An army school... A peace school?

[Julian]

So, I suddenly thought of this from nowhere. I have, apparently, too much free time.


Why isn't there a peace school? As simple and juvenile as this may seem, don't you think that schools or arts such as this should exist? I mean, there is an art of war but not an art of peace, which is daunting, and reveals many of humanity's flaws in the process.

Our sense of peace in this society has been abandoned, left alone, torn into pieces and scattered through the wind. Now, we only have a sense of war where violence prevails and used to convey our messages.



Don't you think that one should exist?

[Dabs]

You don't need a school of peace because it's such an individual concept. You can't teach it.

I don't believe that humanity is that dedicated to violence, and I think we only enjoy violence when there's a sense of "safety" about it. Like, people watch sports because no one will die on the field, yet there's physical confrontation and sometimes even scuffles.

I don't really buy what you're saying. Some people are just aggressive, but there are very few who actively seek confrontation and violence.

I also don't believe that we should turn peace into a bureaucracy. If there's one thing we should keep sacred, it should be peace.

[Syn]

You cannot have peace with all those wars around... War in Iraq, war in Korea, war in Libya, war on drugs, war on piracy, war on corruption, war on illiteracy, war on freedom, war on peace.... -.-

There's that old saying that I just forgot, but it goes something along the lines of "fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity"

[Dabs]

There's that old saying that I just forgot, but it goes something along the lines of "fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity"

I love that quote. I love it so much. lol

[Syn]

I love that quote. I love it so much. lol

Yeah, it's awesome (in its correct form hahah)

[lalodragon]

Religion sticks its hand in the air and says, I'm a peace school! At least, some religions. And religion, of course, is personal not institutional. (Real religion and that.)
Just a note. I'm not saying that's the only peace, or the only peace school.

[Jack]

Religion sticks its hand in the air and says, I'm a peace school! At least, some religions. And religion, of course, is personal not institutional. (Real religion and that.)
Just a note. I'm not saying that's the only peace, or the only peace school.

Religion is as peaceful as my left nut, and my left nut is like fucking Rambo in the first film where he basically just blows shit up for fun.

[Julian]

Religion sticks its hand in the air and says, I'm a peace school! At least, some religions. And religion, of course, is personal not institutional. (Real religion and that.)
Just a note. I'm not saying that's the only peace, or the only peace school.
Religion is as peaceful as my left nut, and my left nut is like fucking Rambo in the first film where he basically just blows shit up for fun.
Sorry, Lalo, but Jack took the words out of my mouth lol. You ought to read more religious history books xD.


You cannot have peace with all those wars around... War in Iraq, war in Korea, war in Libya, war on drugs, war on piracy, war on corruption, war on illiteracy, war on freedom, war on peace.... -.-

There's that old saying that I just forgot, but it goes something along the lines of "fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity"


Exactly, people emphasise too much on the word 'war', which is kind of harrowing by itself. I do not mean that we have to sugarcoat things but 'war on illiteracy'? Come on. Better terms come to mind.
You don't need a school of peace because it's such an individual concept. You can't teach it.

I don't believe that humanity is that dedicated to violence, and I think we only enjoy violence when there's a sense of "safety" about it. Like, people watch sports because no one will die on the field, yet there's physical confrontation and sometimes even scuffles.

I don't really buy what you're saying. Some people are just aggressive, but there are very few who actively seek confrontation and violence.

I also don't believe that we should turn peace into a bureaucracy. If there's one thing we should keep sacred, it should be peace.

I don't understand this idea mainly because peace is ALREADY a bureaucracy.

Although, while I understand your thinking, it is a bit flawed and simplistic. I mean, when I say peace school, I don't mean it in the most simple, hippiue way possible, where one V sign will solve everything. It's not only about ethic but rather the laws, the rules and regulations, the diplomacy, and the ethics surrounding it. Golly, we already have movements and religious schools for that!

[Jose]

You don't need a school of peace because it's such an individual concept. You can't teach it.

I don't believe that humanity is that dedicated to violence, and I think we only enjoy violence when there's a sense of "safety" about it. Like, people watch sports because no one will die on the field, yet there's physical confrontation and sometimes even scuffles.

I don't really buy what you're saying. Some people are just aggressive, but there are very few who actively seek confrontation and violence.

I also don't believe that we should turn peace into a bureaucracy. If there's one thing we should keep sacred, it should be peace.

Sorry, I almost disagree with everything you said. “Peace" is an important value that can be taught, on the contrarily of what you mentioned.

I believe that peace would be accomplished when you get rid of the human’s greed. Furthermore, in my way of viewing the word war it defines the big countries' greedy ambitions that affect negatively the small and weak ones. For example, Iraq’s war is because America wants the Iraqian fuel and other similar reasons.

In the addition that, you’re personality would reflect the qualities you’re raised on. If you’ve learned to value what you already have, and respect others’ personal owning by then you’ll fulfill your inner peace. As you learn to be a violence murderer that can’t solve any of his daily problems except by using the weapon he’s taught to use in his “army school”, you can learn to be a peaceful negotiator that speaks his rights wisely without craving wars.

[Dabs]

I don't understand this idea mainly because peace is ALREADY a bureaucracy.

Although, while I understand your thinking, it is a bit flawed and simplistic. I mean, when I say peace school, I don't mean it in the most simple, hippiue way possible, where one V sign will solve everything. It's not only about ethic but rather the laws, the rules and regulations, the diplomacy, and the ethics surrounding it. Golly, we already have movements and religious schools for that!

You'll need to cite an example, because I don't really get what you mean.

You didn't really give me a chance to think of a less simplistic version of peace school since you compared it to army school, which has a pretty simplistic goal.

How can you regulate an idea, though? Obviously we already have laws that forbid physical violence against someone else, unless its in self-defense. I'm not really sure I understand what you're getting at. Do you think we should discuss what peace is, and how it would best suit our society? I can get behind something that's based more around discussion rather than testing and regulation.

Sorry, I almost disagree with everything you said. “Peace" is an important value that can be taught, on the contrarily of what you mentioned.

I believe that peace would be accomplished when you get rid from the human’s greed. Furthermore, in my way of viewing the word war it defines the big countries' greedy ambitions that affect negatively the small and weak ones. For example, Iraq’s war is because America wants the Iraqian fuel and other similar reasons.

In the addition that, you’re personality would reflect the qualities you’re raised on. If you’re learned to value what you already have, and respect others’ personal owning by then you’ll fulfill your inner peace. As you learn to be a violence murderer that can’t solve any of his daily problems accept by using the weapon he’s taught to use in his “army school”, you can learn to be a peaceful negotiator that speaks his rights wisely without craving wars.

But peace is relative. It's a broad idea, and the specifics have to be defined by each individual. So you can't teach it.

And in order to discuss greed, and its subsequent elimination, you need to discuss what creates greed. Is it intrinsic in positions of power, or are greedy people attracted to positions of power? Is it something that all humans feel, and if so, how can you condition them to be otherwise?

Like I said, there isn't one definition for peace. You can't say that there's one way to achieve it. Also, Army school isn't just about learning how to use a weapon. They teach you how to strictly schedule your life so you can overcome mundane, everyday problems with relative ease. And perhaps that strictness is how they find their own peace.

You can't shove a square peg into a circular hole. As such, you can't teach everyone one definition of peace.

[Dabs]

Sorry, I almost disagree with everything you said. “Peace" is an important value that can be taught, on the contrarily of what you mentioned.

I believe that peace would be accomplished when you get rid from the human’s greed. Furthermore, in my way of viewing the word war it defines the big countries' greedy ambitions that affect negatively the small and weak ones. For example, Iraq’s war is because America wants the Iraqian fuel and other similar reasons.

In the addition that, you’re personality would reflect the qualities you’re raised on. If you’re learned to value what you already have, and respect others’ personal owning by then you’ll fulfill your inner peace. As you learn to be a violence murderer that can’t solve any of his daily problems accept by using the weapon he’s taught to use in his “army school”, you can learn to be a peaceful negotiator that speaks his rights wisely without craving wars.

But peace is relative. It's a broad idea, and the specifics have to be defined by each individual. So you can't teach it.

And in order to discuss greed, and its subsequent elimination, you need to discuss what creates greed. Is it intrinsic in positions of power, or are greedy people attracted to positions of power? Is it something that all humans feel, and if so, how can you condition them to be otherwise?

Like I said, there isn't one definition for peace. You can't say that there's one way to achieve it. Also, Army school isn't just about learning how to use a weapon. They teach you how to strictly schedule your life so you can overcome mundane, everyday problems with relative ease. And perhaps that strictness is how they find their own peace.

You can't shove a square peg into a circular hole. As such, you can't teach everyone one definition of peace.

[lalodragon]

Religion is as peaceful as my left nut, and my left nut is like fucking Rambo in the first film where he basically just blows shit up for fun.

There are at least a few religions which teach peace. I didn't say they were followed.

[Dabs]

There are at least a few religions which teach peace. I didn't say they were followed.

Technically religion can neither be peaceful nor violent since they're not living things. I'm not just saying that to be a grammar Nazi. People are the ones who are interpreting these texts to mean violent things. It's not the religion; it's the people.

[Peppermental]

Unless you characterize the teachings by the actions they suggest.. Teaching are constructs of men, in fact they are projections of the creator of said teachings. Using the logic of "people interpret texts to mean things" in a broad sense to justify saying that a text which orders the murder of a group of people is not violent is the same logic which quickly falls into a solipsist nightmare world. "Well you know, people aren't really people, just assumptions based off the perception of the I, which is a perception of the I to infinity, ya know man?"

[Dabs]

Unless you characterize the teachings by the actions they suggest.. Teaching are constructs of men, in fact they are projections of the creator of said teachings. Using the logic of "people interpret texts to mean things" in a broad sense to justify saying that a text which orders the murder of a group of people is not violent is the same logic which quickly falls into a solipsist nightmare world. "Well you know, people aren't really people, just assumptions based off the perception of the I, which is a perception of the I to infinity, ya know man?"

This is true, but if such is the case then I don't think a lot of violence based around religion is suggested by the texts. It doesn't say to ram planes into buildings in the Koran, and it doesn't say to lynch African slaves in the bible, yet both of these were done in the name of religion.

I agree, the texts can suggest violence, though I don't think they often do, seeing as that would be counter-intuitive to the entire point of religion.

[Peppermental]

How is violence counter-intuitive to the point of religion? More importantly, what is the objective point of religion? I'm not asking to be a smartass, i'm legitimately curious.

[Dabs]

How is violence counter-intuitive to the point of religion? More importantly, what is the objective point of religion? I'm not asking to be a smartass, i'm legitimately curious.

I can't speak for all religions, but most of them tell you not to be a violent person. I don't think there is an objective point to religion, but I think there's a general consensus about what religion is about: it provides a set of morals and an explanation for things beyond human understanding. Therefore, I see violence as being counter-intuitive because it contradicts the morals established by religion--thou shall not kill, ect.

This isn't easy to sum up succinctly. You'd really need to talk to an expert on it, or have a separate debate. I spent an entire semester trying to define religion, and I still don't have anything less subjective than what I've written.