World Peace Hypocrisy

Post Reply New Topic

Today, a friend of mine on Facebook noted that today was the international day of peace. I mentioned that a majority of people on the planet will not be peaceful today. Why? Because Homie-G's killed people today. Soldiers somewhere died today.

And within this espousal of peace comes a culture of tolerance of differences between people. Commendable. Yet, problematic... why is it problematic you ask?

Why is it that high-school students can endorse a culture glorifying crime and violence, yet those espousing "World peace" tolerate such violent cultures? Is a culture promoting violence not the antithesis of world peace?

When you expose the weakness of the flower-girl mindset, you reveal just how not-well-thought-out their way of life is. Endorsing cultures which promote violence is antithetical to peace. That's a foregone to conclusion. What I don't understand is, why do those who claim to want peace tolerate things antithetical to it? Why do they endorse being tolerant of differences when they themselves are, by espousing peace, intolerant of conflict?

Just as the Communists found that complete control over a people for long periods of time is an impossibility and there will always be a breaking point, and yet do not want to acknowledge this and still espouse Communism, proponents of world peace who are tolerant of cultures which are antithetical to peace are a mind-boggling mystery to me.

It depends on what is meant. A boxing match is violent, but compatible with world peace. Language glorifying violence is also compatible with peace. Violence is just what is incompatible.



Well, there are a few possible answers:
1) No society is perfect. Given the imperfections, some undesirable things will have to be tolerated, and the hope is that the overall order is strong enough to accommodate these variations. If we attempt to correct every imperfection, we might end up making things worse.
2) It could be believed that the peaceful culture will win against the less peaceful culture, such as peace promoting prosperity, or peace having better intellectual foundations.



Being tolerant of differences does not literally mean every difference, but rather it means any difference that is so far compatible with peace.

Honestly, I'll have to know more details. I don't see the problem if one presumes world peace as a value. I may see a problem if one holds world peace as the most important value, but that's mostly because this would be an extremist ideology.

The news in Australia this week is that the government is sending 100 Aborigines from an Aboriginal homeland in the Northern Territory to another state.

Why? Because of the violence and feuding between different families or clans.

Aborigines are a tiny fraction of the Australian population. If they can't see themselves as one people and live together then what hope that totally different races and nations will?

Everyone is a hypocrite at heart.