Freedom and Peace

[Daktoria]

Following is something I said in Donkey's Democratic Peace Theory thread a while back: (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=16205#post16205)
If a society is built upon deceiving individuals into maturing into warrior-guardians who are never allowed to fight, then it isn't justified to defend the deceivers anymore than it is to oppress the warriors.

Following is a simple question I have now:
Why is peace a justification for freedom?

[Non Sequitur]

I don't think I understand the question. Could you elaborate?

[Daktoria]

It's a matter of achievement, those who want freedom for peace are rebels without a cause who want to be independent just to be so. They're demanding the perpetuation of a status quo that doesn't mean anything because achievement requires conflict at some level no matter what. Even in a "peaceful" world, conflicts of interest have to take place, and it's biased for charismatic and intelligent people to be able to their talents to convince others while strong and dexterous people cannot use theirs.

Another question, "What is violence?" What's the difference between impacting someone's mind and impacting someone's body? What's the difference between impacting someone's identity and impacting someone's property? Don't impacts in both levels require voluntary concession, and isn't the only reason we don't "feel" so in certain instances because our anatomy detects "pain" in certain manners?

For example, why is it tolerable for a brute to be confused into a headache yet it's not tolerable for a wimp to be pounded into an injury? The only difference anyone could see, literally, is a difference in (surface) appearances.

[Donkey]

It's a matter of achievement, those who want freedom for peace are rebels without a cause who want to be independent just to be so. They're demanding the perpetuation of a status quo that doesn't mean anything because achievement requires conflict at some level no matter what. Even in a "peaceful" world, conflicts of interest have to take place, and it's biased for charismatic and intelligent people to be able to their talents to convince others while strong and dexterous people cannot use theirs.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "freedom for peace," but the bolded part is a contradiction in terms.


Another question, "What is violence?" What's the difference between impacting someone's mind and impacting someone's body? What's the difference between impacting someone's identity and impacting someone's property? Don't impacts in both levels require voluntary concession, and isn't the only reason we don't "feel" so in certain instances because our anatomy detects "pain" in certain manners?

For example, why is it tolerable for a brute to be confused into a headache yet it's not tolerable for a wimp to be pounded into an injury? The only difference anyone could see, literally, is a difference in (surface) appearances.
"What is violence" I think is something worthy of its own thread.

[Michael]

Following is something I said in Donkey's Democratic Peace Theory thread a while back: (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=16205#post16205)
If a society is built upon deceiving individuals into maturing into warrior-guardians who are never allowed to fight, then it isn't justified to defend the deceivers anymore than it is to oppress the warriors.

But society ISN'T built on deceiving individuals into maturing into warrior-guardians. Indeed, most of western culture appears to be built on trying to restrain or limit this destructive tendency. It certainly isn't the norm at all.

Those who presume themselves to be 'warrior-guardians' are a social problem that needs to be contained, not something to be celebrated.

Ergo, the only deception going on is with the 'wannabe warrior-guardians' thinking they are special. They are a social problem.

Following is a simple question I have now:
Why is peace a justification for freedom?
I think you have this one backwards. Freedom is the justification for peace.

All freedoms go out the window in a state of war and people don't like that. People like freedom. Therefore peace is good.

[Michael]

"What is violence" I think is something worthy of its own thread.
Damn good point. I agree entirely.

Is shouting at someone an act of violence?

Are laws an act of violence?