4 ms·

Anecdotally, there's a certain armed conflict in Europe, where peace movements of any kind are in the absolute minority – on either side. (Oh, progress, I guess

Anecdotally, there's a certain armed conflict in Europe, where peace movements of any kind are in the absolute minority – on either side. (Oh, progress, I guess…) It's not just the US.

chillbill 3y ago
Exactly. People generally have not yet moved passed fucking genghis khan way of thinking yet, and some people want to seriously discuss options for a more "humane" way to kill and eat some animal, all to satisfy their own ill-defined feeling of doing "better".
Timon3 3y ago
It's funny you're phrasing it this way, because none of the "peace movements" can answer the most simple question: How do you ensure peace after whatever treaty you're putting in to "bring peace"? If Russia wins literally anything, even a single square meter, why would they not start the next war in a couple of years? Or will you then stop "calling for peace" yourself?
- masswerk 3y ago
  And the only way to sort this out is by fighting to the bitter end, until either of the two biggest countries in Europe runs out of men? (This, BTW, may take some time, while we're maximizing casualties.)
  - Timon3 3y ago
    The only way to sort this out is for the aggressor to stop invading the other country - to actually restore peace. Seems pretty simple, no?
    - masswerk 3y ago
      Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty simple.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        Well, surely you saw this coming, but I'll ask my previous question: how do you guarantee peace after the armstice? Why shouldn't Russia attempt the same thing again in a couple of years, since the war would have netted them territory (you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory)?
        masswerk 3y ago
        > you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory) You are aware, you are implying things. (By the same means I could suppose you want the invasion to succeed a 500K dead later, since you weren't ruling out this chance explicitly.)
        Timon3 3y ago
        No, I'm not. You have mentioned an armistice and nothing further. Does your solution have more than just that? If not, how do you resolve my question?
        masswerk 3y ago
        And you haven't mentioned anything that guarantees a specific outcome of the conflict.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Nobody can guarantee a specific outcome to the conflict. Back to the conversation that was happening, it was about hypothetical peace treaties. Are you going to answer the question about your suggested treaty? It was a reasonable question based on your phrasing and you're deflecting. It wasn't some kind of made up gotcha, like your deflection was. And if you won't answer it then you've gone from conversation to trolling.
        masswerk 3y ago

Anecdotally, there's a certain armed conflict in Europe, where peace movements of any kind are in the absolute minority – on either side. (Oh, progress, I guess…) It's not just the US.

chillbill 3y ago

Exactly. People generally have not yet moved passed fucking genghis khan way of thinking yet, and some people want to seriously discuss options for a more "humane" way to kill and eat some animal, all to satisfy their own ill-defined feeling of doing "better".

Timon3 3y ago

It's funny you're phrasing it this way, because none of the "peace movements" can answer the most simple question: How do you ensure peace after whatever treaty you're putting in to "bring peace"? If Russia wins literally anything, even a single square meter, why would they not start the next war in a couple of years? Or will you then stop "calling for peace" yourself?

masswerk 3y ago
And the only way to sort this out is by fighting to the bitter end, until either of the two biggest countries in Europe runs out of men? (This, BTW, may take some time, while we're maximizing casualties.)
- Timon3 3y ago
  The only way to sort this out is for the aggressor to stop invading the other country - to actually restore peace. Seems pretty simple, no?
  - masswerk 3y ago
    Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty simple.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      Well, surely you saw this coming, but I'll ask my previous question: how do you guarantee peace after the armstice? Why shouldn't Russia attempt the same thing again in a couple of years, since the war would have netted them territory (you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory)?
      - masswerk 3y ago
        > you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory) You are aware, you are implying things. (By the same means I could suppose you want the invasion to succeed a 500K dead later, since you weren't ruling out this chance explicitly.)
        Timon3 3y ago
        No, I'm not. You have mentioned an armistice and nothing further. Does your solution have more than just that? If not, how do you resolve my question?
        masswerk 3y ago
        And you haven't mentioned anything that guarantees a specific outcome of the conflict.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Nobody can guarantee a specific outcome to the conflict. Back to the conversation that was happening, it was about hypothetical peace treaties. Are you going to answer the question about your suggested treaty? It was a reasonable question based on your phrasing and you're deflecting. It wasn't some kind of made up gotcha, like your deflection was. And if you won't answer it then you've gone from conversation to trolling.
        masswerk 3y ago