 1988, had records in 1989, 1991, 1992/1993 , 199...

and people from other continent moan that we stole name, cause their band with same name play since 1995 ???

you can say, what tha hell music has to war?

i show idiots, cretins but... voters

those idiots who not understand that we had band called Flapjack 15 years before cartoon with the same name appeared, idiots who insult band who recorded 3-4 albums before other band played first demo, are... voters, yes, voters

they choose president, parliament etc.

president declare wars

people die, cause idiots vote for freaks

in many countries we have freaks in politics, the more we are educated, the less morons in parliaments of many countries , the less wars

idiotism and low IQ is real problem

maybe we should have IQ and knowledge tests before right to vote ?

if someone even not know where is country A or B , where someone not see difference between something but shout "they stole name"... he should not choose future of others (elections)

cause just give such idiot AR15 and we have problem

the same concerns not educated analphabets in desert sands , whom priest told "whita mana, evil mana"

they know history about religious wars (crusades) and now they do own crusade

idiots are everywhere, we should educate people more (free of charge education) to make less idiots ,but... governors of world need idiots, cause as someone told "IQ is enemy of gods"

and idiots are easier to rule

Edited December 14, 2009 by vilas

[riffleman 20]

@ Vilas

you forget about development and basic needs fullfillment.

[Takko 10]

Vilas

I thought you'd have enough IQ to figure out,

that IQ studies do not represent the persons intellect,

but the ability, to be logical rational.

[vilas 473]

but people who vote, choose leaders, the dumber voters, the more problematic leaders who lie, harm others

and in effect such leaders can lead to war

to reduce wars victims we (humanity) should lower greed for money and rise education of people

i know it is against "elites" will, cause "elites" want :

- more palaces

- endless power

- blind followers who will die for them

thats why in some countries/systems you have/had free of charge education, in some opposite - very expensive, now you know why... to have idiots to obey

to change world we need change "elites" and be sane voters too, cause even on this forum i see people who write that Iraq war has nothing to oil

like i saw once upon a time people who were saying that the same model and the same texture can be good or bad depending on tag before file

water freeze in 0'C no matter if freezer is AEG, LG, Ardo

water boils in 100'C no matter if kettle is on gas flame,electricity, if kettle is made by unknown company or by Philips... no matter

but ...

but till we have idiots , we also have problems, cause they vote, they shoot, they kill or may kill if have some power in hand

also people are sometimes "too forgiving", someone is liar, lied many times , they forgive him and ... they later have problems, cause such person makes problems

became first manager, later politician... later war leader etc.

i observe it in politics life

one man lied, after 2 years changes party and start from list of another, 5 years later he is member of other party

fasade made of lies, inside the same liars, but other plates with party name, other hair cut, other colour of suit...

we have some politicians who in 15 years changed 5 parties, to be still members of parliament

we have also liars that promised to move out soldiers from Iraq... win elections and changed mind

i know 2 parties who said about moving troops where they were oposition, when won elections, raised number of soldiers there :/

no matter that 75% of people are against, politics say "we move them out" few days before election day... few weeks after "another soldiers to war"

liars are very big problem, maybe instead of shooting artificial (created by propaganda) enemies, would be better shoot own real enemies (leaders? ) hehe, small revolution :)

young voters even had no idea about some politicians, that 10 years ago were in opposite direction party , and jumped out when notes went down, they had gone to another party, etc.

Edited December 14, 2009 by vilas

[InFireBaptize 0]

There will peace on earth only if we start minding our own business and stop making deals with brutal dictators e.g Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden. As a blow Joe, we have to put politicians in their spot and held them responsible for their action e.g George W. went ahead and invaded Iraq despite oppositions. Leave nations alone, if you keep interfering, it will come back and bite you, you know where!

[wipman 1]

Hi, i've voted never; i've voted Never because even if someday we all respect the others with their differences and everything as dirty hippies, the psychos will keep borning, people like Ted Bundy, Ottis Toole and Henry Damhler etc etc.. so unless you control all the borns in test tubes and reject as valid beings the psychos and other mental sicks... there'll always be someone up to kill someone or someones, for a very simple reason or just without any reason, that don't have nothing to do with wars, fight for power, religion or other fabricated "reasons" like those ones. There's people who like to kill others and who feel that must kill others; so, from the limited scientist knowledge that i've... i know (i belive that i know) that we can't avoid the killings in this world in a "pure" way, without take the role of the main character of that graphic nobel also known about as The Bible, and who's main character is the literary figure of something called God. Jessie.. for the fellas and the swamp's people. Let's C ya

[metsapeikkoo 10]

I voted never.

In order to archieve that "world peace" more or less all humans would have to be destroyed.

Okay, other alternative would be to tone down human's mental capabilities to near to zero, thus more or less "zombifying" the human species.

I don't want "world peace", the moment we all sit down and sing kumbaya together something has gone wrong, or is going to go really badly wrong.

Conflicts are natural. Conflicts are part of the human nature. Conflicts are part of the evolution.

[jakerod 254]

I voted never.

In order to archieve that "world peace" more or less all humans would have to be destroyed.

Okay, other alternative would be to tone down human's mental capabilities to near to zero, thus more or less "zombifying" the human species.

I don't want "world peace", the moment we all sit down and sing kumbaya together something has gone wrong, or is going to go really badly wrong.

Conflicts are natural. Conflicts are part of the human nature. Conflicts are part of the evolution.

Why do you think humans would have to be destroyed? I agree that it is one way to go about achieving it but I do not think it is the best way, only the easiest.

Or with your "zombifying" hypothesis, why do we have to lose our mental capacities?

Why do you believe that when world peace is achieved that something has gone wrong or is going to go wrong?

There are more conflicts than just man vs. man. Ex. Man vs. Nature. Its not like if world peace is achieved that life is going to become any more or less boring than it already is.

[froggyluv 2130]

I don't want "world peace", the moment we all sit down and sing kumbaya together something has gone wrong, or is going to go really badly wrong.

Conflicts are natural. Conflicts are part of the human nature. Conflicts are part of the evolution.

No offence mate, but why would you want conflict? I agree that World Peace is an ideal rather than a reality but is it not something to be strived for?

You say if everyone was blissed out enjoying world peace then something has gone really wrong :j: So a full blown armageddoniac war would be really right?

A world in conflict is evolution? I disagree. I think it is the luxury of not being born in some nation caught in the grips of mindless slaughter that affords you to make such statements.

[Scrub 0]

Wow, just read the whole thread. Some people here have very controlling and weird thought processes.

Why won't there be peace?

Because peace is not brokered by guns and force, but by the understanding of the heart.

Why doesn't everyone search for, or find important, the love of all?

Because we all have different levels of selfishness, pride, ego, class level tolerance.. more. Some take a comment as an affront, while others would blow it off as not needing a reply. It is one of the dynamics that I think metsapeikkoo is trying to elude to that will, at times, naturally end in hurt/angry feelings, and what ever follows. Proper social examples could be modeled and shown commonly in the media to make peaceful resolutions seem like the norm, but we're fighting natural tendencies here.

[celery 8]

It's very naive to think that war and peace are conscious choices detached from causality. People look after themselves and their friends and family and because this world doesn't have enough of everything to go round, it's obvious who everyone is going to favor: themselves and their loved ones. If someone cares about a total stranger as much as their best friend, there's something wrong. Conflicts are about interests and that's why there will not be total peace until humanity has enough resources and living space to make everyone equally well off so that fighting for more seems mindless.

[vilas 473]

Conflicts are natural. Conflicts are part of the human nature.

people sometimes say i moan "america" to everything,

but this what you say is part of your culture - competition vs. cooperation

i have comparison between work / live in "commie" country and "capitalistic" new country

i worked with young people and now i work with old

and i hated work with young, full of overgrown ambitions, full of lies, full of "me the best" , boss ass lickers etc.

now i work with people 50 years old, who grown and 30 years lived in "communism"

and they are different - they are helpful, never rush, easy going, cooperating, keeping alliance, trying to solve problem together

difference between people grown in "be the best, f*** the rest" and "be collective"

they similar thing comes to people who lie - we call them muthaf***, you say "marketing, PR-manager" or "forgive and forget them" "what's the point" etc.

maybe conflicts are part of nature, but more "capitalistic" nature , rats race

as we say "po trupach do celu" (to get effect by any cost , even other people's) ?

the same goes to young vs. older/traditional families girls

girls from young "new" families love "bad boys, stubborn self centered fu*** "

nice, polite and silent boys they treat like nooone

while those raised in traditional families like boys who not shout, are polite, are (by dictionary: decent; demure; humble; unassuming; quiet; modest) etc.

girl raised in familiy that praise tradition and past take "peaceful" boy, while this girl whose parents are "businesman" choses half-gangsta hooligans :(

maybe this is part of nature, but sick nature shaped in society chasing for money, where rats race is normal

many of us hate "big corporations" and their "work style" , i hope more people will hate it in future and prefer easy, slow, cooperation,

and we will have no 30-years old people with heart attack /stroke etc. because of stress in life

so peaceful people exist, simply maybe in your culture less and you not see them, maybe they are "homeless living in paper boxes in park", not "rats" working for big corporations

you call them "lazy" , we call them "more human, cause less robots"

some of you turned from "human" to "working robot" who only want to "achieve target, get effect, success" at any cost

people raised in other tradition do not need "more cars" to be happier, they prefer sincere friends, love... not bigger plasma or "material values"

maybe it is reason why you say that aggression is nature of human, while we said "soul divides you from animal" ?

concerning Teds Bundies - 1% of people are bad, but... 99% are not like them

even some of gangsters i know from my neighborhood would be others , if not situation, where they had to steal, cause you have to pay for this, that - noone will give for free :/

like we have people who are volunteer to help poor, ill, homeless , dying and we have evil managers who not respect that someone has worse situation in home and is late because child is ill

first are "humans" secon "deserve to die" because he is agressive attacker

i see this like "more egoists" vs. more open

look how in "east" cultures or in past people were friendly to guests (unknown people) and i wonder is usual man from big US/UK city would be as friendly, as helpful , as usual Russian villager for example

also i don't know how movie scene from US movies is realistic, but i remember scenes where someone visits village and became enemy cause he is not "from here"

i saw some movies where there were such scenes

many movies show like locals and sherif etc. behave like enemies to man who came from other place,

compare it to people who are very friendly and open on "east" (no matter Russia, Arabs, others) religion say "other human is your brother" "love other like your brother" etc.

know some people who traveled there and say about friendly attitude to guests in Kazachstan or other areas

aggression comes from attitude, lack of respect to others, if people not respect others - it causes conflict

Edited December 15, 2009 by vilas

[metsapeikkoo 10]

Why do you think humans would have to be destroyed? I agree that it is one way to go about achieving it but I do not think it is the best way, only the easiest.

Or with your "zombifying" hypothesis, why do we have to lose our mental capacities?

Why do you believe that when world peace is achieved that something has gone wrong or is going to go wrong?

There are more conflicts than just man vs. man. Ex. Man vs. Nature. Its not like if world peace is achieved that life is going to become any more or less boring than it already is.

It definately would not be "the best solution", but on the otherhand, there would be no-one to see if there was a world peace after that now would there. (Well, no humans that is.)

And by zombifying, I would mean that more or less removing the competitive nature of humans, and that, pretty much would bring our technological advancement to the halt. No-one would even bother to try to get better results, no-one would even try to get more resources x than group y, and no-one would try to ensure better future for his/her children than of group e's children. (Those were just examples, you probably do understand what I mean right?)

Also, by that shit hit/is going to hit the fan I meant that large groups of people tend to unite once they are all threatened somehow, and or that they have managed to deal with the problem. Kinda like during the world wars, cold war(Okay, there was conflict, but atleast most of the participants did sing kumbaya together and hoped that there would be no direct confortation.) and during some smaller "conflicts"/cases where people were forced to work together in order to ensure their survival.

I would dare to even say that evolution is the very definition of competition and "conflict".

No offence mate, but why would you want conflict? I agree that World Peace is an ideal rather than a reality but is it not something to be strived for?

You say if everyone was blissed out enjoying world peace then something has gone really wrong :j: So a full blown armageddoniac war would be really right?

A world in conflict is evolution? I disagree. I think it is the luxury of not being born in some nation caught in the grips of mindless slaughter that affords you to make such statements.

Did I say I actually WANT or LIKE conflict?

Well, if by your standards "World peace" was a bliss, then aren't you the one that would be saying that full blown nuclear war would be right?

Also, why do you even ask if something is right or wrong, since neither does have any absolute global scientific value? Right or wrong is everyone's personal opinion.

World is in conflict. It may not be a the kind of conflict that you imagine where two large armies starts to destroy each other in a armed-conflict, but the kind of where two kids in a sandbox start to argue over a single toy. The one that wins the argument/fight gets the toy. 10 years later in a pub that kid that lost the fight punches the guy that took his toy 10 years earlier, that results in a brawl where the toy-stealing-asshole gets beated up. That somehow impresses some girl that happened to nearby and the guy that lost his toy 10 years earlier gets a girlfriend and so on. (And this was the most horrible example I have ever written to be honest, but you do get the idea.)

Evolution is competition, competition is conflict, conflict is part of life. Better get used to it.

World peace would be a no-gravity vacuum that's temperature would be -273,15 °C.

Edited December 15, 2009 by metsapeikkoo

[Deadfast 43]

but... what hurts - those idiots who wrote "bomb Koreans" "shoot Korean asses" "yeaaaa, kill all Koreans"

are voters, democracy....

No, they aren't, they are either 13 year old or legally insane. Or both.

Jesus, Vilas, how can you even think of using YouTube and especially its comments as an insight into the today's society?

[froggyluv 2130]

Did I say I actually WANT or LIKE conflict?

No, but you stated you did not want World Peace and then try to qualify that by

Conflicts are natural. Conflicts are part of the human nature. Conflicts are part of the evolution.

Well, if by your standards "World peace" was a bliss, then aren't you the one that would be saying that full blown nuclear war would be right?

:confused: Sorry but you lost me here.

Also, why do you even ask if something is right or wrong, since neither does have any absolute global scientific value? Right or wrong is everyone's personal opinion

.

Well I guesss I was responding to this 'scientific' statement

the moment we all sit down and sing kumbaya together something has gone wrong, or is going to go really badly wrong.

...hardly empiricial. The fact is that every post on this subject is an opinion whether you accept that or not.

Evolution is competition, competition is conflict, conflict is part of life. Better get used to it.

This is a false construct. Competiton may be one element of evolution and conflict may be it's byproduct, but to state that conflict IS evolution is just flat out wrong in my opinion. Striving for relative peace is also a part of evolution - 2 prehistoric tribes battling it out endlessly would only hurt the chances of the survivability for both clans , hence negotiotiations would have to evolve at some point. I believe that 2 tribes that have attained relative peace and can live interdependently, to be more evolved than 2 tribes that are in a state of constant conflict.

[celery 8]

This is a false construct. Competiton may one element of evolution and conflict may be it's byproduct, but to state that conflict IS evolution is just flat out wrong in my opinion. Striving for relative peace is also a part of evolution - 2 prehistoric tribes battling it out endlessly would only hurt the chances of the survivability for both clans , hence negotiotiations would have to evolve at some point. I believe that 2 tribes that have attained relative peace and can live interdependently, to be more evolved than 2 tribes that are in a state of constant conflict.

I have to disagree with you. You might have noticed that modern people have all sorts of illnesses, allergies, inherited disabilities etc. Living in a society where physically and mentally weak individuals thrive just as well as stronger ones has halted our evolution as a species. The concept of human civilization might have evolved but humans as a species has more weak individuals in its gene pool than ever before.

[froggyluv 2130]

I have to disagree with you. You might have noticed that modern people have all sorts of illnesses, allergies, inherited disabilities etc. Living in a society where physically and mentally weak individuals thrive just as well as stronger ones has halted our evolution as a species. The concept of human civilization might have evolved but humans as a species has more weak individuals in its gene pool than ever before.

Wasn't that Hitler's dream as well?

Thats pretty offensive Celery. My best friend is quadripalegic and is thriving due to his persistence to not let his disability drag him down. I would argue that men like Stephen Hawkings add more to our evolution with their brilliant minds than 1000 pop cultured but god-like physical specimens that live their self-indulgent lives, contributing nothing to mankind but their brawn and looks.

[celery 8]

Wasn't that Hitler's dream as well?

Thats pretty offensive Celery. My best friend is quadripalegic and is thriving due to his persistence to not let his disability drag him down. I would argue that men like Stephen Hawkings add more to our evolution with their brilliant minds than 1000 pop cultured but god-like physical specimens that live their self-indulgent lives, contributing nothing to mankind but their brawn and looks.

I knew that someone would reply to my post with a fallacy like that. Since you're only labeling my post as offensive and pulling the good ol' Hitler card from your sleeve, you're basically admitting that my statement isn't false. Also your binary all brains-no muscle/all muscle-no brains view is unrealistic. There are people who are both mentally and physically excellent and those who are less so, and everything in between. Living as a hunter-gatherer in the olden days wasn't something for the weak of body and mind.

I'm talking about evolution purely on scientific grounds, I don't hate on anyone and it doesn't take an übermensch to see how nature works. I could be quadriplegic and I would still acknowledge how evolution works.

[anguis 4]

Wasn't that Hitler's dream as well?

Thats pretty offensive Celery. My best friend is quadripalegic and is thriving due to his persistence to not let his disability drag him down. I would argue that men like Stephen Hawkings add more to our evolution with their brilliant minds than 1000 pop cultured but god-like physical specimens that live their self-indulgent lives, contributing nothing to mankind but their brawn and looks.

Amen.

[jakerod 254]

Evolution is competition, competition is conflict, conflict is part of life. Better get used to it.

I agree with that. That doesn't mean that people have to compete for things with each other though. As I said Man vs. Nature is a conflict. We can conflict with our environments as well. Not just within our species.

[froggyluv 2130]

Since you're only labeling my post as offensive and pulling the good ol' Hitler card from your sleeve, you're basically admitting that my statement isn't false.

How so?

Also your binary all brains-no muscle/all muscle-no brains view is unrealistic. There are people who are both mentally and physically excellent and those who are less so, and everything in between

Thats right, everything in-between. But it is your contention that those dwelling in that category are slowing or halting the evolution of mankind.

Living as a hunter-gatherer in the olden days wasn't something for the weak of body and mind.

True. I can only speak for my own backround which is Cherokee, but we had great respect and reverance for the elders who were no longer of strong physical capability, but were blessed with wisdom and intellect. The interdepedence between the intellect of the elders, and the brawn and courage of the warriors was what let our people thrive until colonization.

[celery 8]

How so?

Labeling ("that's offensive/racist/nazist/heresy/unamerican!") is the oldest trick in the book to dismiss a statement that doesn't fit your point of view even if it is true.

Thats right, everything in-between. But it is your contention that those dwelling in that category are slowing or halting the evolution of mankind.

It's fact. Civilization made humanity a species that no longer followed the natural way of survival of the fittest within the species. In other words our evolution stopped and only our society has advanced since.

True. I can only speak for my own backround which is Cherokee, but we had great respect and reverance for the elders who were no longer of strong physical capability, but were blessed with wisdom and intellect. The interdepedence between the intellect of the elders, and the brawn and courage of the warriors was what let our people thrive until colonization.

That's a logical thing to do in a society.