War: Difference between revisions
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Oil, Oil, and More Oil == | == Oil, Oil, and More Oil == | ||
You need oil. | You need oil. They have oil. Start a war! | ||
== Narcissistic Orange Man is Sore Loser == | == Narcissistic Orange Man is Sore Loser == | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Obviously a [[philosophy]] with the goal of creating a [[In-group|universal in-group]] is fundamentally against war. War [[is bad]]. | Obviously a [[philosophy]] with the goal of creating a [[In-group|universal in-group]] is fundamentally against war. War [[is bad]]. | ||
Professing a [[belief]] in [[metaculture]] should be grounds to excuse you from military service as a pacifist. However, it should also not prevent you from serving in a war of territorial defense, or one in which you feel deep personal conviction for its justness. The goal is realism, not idealism, and self-determination not [[dogma]]. Conscripted military service should never be necessary because any truly just cause will attract the necessary volunteers without it. | |||
Is it possible to end all major wars between nations by creating a common cause? Will it require a common federalist-style global government to solve disputes between nations? What change in human [[consciousness]] will be required to allow the majority of people to accept such an idea? Currently any mention of a "new world order" elicits a [[contrarian]] and [[conspiratorial]] backlash. But without one, how will we ever solve the problem of war? Just asking questions. Peace-baiting questions. | Is it possible to end all major wars between nations by creating a common cause? Will it require a common federalist-style global government to solve disputes between nations? What change in human [[consciousness]] will be required to allow the majority of people to accept such an idea? Currently any mention of a "new world order" elicits a [[contrarian]] and [[conspiratorial]] backlash. But without one, how will we ever solve the problem of war? Just asking questions. Peace-baiting questions. | ||
Revision as of 08:46, 11 March 2024
War. What is it good for?
Taking Over Other People's Territory
If someone has a lot of nice land and you want it, war is generally the best option for obtaining it.
Polygamy
Do you live in a polygamist society and have a lot of extra dudes wandering around with nothing to do? Start a war!
People Keep Talking About Your Sex Scandal
Go ahead--wag that dog!
Oil, Oil, and More Oil
You need oil. They have oil. Start a war!
Narcissistic Orange Man is Sore Loser
There's no need to accept an election if you don't like the result. Might makes right! Start a war!
Revolution!
Your government has oppressed you for long enough. It's time for you to become the oppressor! Start a Revolution!
Is the /s Really Needed?
Obviously a philosophy with the goal of creating a universal in-group is fundamentally against war. War is bad.
Professing a belief in metaculture should be grounds to excuse you from military service as a pacifist. However, it should also not prevent you from serving in a war of territorial defense, or one in which you feel deep personal conviction for its justness. The goal is realism, not idealism, and self-determination not dogma. Conscripted military service should never be necessary because any truly just cause will attract the necessary volunteers without it.
Is it possible to end all major wars between nations by creating a common cause? Will it require a common federalist-style global government to solve disputes between nations? What change in human consciousness will be required to allow the majority of people to accept such an idea? Currently any mention of a "new world order" elicits a contrarian and conspiratorial backlash. But without one, how will we ever solve the problem of war? Just asking questions. Peace-baiting questions.