I was not making this into a personal war. I said nothing about peter in particular but asked him to explain why. I wasn't trying to attck him and I wasn't going to say "stop protecting your boyfriend." I was just make the point that if he feels i am simply for "defeat" that it needs to be expanded upon since many peace organizations also agree with my view.
I don't plan on making this personal. If anything, he attacked what I stand for which has become quite a big part of what I'm doing first and I simly asked for an explanation.
As for the reading on peace, it's the fact that I don't feel like sitting here going into Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and other non-violence discussions because it's difficult to make someone understand where I'm coming from on that and how it's not "defeat" i'm for, but something different without having that background. I'm not trying to insult you for what anyone thinks is peace or war; I just feel like if you're going to say that I (and many other peace organizations) are simply for defeat, you better back it up.
He "attacked" opinions that you have, that is not a personal attack, the pesonal attack I was referring to was the one where you pretty much refused to talk with him about this since he hasn't studied peace like you have. He made many valid points in his argument to contradict your many valid points. The whole point of discussing something like this is not to convince someone that your views are right, but to help them to understand why you feel the way you do so they can think about why they think the way they do.
While you may have many organizations that share in your belief, there are also organizations that share other people's beliefs. Simply because you can name off 3 or 4 does not make you any more right or wrong than someone else. If you took the time to explain things, you might make more of a difference than if you shoot someone down because they simply have a different background of knowledge than you.
it's not that i didn't want to talk to him because he hadn't studied peace. there's a lot more to "peace" than simply surface stuff and it would take me a very long time to explain the reasoning behind a lot of these opinions if you don't have some background with some of the basic ideals of non-violence. the reason i brought up was because "I don't feel like taking the time to explain all that" when i'm short on time as it is in my life. it's not an attack on him, it's (as you said i should do when i don't have the time) an acknolegdement of the fact that i don't have the time to explain that background if you'd never heard any of the basics before. if he wants to continue it else where, he can ask to. but this conversation on livejournal isn't going to give me enough time to explain it without giving up too much of my time. i can go through and explain ghandi's ideas of non-violence, i can go through all that... but honestly, i don't have the time to do this this week and i have the feeling peter won't take from it what the basic idea was anyways (based on his response already to ghandi being mentioned). i figured this is where it was going and that's why i said if he doesn't have the background, i don't have the time to do this right now.
i understand that there's many organizations that support his view too. i was simply asking how if all the major organizations for peace share virtually the views i do, how i can simply not be for peace and life? i was just asking for him to clarify that aspect and that's why i named the organizations.
I don't plan on making this personal. If anything, he attacked what I stand for which has become quite a big part of what I'm doing first and I simly asked for an explanation.
As for the reading on peace, it's the fact that I don't feel like sitting here going into Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and other non-violence discussions because it's difficult to make someone understand where I'm coming from on that and how it's not "defeat" i'm for, but something different without having that background. I'm not trying to insult you for what anyone thinks is peace or war; I just feel like if you're going to say that I (and many other peace organizations) are simply for defeat, you better back it up.
Reply
While you may have many organizations that share in your belief, there are also organizations that share other people's beliefs. Simply because you can name off 3 or 4 does not make you any more right or wrong than someone else. If you took the time to explain things, you might make more of a difference than if you shoot someone down because they simply have a different background of knowledge than you.
Reply
i understand that there's many organizations that support his view too. i was simply asking how if all the major organizations for peace share virtually the views i do, how i can simply not be for peace and life? i was just asking for him to clarify that aspect and that's why i named the organizations.
Reply
Leave a comment