How Can We Achieve World Peace?

[Walker]

Until you wake up it's pointless reading your stuff.

Coffee time.

[Sculptor]

Until you wake up it's pointless reading your stuff.

This is not a rare occasion of your failure to not meet expectations.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
You are tying up your poor brain with too many negatives.

[Walker]

Until you wake up it's pointless reading your stuff.

This is not a rare occasion of your failure to not meet expectations.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
You are tying up your poor brain with too many negatives.

To that I say ... you're wrong.

The motive of the negatives is for your interest, solely, seeing as how the more lenthy, thoughtful, serious posting relevant to world peace is beneath your attention ... seeing as how you display no evidence of comprehension, dear fellow.

The motive of all the negatives is for you to find the positive meaning.

Quite a clever metaphor in action, wouldn't you agree?

[Sculptor]

This is not a rare occasion of your failure to not meet expectations.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
You are tying up your poor brain with too many negatives.

To that I say ... you're wrong.

The motive of the negatives is for your interest, solely, seeing as how the more lenthy, thoughtful, serious posting relevant to world peace is beneath your attention ... seeing as how you display no evidence of comprehension, dear fellow.

The motive of all the negatives is for you to find the positive meaning.

Quite a clever metaphor in action, wouldn't you agree?

I would never not disagree, since not disagreeing is never not anti-reason.

[puto]

Philosophy Now
War
5 May 2024
How Can We Achieve World Peace
Pacifism is the opposition to war, the ruin of some is the ruin of all. Pacifism is non-violence. Pacifism destroys everyone. Nocentes are not engaged in or causing harm, moralities are attacking civilians. Noncentes are not free in or bring about harm. Noncentes are values in attacking civilians. Should realism be deontological, common sense in thinking? Realism being common sense and cannot help but know. Realism should be right regardless of the harm. Just war is simple in that some wars are just, wanting to moralize war. Just war uses ius ad bellum and jus in bello. Just war wanting to moralize war.
War violence and should be deontological morality that is, a priori and not outside values. War is violence and deontological morality. War should be a priori and not outside values. Assume validity is of principles, philosophy is the formulation of precise and rigorous. Assume validity is of propositions. Assuming, validity’s formulations being precise and rigorous.
Peace the ultimate goal of war, of all politics (Augustine 19:10-13.) Peace the aim of war (19:10-13.) Peace harmony of all politics (19:10-13.) God can be shared, no loss to any. (15:3-5.) God among the people seeks no loss to all (15:3-5.) God’s allotment.
Both realists and pacifists are not the just war theory, which are ius ad bellum and jus in bello. Both the realist and the pacifists are not the just war theory. Both realists and pacifists are about ius ad bellum and jus in bello.
Hoping, not question begging in my essay, morals should govern war. Not question begging in my essay. Morals should govern war. Having, shown peace is achieved in many different traditions. Peace has many different definitions. Peace was shown by different traditions. Showing, my analytical semantic philosophy is war, "For everything there is a season, and a matter under heaven; ... A time to kill and a time to heal." "For everything there is a season ... A time to embrace ...." This is my opinion, which has information, but I could be wrong.
Work Cited
Augustine, “The peace of the Earthly City,” City of God, book 19.)
Perkins, Pheme. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised
Standard Version (p. 939). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

[puto]

I am sorry, as it may have been an ideological thesis; I think I already knew the answer. Sorry; I already knew the answer. It may have been ideological in reasoning. I did the research; then answered wrong. The research was correct; the answer wrong.

[puto]

Double effect harms the innocent as a means to our end; then no centes. The problem becomes harming the innocent as a means to our end. So, what is the intention and motive; they then become descriptive that is the ends and means. Clausewitz definition of war is not a just war doctrine and realist view. The maxim to which the no centes could consent; this destroys capabilities of agents. Realists are limiting on violence on religious grounds; limit extreme situations ius ad bello. If justice is is not an unnecessary evil and moral responsible for choosing; then war is self-defense and security of immediate, grave and survival. Therefore, realists and pacifists are not just war theory.
If a realist does not use morality but own interest. Realists becomes national interests. So, we are concaving; ex post facto. Proportionality in Ius ad bellum; then the realists reject the doctrine and the expected good it brings about (that was not an alternative, but a last resort.)
The no centes are not engaged in causing harm, so the realists are attacking the civilians. The combatants are the non-innocents; the effect is intentional attacks on civilians.
Islamic Mecca to Medina is the last word.
This is a sad state of affairs; however written logically or in writing it sad. I have seen pictures of the destruction and harm to the innocents and that is the real effect of the conflict. Is a just war that simple; ius ad bellum and ius in bello what about discrimination and proportionality. Aim at peace and ends of just cause. Dr Mummert notes from class; thank-you for Dr Mummert for the information on deciding what is right and wrong with the world.

[puto]

Just Cause because of this and to the time, is the actual adjective of what was wronged the State. Hayati, Zihad. “The Philosophy of War,” Philosophy Now, Issue 124, February/March 2018, pp. 6 – 9. Thank-you for the article and the magazine in general. After studying, Jus in Bello has become, “ 4)… Unacceptable …” (Hayati 6,) and we need to stop because of Proportionality. Human rights are at, “Causa” and if that means stake in Latin; then we need international intervention to save the noncombatants. “Doing to others as few would be done to,” Hobbes (Hayati, 6) is so true. Realists and Pacifists and the Just War Theory that is Futuhat but this is Idwan needs to be considered. Yes, this is a Cynical because of the value of life to the noncombatants. There is no Islamic pacifism this is to be done with Latin for become to an end.

[Walker]

Peace through strength.

Like this.

https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2024 ... e-n2176275

[BuzzCap7]

How can we achieve world peace?

We can't.

No more than anyone jumping so high, you jump over the moon and come back down to earth.

You can talk about achieving world peace were jumping over the moon all you want. But they are unachievable events.

1. To have everyone agree on how to achieve world peace is an impossibility.

2. I also believe it would totally defeat the purpose of why we are here on earth in the first place.

There are questions like the OP proposed, and many others that are wonderful to discuss for academic purposes. As in this case, it can't / won't go beyond that.

BuzzCap7

[Walker]

[u]How can we achieve world peace?

We can't.[/u]

No more than anyone jumping so high, you jump over the moon and come back down to earth.

You can talk about achieving world peace were jumping over the moon all you want. But they are unachievable events.

1. To have everyone agree on how to achieve world peace is an impossibility.

2. I also believe it would totally defeat the purpose of why we are here on earth in the first place.

There are questions like the OP proposed, and many others that are wonderful to discuss for academic purposes. As in this case, it can't / won't go beyond that.

BuzzCap7

- Nothing is impossible if the conditions are right.

- All you know of world peace is from the peace you personally experience, and from hearsay.

- You don’t hear much said about world peace from the media due to the Media Rule: If It Bleeds It Leads.

Therefore: To achieve world peace, one must experience peace, and one must also fundamentally change hearsay from the media news. Make the saying of unpleasant, unpeaceful news a punishable offense so folks don't have to hear it … like they did in England.

- Increase the punishment for infractions of Good-Speak to the point where folks are eager to toe the line de jour.

[Walker]

(continued)

Of course, that means that freedom is the price to pay for the security of World Peace.

[Age]

[u]How can we achieve world peace?

We can't.[/u]

No more than anyone jumping so high, you jump over the moon and come back down to earth.

You can talk about achieving world peace were jumping over the moon all you want. But they are unachievable events.

1. To have everyone agree on how to achieve world peace is an impossibility.

2. I also believe it would totally defeat the purpose of why we are here on earth in the first place.

There are questions like the OP proposed, and many others that are wonderful to discuss for academic purposes. As in this case, it can't / won't go beyond that.

BuzzCap7

- Nothing is impossible if the conditions are right.

Very True.

'World peace' 'was', actually, achieved when the 'conditions' were Right. That is; when you adult human beings finally changed 'your conditions', and 'the way' that you 'look at' and 'see' things.

When how, what 'was' referred to as, 'time travel' is known how to work, then why I used the 'was' word above here will be much better understood.

- All you know of world peace is from the peace you personally experience, and from hearsay.

- You don’t hear much said about world peace from the media due to the Media Rule: If It Bleeds It Leads.

I was not made aware of this so-called 'media rule' before, but it certainly does follow in with the other 'media rule', and with the underlying principle of most media outlets.

Therefore: To achieve world peace, one must experience peace,

And, experiencing 'peace', itself, cannot happen while having and holding a 'judgmental view' of others, which can only happen when one has not uncovered, nor learned, and understand, exactly, why human beings think and do every thing that they think and do.

and one must also fundamentally change hearsay from the media news. Make the saying of unpleasant, unpeaceful news a punishable offense so folks don't have to hear it … like they did in England.

But, why try and distort or block out the actual Truth?

Obviously, the very mess that you human beings are in, in the days when this is being written, was caused by adult human beings trying to hold and/or distort the actual Truth of things, from each other/"yourselves".

- Increase the punishment for infractions of Good-Speak to the point where folks are eager to toe the line de jour.

[Age]

(continued)

Of course, that means that freedom is the price to pay for the security of World Peace.

Well this is just another False and deceptive lie.

'World peace' only came about through and because of 'absolute freedom'.

[Walker]

(continued)

Of course, that means that freedom is the price to pay for the security of World Peace.

Well this is just another False and deceptive lie.

'World peace' only came about through and because of 'absolute freedom'.

Error, Will Robinson. Absolute freedom includes the freedom to raise hell, which is not peaceful, especially for the neighbors at three in the morning who call security to squash that hell-raising freedom.