Guest unikos Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 please answer the poll question : do you prefer a world in peace , or a world that would fight for its freedom if neccessary? thanks for any answers or comments.... by the way, I would go for freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basi Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 deep question.. i would also go for freedom, though it pains me to say so in light of the goodness of peace... how apt, for today's climate.. you make me think, thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goagabba Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Most def Freedom for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Amit_t Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 freedom attained peacefully ...... that's the most contradictory statement ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sienis Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 violence only creates more violence....love comes back to you =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ktrance Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Very difficult question. To tell you the truth I dont know. I think I would prefer freedom, but then I doesnt live in a war torn country, where killing and starvation are everyday matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ktrance Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Oh and by the way if you doesnt know www.hungersite.org , you should check it out. -Ktrance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ivan Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 after a minute of thinking i really cant decide... but i guess its ok to fight for freedom if its the authentic reason of the fight... what we r seing now as freedom fights, has nothing to do with genuine freedom, but power. hard one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konysus Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 i would definitely go for freedom even if if means fighting for. freedom usually comes at a cost but for me the idea of freedom is worth quite alot to get there, imposed peace were everyone lives in fear and under the control of someone else is pointless, for me its better to have freedom at the risk of sometimes having the peace threatened. though i can appreciate that that from were i am looking at it at the moment i am not faced with war or fighting so maybe in different circumstances my opinion would be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin OOOD Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Why peace OR freedom? Seems to me it's a totally illogical up question implying you can only have one or the other but not both. As in: "What would you prefer, if you could only have one of the following: a) your heart beating, or being able to breathe" Peace and freedom are both attainable on a personal level for EVERYONE, RIGHT NOW. All you have to do is make the change in your perceptions and thereby your actions (ok, maybe it's not quite that simple but you know what I mean). For example, imagine if everyone thought this way... PEACE: I try my hardest to act towards others as I would like them act towards me. I realise I cannot always succeed, but when I fail I do all in my power to show the other person that it was not meant personally, and make good my failing. As my life progresses I know I will fail less and less often, as my experience and wisdom increases. A person who attacks me - whatever form that attack takes - does not know me (or they'd know I was no threat to them), and so their attack should not be taken personally. Retaliation serves no purpose other than to perpetuate bad shit. FREEDOM: My actions are constrained only by my desire to act, my confidence in the success of my actions, and my desire for peace. I accept responsibility for the results of my actions. As the Beatles said, "There's nowhere you can be that you're not meant to be" - If I obey a stop-sign it's because I don't want to cause an accident, not because I've been told to stop. My dealings with people are all in good faith, thereby eliminating fear and paranoia. The above is a very poor statement of what I believe, and I realise it sounds idealistic, but I think it shows that peace and freedom are in no way mutually exclusive, but two sides of the same coin. Wars will end when soldiers (who are, after all, people like you and me) refuse to fight. Read a bit of Robert Anton Wilson (especially the Cosmic Trigger series) for more information on changing your reality. Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spacemonkey - 604 Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 well i think it isn't a poor statement. peace can be given in a society like the one for example discribed in "a brave new world". Freedom there is no option you do what your tolld, even further you are made the way to do best and only what is good for society and therefore peace. freedom is gone for peace is such a society, and in the end people will want freedom. But i don't think it realy is a matter of choosing one or the other indeed, both can come at the same time, but there are numerous ways where the one wil rule over the other. an interesting question with no easy answer........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest :::EA::: Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Doesn't "peace" imply "freedom"? It doesn't necessarily work the other way around. I mean, look at the US: We're "free," but we're not peaceful. I'd go with peace, for sure. Then freedom will follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konysus Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 freedom is a matter of degree and a relative concept, in one sense not even those of us living in a liberal democracy are free in the sense we can do what we want, we are conditioned and constrained by other factors rather than physical factors, not only is how you act determined by how you want others to react. i think it was karl marx who might have said 'men make their own history but not under conditions of their own choosing' - or something to that effect. i think peace is something you can either have or not have but freedom can exist at different levels, so is it worth sacrificing a little of that freedom for peace? also i don't think that one necessarily implies the other as some of you have suggested. i find it easy to see how peace can be acheived by denying freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konysus Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 freedom is a matter of degree and a relative concept, in one sense not even those of us living in a liberal democracy are free in the sense we can do what we want, we are conditioned and constrained by other factors rather than physical factors, not only is how you act determined by how you want others to react. i think it was karl marx who might have said 'men make their own history but not under conditions of their own choosing' - or something to that effect. i think peace is something you can either have or not have but freedom can exist at different levels, so is it worth sacrificing a little of that freedom for peace? also i don't think that one necessarily implies the other as some of you have suggested. i find it easy to see how peace can be acheived by denying freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konysus Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 freedom is a matter of degree and a relative concept, in one sense not even those of us living in a liberal democracy are free in the sense we can do what we want, we are conditioned and constrained by other factors rather than physical factors, not only is how you act determined by how you want others to react. i think it was karl marx who might have said 'men make their own history but not under conditions of their own choosing' - or something to that effect. i think peace is something you can either have or not have but freedom can exist at different levels, so is it worth sacrificing a little of that freedom for peace? also i don't think that one necessarily implies the other as some of you have suggested. i find it easy to see how peace can be acheived by denying freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konysus Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 whoa! sorry guys, i didn't mean to post that 3 times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest unikos Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 colin: it isnt always the issue but sometimes you have to choose... so i just wanted to know which one people in the forum would go for.. ea: i agree with konysus, peace is a state of not engaging in armed conflict... you could say that for example when my country (greece) was taken over by the turkish empire for 400 years, there was peace because there was no fighting... but, greece wasnt free... so my point is that sometimes you should fight for your freedom because peace doesnt guarantee it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest unikos Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 colin: it isnt always the issue but sometimes you have to choose... so i just wanted to know which one people in the forum would go for.. ea: i agree with konysus, peace is a state of not engaging in armed conflict... you could say that for example when my country (greece) was taken over by the turkish empire for 400 years, there was peace because there was no fighting... but, greece wasnt free... so my point is that sometimes you should fight for your freedom because peace doesnt guarantee it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest :EA: Posted December 9, 2002 Share Posted December 9, 2002 Okay, I agree that if peace means no fighting, then there's always room for pent up hatred and resentment. But if peace means everyone's happy, then freedom should be ensured. I suppose we would need to agree on the definition first. I was thinking the latter definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest logic Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 kai ta dyo se armonia file Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.