@lolwhatno Diverse personalities should be a source of strength. Having to interact with people who think, believe and act differently forces you to learn tolerance, compassion, patience and understanding. If we were all the same, we'd all be jerks, because there'd be no need to stop and think about our actions, and we'd always believe that we were right, regardless of whether we were or not.
The unfortunate truth is that there are folks out there who act like that anyway, and they're the ones who'd make your idea seem tempting if possible, but I don't think I'd be prepared to endanger or sacrifice tolerance for peace. Real peace is not just the absence of conflict, after all.
Going through life unchallenged would turn even the kindest, most awesome person into a tyrant.
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
@lolwhatno Oh, you're right, I skipped over the actual question! Goodness, a world full of "me" clones, eh? Yeah, I reckon I'd go mad in minutes! Definitely wouldn't do that! There's all sorts of competing versions of me going on, so I'd never know which "me" I was talking to!
"Real peace is not just the absence of conflict, after all." Not looking to start a debate, but could you expand on that? define peace?
...I'm literally on my way out the door right now! Perhaps I should've waited to answer your original post until I had more time. Forgive me, but I will come back and expand as requested, when I'm able to!
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
@lolwhatno Hey, sorry for the delay, and don't worry if your headspace has moved on in my absence! I'll just reply for the record, so to speak.
And you explained your thought experiment just fine! It's just that, because I swing wildly between different opinions and positions all the time, and can easily be swayed by a convincing argument, my beliefs and morals would be tricky to pin down, and wouldn't really solve anything, because everybody would still remain as changeable and as diverse as they are today. Apologies for breaking your question!
So yeah, the whole "real peace" thing? I think a lot of folks equate the term "peace" with "war" in a similar way to light and dark, or wet and dry, but I've never seen it like that. There are plenty of "peaceful" nations who aren't currently engaged in any major conflicts or actively waging war, but it doesn't mean that they're safe, peaceful places to live. Take the example in your signature; aside from supporting a few collective international efforts, China isn't currently "at war" with anybody, and I'm sure most of its citizens would describe their country as "at peace" and yet, say the wrong thing, post the wrong meme, or believe in the wrong religion, and suddenly your life ain't gonna be quite so "peaceful" after all.
Real peace needs to come hand-in-hand with safety and justice but, because the pursuit of justice often makes peace difficult or impossible to maintain, the two concepts have separated from one another in recent history, and then safety becomes its own thing depending on the individual (one person might rely on a stable state for their safety, whereas another might take it upon themselves to keep themselves "safe" as a social or political isolationist). People make things messy and difficult to define.
Anyway, that's what I meant, or at least what I think I meant. As I say, I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, and I'm sure some folks might disagree with what I've said up there!
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
During a time when a lot of awful things is happening in our world, video games have never been as important for us as a form of escapism. I genuinely can't imagine what my life would be like now if I didn't have games as a support mechanism. I'm really appreciative of this medium now, more than ever, and thankful that I'm fortunate enough to experience it when a lot of people can't.
Just scanned a headline on a website regarding 'fresh allegations about partygate ' and flared up one of my minor annoyances. Why does everything even slightly scandalous in the UK have to be referred to with the -gate suffix? I mean I know it dates back to the Watergate scandal and am vaguely aware of the details and it's cultural importance for the US citizens of that era but why (oh why) must we continue to label everything as something gate. Kind of p***es me off!
Though I would accept it Bill Gates sold gates that were in some way affected the way horses walked so we could have Gates'Gatesgaitgate
Just scanned a headline on a website regarding 'fresh allegations about partygate ' and flared up one of my minor annoyances. Why does everything even slightly scandalous in the UK have to be referred to with the -gate suffix? I mean I know it dates back to the Watergate scandal and am vaguely aware of the details and it's cultural importance for the US citizens of that era but why (oh why) must we continue to label everything as something gate. Kind of p***es me off!
Though I would accept it Bill Gates sold gates that were in some way affected the way horses walked so we could have Gates'Gatesgaitgate
Forums
Topic: Absolutely random thoughts
Posts 61 to 80 of 120
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic