An Unpopular Opinion - Comments

Maybe chaos is the wrong word for what I'm trying to say. I'm not quite sure I have an appropriate word to describe it, so I'm just going to say...things that are bad in the overall welfare of people as a whole and individually(war, genocide, someone punching someone in the street...what have you). These things are terrible, they're awful things, but they're real and they have purpose. Morally anyone of those things could be argued and justified. We all know they're ideally and morally wrong but for those who stand on one side of a fight, those people may find the war necessary for their cause. It's about point of you. Your world peace and my world peace are different. I'm sure Hitler would have thought world peace could have been achieved if only certain members of society were obliterated( Jews, Blacks, Catholics...ect). So again the idea is vague and unrealistic.

I never equated violence with Rosa Parks. Civil disobedience is exactly that disobedience. It's refusal to heed to the law. It creates "waves" and it isn't always done without violence. It's not peaceful, the definition of it, organically doesn't promote peace. All I said was that controversy was caused and maybe I'm mistaken but I'm sure controversy and peace don't go hand in hand. Airi, I feel sorry about what you went through and that never should have happened, but the right of freedom of speech in this country stands, whether people follow it or not. And I did say that the United States is flawed, what thing on this earth isn't?

The idea of world peace is vague. And I STRESS that I'm not simply talking about verbal disagreements. I'm talking about if you wish for world peace as a whole then you would wish for anything that doesn't fall under those lines of peace to be obliterated. And that includes passive restraint. Atleast, it does to me. World peace is impossible, so why bother wishing for it. People are selfish and cannot achieve it. That doesn't mean everyone is bad, it's just majorily it's not feasible.
(Ps: Just wanted to say, although we may not agree on all things and I can certainly can tell that you all may not agree with me entirely, I do appreciate the response and the ability to converse with you.)

I think peace and never having any disagreements is completely different. I classify world peace as people talking out their differences instead of killing each other...

Chaos, by your definition, is war.

Also, I would argue that world peace would negate the need for Rosa Parks to stand up because everyone would let her sit where she wanted to. In addition, world peace would logically abolish the need for countries or continents because everyone would agree with everyone. In fact, we may not even need governments.

That being said, I agree with the idea that it's unrealistic. Maybe in a three wishes situation it could happen but that's a fantasy and world peace is too. It's human nature that some people will be assholes. Whether this is nature or nurture is entirely debatable but - at least in the foreseeable future - humanity as a whole doesn't seem capable of peace.

But wanting world peace isn't about small things like verbal disagreements. When people say they want world peace, they mean they want the wars and genocides to stop. They want the violence to stop and for humans to solve problems peacefully. Why is it so "dumb" for people to want peace? I would like world peace, but I know it's not yet possible. Humans are still too barbaric for it. I really just don't understand why you think wanting peace is so dumb. World peace may be possible, we can't know that it'll never be possible.

That being said, Rosa Parks not giving up her seat was civil disobedience, not senseless violence. Miss parks wasn't violent. Civil disobedience is not automaticall violent. Also, we're not always free to protest. I speak as someone who has been beaten by the police for excercising my right of free speech and a peaceful assembly. Protesters do get hurt in America too. We may not be being killed yet, but we do get hurt from time to time.

I'm not saying slaughter innocent people. If you read again, and please do, I mention that I don't believe in chaos(that includes the murder of innocent people). I'm simply saying that wanting world peace for everyone is a broad and ignorant wish/statement. If, let's Rosa Parks( we talked about her in school today) had fallen under the wish of world peace and given her seat up and not caused disagreement and controversy then who knows how long the Civil Rights movement would have started not to mention the movements that sprouted from the CRM as well. My point is world peace isn't practical or realistic. Contreversy and the clashing of ideals and the clashing of people is natural and normal. That's it.

I'm not saying slaughter innocent people. If you read again, and please do, I mention that I don't believe in chaos(that includes the murder of innocent people). I'm simply saying that wanting world peace for everyone is a broad and ignorant wish/statement. If, let's Rosa Parks( we talked about her in school today) had fallen under the wish of world peace and given her seat up and not caused disagreement and controversy then who knows how long the Civil Rights movement would have started not to mention the movements that sprouted from the CRM as well. My point is world peace isn't practical or realistic. Contreversy and the clashing of ideals and the clashing of people is natural and normal. That's it.

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people however.