Call to Arms!!: The Generation that can Create Global Peace

[Powerogue]

Creating stability in religiously charged regions through Global Freedom Zones will allow all practitioners to peacefully worship, with unanimous and overbearing force to search out and destroy any and all members of an organization that would declare war against a UN Security Zone.

The way I see it if those religious groups were actually willing to, say, build two churches on top of the same "holy mountain" or what have you, they would have done it hundreds of years ago.

[HandyTheRet]

Unless you are the owner of a for profit prison system, Security firm etc.

- - - Updated - - -



HA! Beat me to it!

- - - Updated - - -



and before that, when we weren't humans yet.
We kill , fight and misc. other mess between those...welcome to being a creature of nature my friend.

We no longer are creatures in a primitive world. We are modernized societies with the ability to communicate and coordinate in meaningful ways. The idea that because we are animals, we cannot forge peace is a copout that ignores everything about humans that allowed us to build vast civilizations that can coexist with one another.

- - - Updated - - -

The way I see it if those religious groups were actually willing to, say, build two churches on top of the same "holy mountain" or what have you, they would have done it hundreds of years ago.

And if an individual, regardless of faith, decides to attack said holy mountain, they would not be acting within a faith that promotes peace, as every religion does. Individuals who pervert a religion are not members of that faith, they have created their own faith, which justifies and calls for violence against members of their global community. These individuals may or may not be members of an organization that also perverts a religion. The organization is not representative of the religion. 25,000 members of ISIL, 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world. 355 mass shootings in the United States, the majority of which were perpetrated by white Christians, who are not labeled Christian extremists. A book can not make an individual kill another, the same way a gun can not pull it's own trigger to kill someone. The violence perpetrated by an individual or organization is due to the direct actions of the individual or members of the organization. Freedom means you can read the book and agree with the ideas. The actions that violate the rights of another global citizen are what is being met with swift justice.

[Kraenen]

And if an individual, regardless of faith, decides to attack said holy mountain, they would not be acting within a faith that promotes peace, as every religion does. Individuals who pervert a religion are not members of that faith, they have created their own faith, which justifies and calls for violence against members of their global community. These individuals may or may not be members of an organization that also perverts a religion. The organization is not representative of the religion. 25,000 members of ISIL, 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world. 355 mass shootings in the United States, the majority of which were perpetrated by white Christians, who are not labeled Christian extremists. A book can not make an individual kill another, the same way a gun can not pull it's own trigger to kill someone. The violence perpetrated by an individual or organization is due to the direct actions of the individual or members of the organization. Freedom means you can read the book and agree with the ideas. The actions that violate the rights of another global citizen are what is being met with swift justice.

Excluding AQ, Taliban, actual terrorist organizations with fundamentalist beliefs, etc... from your accounting, then associating being white with terrorism? wat.

your gun analogy further shows your misunderstanding of how religion works. beliefs make people kill, beliefs can come from books. people kill people using guns, or maybe using religious zealotry, etc...

[Celista]

Too much RP, I laughed at the "677 ilvl ret paladin" part though. Good-naturedly, of course.

[HandyTheRet]

Yeah yeah, what he said. Peace is good.

Printed Name: _______________Powerogue_________________________

Signature: ________________Powerogue____________________________ Date: __________Whatever today's date is_____________

edit: Actually giving a more thorough read though...
------
"We hereby demand that as a fellow citizen of the World, you declare that you will support a motion upon the United Nations to declare any site of historic religious importance a Global Freedom Zone. These sites will be the responsibility of the United Nations to provide security and safety to dwellers and pilgrims alike. Any act of violence committed in a Global Freedom Zone will be taken as a declaration of war by the organization responsible. This organization and all active members who support this organization will be met with force by the entirety of the United Nations members’ standing military."
------

I somehow doubt that would help. 1) Why only historic? Can I not declare my house a pastafarian historic site, on account of me living there? 2) Considering different warring groups want those sites for different reasons, and you're basically telling all the groups "No, this site is ours, none of you can just have it to yourselves." the violence is basically imminent.
-------
"We hereby demand that as a fellow citizen of the World, you declare that you will vote in support of a Bill that calls for immediate global nuclear disarmament, with the intention that all members of the United Nations will vote unanimously for immediate global nuclear disarmament by December 31st, 2017. All funds and resources currently budgeted to creation, storage and upkeep of weapons of mass destruction will be reallocated to nuclear power plant safety and security, as well as research and development of methods to advance nuclear waste disposal technology."
-------

And for countries that have nukes that aren't in the United Nations? You're throwing away the tool, crude as it may be, that's preventing them from bullying you into doing what they say. Essentially you and your neighbor both have guns at each others' heads, and you're throwing down yours and hoping they do the same, instead of taking the opportunity to grab yours and dual wield them at you.

Global Freedom Zones become neutral, sovereign territory with no standing government of it's own. This area in essence becomes sacred ground that no individual, organization, religion, or country can lay claim to. If your house was a contested territory that religious groups were murdering each other over based on thousand year old bullshit, then your house could be declared a Global Freedom Zone as well. Peaceful practitioners of a religion can share, trust me, I've seen it happen.

Countries that do not agree to participate in global disarmament will be met with comprehensive trade embargos from the UN, with the understanding that so long as they continue to build or support a nuclear program, they will have zero trade across national borders. Propaganda campaigns will be carried out, with the intention of educating the populace of the region as to why the trade embargos are in place, in order to create discontent between the people and government. UN aid will act against any individuals (never declaring a nation of wars, mind you) that would refuse to participate in total global disarmament.

- - - Updated - - -

Excluding AQ, Taliban, actual terrorist organizations with fundamentalist beliefs, etc... from your accounting, then associating being white with terrorism? wat.

your gun analogy further shows your misunderstanding of how religion works. beliefs make people kill, beliefs can come from books. people kill people using guns, or maybe using religious zealotry, etc...

False. Beliefs do not kill people inherently. The actions of the individual will always do the killing. Books can not kill on their own. Billions of individuals read religious texts and do not kill other individuals. It is clear that the individual, and not the ideas, do the killing.

- - - Updated - - -

Too much RP, I laughed at the "677 ilvl ret paladin" part though. Good-naturedly, of course.

I thought it would be a good way to introduce the subject lol

[Sam the Wiser]

Peace is for the weak.

[Powerogue]

We no longer are creatures in a primitive world. We are modernized societies with the ability to communicate and coordinate in meaningful ways. The idea that because we are animals, we cannot forge peace is a copout that ignores everything about humans that allowed us to build vast civilizations that can coexist with one another.

Just because we now have the capacity to, does not necessarily mean that we will. Despite widespread availability of information more than any other time in history, people still manage to remain willfully ignorant about a great many topics, for example.

Individuals who pervert a religion are not members of that faith, they have created their own faith, which justifies and calls for violence against members of their global community.

I'm not convinced you've ever actually read any of their "holy" books.

False. Beliefs do not kill people inherently. The actions of the individual will always do the killing. Books can not kill on their own. Billions of individuals read religious texts and do not kill other individuals. It is clear that the individual, and not the ideas, do the killing.

Yes, the individuals do the killing, after the book tells them "Do the killing!" and they are told by their fellow religious members to obey the book unquestioningly.

I would run out of space on this post, and posts on this thread, if I tried to list them all. It's to the point I'm convinced it's the peaceful worshippers who are "perverting" their faith more.

[Dread Pirate Phayde]

and before that, when we weren't humans yet.
We kill , fight and misc. other mess between those...welcome to being a creature of nature my friend.

Ants, chimps and man, the only three species that go to war (last I knew).

[HandyTheRet]

Just because we now have the capacity to, does not necessarily mean that we will. Despite widespread availability of information more than any other time in history, people still manage to remain willfully ignorant about a great many topics, for example.



I'm not convinced you've ever actually read any of their "holy" books.

All of their "holy" books both condemn and proliferate violence in their language. Sane individuals are those who can read the text, and realize that the limitations of their practice end at the beginning of another individual's human rights. Insane and sociopathic individuals will commit crimes against humanity. These are the individuals that are the problem, not the peaceful practitioners, and not the book.

And regardless of if all people are educated, they can still come to the conclusion that violence against others will never solve, and only proliferate more violence. I do not believe that it is a misplaced ideal to believe that because we can, we should not do everything within our power as a global community to do so. I'd rather be wishfully thinking and trying my hardest than preparing for more despair because of a lack of faith.

[primalmatter]

Been a while since I laughed so hard...

Was this conceived of by a child?

[HandyTheRet]

Been a while since I laughed so hard...

Was this conceived of by a child?

Please, if you had feedback, tell me why these ideals should not be striven toward?

[Kraenen]

False. Beliefs do not kill people inherently. The actions of the individual will always do the killing. Books can not kill on their own. Billions of individuals read religious texts and do not kill other individuals. It is clear that the individual, and not the ideas, do the killing.

Never said that. Beliefs can make people act - this is a most basic understanding of even oneself. Books can change and add to or take away from your beliefs. You need to realize that beliefs are complex and build upon each other. People kill people, yada yada. This is like the radical behaviourist vs any decent modern psychological science. Individuals have their motivations based on ideas, saying ideas don't kill people is sort of a half truth.

- - - Updated - - -

All of their "holy" books both condemn and proliferate violence in their language. Sane individuals are those who can read the text, and realize that the limitations of their practice end at the beginning of another individual's human rights. Insane and sociopathic individuals will commit crimes against humanity. These are the individuals that are the problem, not the peaceful practitioners, and not the book.

You're assuming only crazy people commit crimes, like killing someone. Just flat out naive.

[HandyTheRet]

Just because we now have the capacity to, does not necessarily mean that we will. Despite widespread availability of information more than any other time in history, people still manage to remain willfully ignorant about a great many topics, for example.



I'm not convinced you've ever actually read any of their "holy" books.



Yes, the individuals do the killing, after the book tells them "Do the killing!" and they are told by their fellow religious members to obey the book unquestioningly.

I would run out of space on this post, and posts on this thread, if I tried to list them all. It's to the point I'm convinced it's the peaceful worshippers who are "perverting" their faith more.

Condemning practitioners of faith and the ideals that they hold will never lead to peace. A key tenant of every religious text is that life is sacred, and taking a life is an irredeemable sin. The individuals that hold this tenant are the key to peace. The individuals who act on the violent nature of these texts must be dealt with in force. A supremely vast majority of practitioners do not kill other people. Therefore, if it were the text, wouldn't more religious individuals kill?

[Powerogue]

Countries that do not agree to participate in global disarmament will be met with comprehensive trade embargos from the UN, with the understanding that so long as they continue to build or support a nuclear program, they will have zero trade across national borders. Propaganda campaigns will be carried out, with the intention of educating the populace of the region as to why the trade embargos are in place, in order to create discontent between the people and government. UN aid will act against any individuals (never declaring a nation of wars, mind you) that would refuse to participate in total global disarmament.

I will admit, not the worst idea I've ever heard. It would be absurdly risky, for the reasons stated already, but that definitely does put the countries not wanting the disarmament in a tricky position. They can't threaten trade restrictions, because you're already doing that, and they could threaten with the nukes themselves and look like total psychopaths.

Kind of a peaceful protest on a global scale. I don't see us ever getting anywhere without someone in power being the bigger man about it. Somebody talk me out of this, I'm actually agreeing with him.

[HandyTheRet]

Never said that. Beliefs can make people act - this is a most basic understanding of even oneself. Books can change and add to or take away from your beliefs. You need to realize that beliefs are complex and build upon each other. People kill people, yada yada. This is like the radical behaviourist vs any decent modern psychological science. Individuals have their motivations based on ideas, saying ideas don't kill people is sort of a half truth.

- - - Updated - - -



You're assuming only crazy people commit crimes, like killing someone. Just flat out naive.

Of course beliefs are complex and built upon each other, which is a key tenant of complex psychology. The reasoning behind why an individual kills literally doesn't matter. If they knowingly and willingly purposefully commit violence against another individual, they have violated the human rights of another individual. If you have prior knowledge that you will serve life in prison without parole for committing any form of violence against another, and you still commit violence against another, you can not operate within the very basic rules of society, and therefore should not be a member of the general populace.

- - - Updated - - -

I will admit, not the worst idea I've ever heard. It would be absurdly risky, for the reasons stated already, but that definitely does put the countries not wanting the disarmament in a tricky position. They can't threaten trade restrictions, because you're already doing that, and they could threaten with the nukes themselves and look like total psychopaths.

Kind of a peaceful protest on a global scale. I don't see us ever getting anywhere without someone in power being the bigger man about it. Somebody talk me out of this, I'm actually agreeing with him.

In this case, every UN member that is a Nuclear power is being the bigger man simultaneously, telling any other country building or maintaining a nuclear arsenal "Look, we are going to slowly lower the gun. You can either let your people starve and have it shoved in their face that you are willingly and purposefully causing their strife, or you can slowly lower your gun at the same time. The choice is yours."

[Rhine101]

I am a citizen of the free world and I had no knowledge of this letter.

Also, ilvl 700+. I trump you.

[Powerogue]

Therefore, if it were the text, wouldn't more religious individuals kill?

Yes, we typically call them "extremists".

It only goes to show that a supremely vast majority of practitioners are morally good people despite their religion's thousands of horrific, cruel teachings. From personal witnessing, it's mostly simply pretending those bad verses don't exist and never, ever reading them, or making up justifications for them by reframing the narrative.

You're incredibly idealistic about a great number of things, not all of which I disagree with, but on this you seem just plain ignorant.

[Ghaleon]

This is actually serious and not a joke?lol

funny.

[Kraenen]

Of course beliefs are complex and built upon each other, which is a key tenant of complex psychology. The reasoning behind why an individual kills literally doesn't matter. If they knowingly and willingly purposefully commit violence against another individual, they have violated the human rights of another individual. If you have prior knowledge that you will serve life in prison without parole for committing any form of violence against another, and you still commit violence against another, you can not operate within the very basic rules of society, and therefore should not be a member of the general populace.

"A key tenant of complex psychology" what in the hell is this?

the rest of the paragraph is just...wow. and it's not even responding to what i wrote, it's just rambling.

[HandyTheRet]

Yes, we typically call them "extremists".

It only goes to show that a supremely vast majority of practitioners are morally good people despite their religion's many horrific, cruel teachings. From personal witnessing, it's mostly simply pretending those bad verses don't exist and never, ever reading them, or making up justifications for them by reframing the narrative.

You're incredibly idealistic about a great number of things, not all of which I disagree with, but on this you seem just plain ignorant.

Yes, they are extremists. The same way that the Tea Party does not share the same ideals as many Republicans, the same way many gun owning and moderate Democrats do not believe that all guns should be banned. If so many of the practitioners can ignore those parts, what is the difference between the individuals? One individual wants to kill, and the other does not. The individual that wants to and performs crimes against humanity (assault, rape, murder), regardless of the God or ideology they subscribe to, are acting on their own free will.

I am not saying that ideas can not influence individuals to perform an action. What I am saying is that the difference between these practitioners is whether they violate the human rights of another. Once they do, they are murderers, and that is the only label that needs to be placed on them.