4 ms·

I am not too narrow minded so I see war as a not good thing and a as a not bad thing. I don't like seeing anything in this world as a good or a bad thing. War

I am not too narrow minded so I see war as a not good thing and a as a not bad thing. I don't like seeing anything in this world as a good or a bad thing. War is something that comes to us by default. Its in our nature, as its in every animals nature for survival. Its not something pushed to us by dictators and what not. Also I don't agree with your sentence of removing poems, legends and whatever from the internet. Let each person decide for himself whats to be filtered in his head or not. The internet should be free, accessible and non filtered.

skrebbel 8y ago
About war being neither good or bad but unavoidable, I don't think we'll come to an agreement. I truly believe that we can make the world free of war through a combination of honesty about the horrors of war (so that well-fed people stop supporting it) and the technological progress which will inevitably give all humans food on their table and a roof over their heads (iff we don't fuck up the climate first). Your argument is well formulated, however, and while I disagree with it I appreciate the way you bring it. Thanks for that. > Also I don't agree with your sentence of removing poems, legends and whatever from the internet. But I didn't suggest anything of the sort. You didn't cite these poems as a matter of historical fact, you referred to them in mild agreement to make a point. There's a major difference. I'm surprised that you interpret an attack on your argument as an attempt to censor history. Not every pacifist is a marxist. In fact, I suspect that we strongly agree that ideas that people used to support but most Westerners now think of as barbarian (eg "homosexuals are evil", "black people are animals but they can harvest cotton pretty well" and IMO also "dying for your warlord is honorable") should remain accessible in history books, online and offline.

skrebbel 8y ago

About war being neither good or bad but unavoidable, I don't think we'll come to an agreement. I truly believe that we can make the world free of war through a combination of honesty about the horrors of war (so that well-fed people stop supporting it) and the technological progress which will inevitably give all humans food on their table and a roof over their heads (iff we don't fuck up the climate first). Your argument is well formulated, however, and while I disagree with it I appreciate the way you bring it. Thanks for that. > Also I don't agree with your sentence of removing poems, legends and whatever from the internet. But I didn't suggest anything of the sort. You didn't cite these poems as a matter of historical fact, you referred to them in mild agreement to make a point. There's a major difference. I'm surprised that you interpret an attack on your argument as an attempt to censor history. Not every pacifist is a marxist. In fact, I suspect that we strongly agree that ideas that people used to support but most Westerners now think of as barbarian (eg "homosexuals are evil", "black people are animals but they can harvest cotton pretty well" and IMO also "dying for your warlord is honorable") should remain accessible in history books, online and offline.