Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Ashley C

Should you fight for peace?

29 posts in this topic
On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:14 AM, NSchet said:

Every day, one INTJ realizes that they're actually a confused INTP. This is usually contingent upon the discovery of their IQ, and consequently realizing that they're much too smart to be INTJs.

Your numbers are diminishing, and the so-called INTJs are unwittingly joining the insurgence.

Beware.

Dude, that is not fighting for "peace". That is fighting for "P's".

 
 
...... added to this post 10 minutes later:
 

If you're going to fight, it should be for peace. As a 10-year veteran and someone who spent a lot of time in the Middle East and someone who has started and been involved with much smaller scale fights, I'll say this.  Fights may not start as a fight for peace, but they almost always wind up being a fight for peace.

This is part of a larger conversation about juxtaposed oxymoronic morality statements... just war, justifiable homicide, etc.

In that a conclusion or an end of a fight is peace, you fight for peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nerdsmith said:

Dude, that is not fighting for "peace". That is fighting for "P's".

 
 
...... added to this post 10 minutes later:
 

If you're going to fight, it should be for peace. As a 10-year veteran and someone who spent a lot of time in the Middle East and someone who has started and been involved with much smaller scale fights, I'll say this.  Fights may not start as a fight for peace, but they almost always wind up being a fight for peace.

This is part of a larger conversation about juxtaposed oxymoronic morality statements... just war, justifiable homicide, etc.

In that a conclusion or an end of a fight is peace, you fight for peace.

I am glad you can take pride in being part of killing some hundred thousand iraqis. But hey, oil prices are kind of reasonable now, so my hat is off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this question and this thread. Exemplifies so many things that have come up in my thoughts and day to day life recently. 

Perhaps it's a bit trite that we have to discuss the definition of language repeatedly, but seems there is still some value in restating that fighting for peace is a difficult a contradiction in terms to find meaning in and accept. There are different definitions for fight and for peace. Regardless of how you define the terms, I think we should fight for peace and the fighting should be appropriate for the cause of peace. I've fought my way through traffic to get to work more times than I can count, but I was rewarded with the peace of a boss not hastling me about being on time for in equal measure. Look at the 'fight' or debate the simple act of posing the question about peace has sparked here. In one interpretation we are all exerting force or fighting for peace by participating in this discussion. One might even say that fighting for peace is the most important fight to have. Unless you define peace as the beauty of a landscape untouched by human influence, fighting for that peace would just lead to the post-Armageddon concept so popular in video entertainment today :-P.

Fundamentally, I think the contradiction in the statement fight for peace is used to raise awareness and hook someones attention. Fight for peace; save the wales. Fight for peace; ISIS has a stronghold in Syria that must be defeated. Fight for peace; Americans are infidels that refuse to allow our religions freedom, ironically.

My thoughts are that violence is not an acceptable action in any fight for peace. Speaking from the perspective that peace would mean an ending to deadly conflicts between nations. When we scale back to the demonstration and protest fight for peace leading to war; no I don't think killing in the name of a cause peace is appropriate. Neither is the use of tear gas, limiting a free press, throwing a punch, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, or coercion through confinement for that matter. 

Humans will likely never eliminate violence from society. Evolutionary speaking, attracting a mate has programmed females to be attracted to males that are perceived as dominant. Since this boils down to the simplest interaction of two breeding individuals and the survival of the species, I really think it's impossible to remove it from human society. Ending violence between nations, although unprecedentedly difficult, seems entirely within realistic possibility. 

On 3/17/2017 at 2:57 AM, zonsop said:
On 3/17/2017 at 2:19 AM, Ashley C said:

But how can we strike a balance and make sure that, whilst we fight for peace, we do not precipitate war in the end?

I have no idea- war just keeps happening, and often for the same reasons over and over again. The solutions may also depend on the specifics of each community or culture; they are probably not one-size-fits-all. Each country's political strategies and internal policies are unique probably for this reason too.

War happens for very specific reasons. Think about how you learned about the cause of world wars, the civil war, or Vietnam or something in High School. Think about the reasons a world war takes place currently between ISIS and those opposed to their conservative [radical] caliphate. Everything from ideological difference to defense of arid farmland has been cited as a reason for war. I'm not even going to start on genocide cause that's a whole other disaster.

Balance is achieved by winning hearts and minds; gathering in a civil way that does not require violent conflict to share frustration and find comfort in the support of others. Exerting influence and communicating effectively to achieve the confidence or permission to behave in a way consistent with your definition of peace without fear of retribution. 

On 3/19/2017 at 3:24 PM, Amy West said:

There are those that believe in only attending peace marches. That we should never protest, however endorse what we want to see in the world. I personally like this sentiment more, though I've never looked at any stats to say which is more effective. 

I love this hippie shit. We don't protest; we just support the good things in life. Unfortunately, this removes the effective form of persuasion from your repertoire. People get angry and fight for what they want because it's effective. Anger and indeed violence is an extremely effective way of getting what you want. That is why girls don't immediately break up with the asshole that gives your friend a bloody nose for hitting on her. Even though that same girl is more likely to get punched in the nose herself by the man who is willing to punch someone for hitting on her. It's also why devastating nuclear blasts in populated areas are commonly credited with ending conflict between the Axis and Allies. Keep in mind the following 70+ years have not seen a repeat of this horrible tragedy and sparked a diplomatic age of global awareness. 

Diplomacy is key. Picard for president!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RammingSpeed said:

I am glad you can take pride in being part of killing some hundred thousand iraqis. But hey, oil prices are kind of reasonable now, so my hat is off.

How quickly we forget. Go back to sleep, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now