I met my first girl friend at a talk by Serling, so I'll always like the show. :-). It was a good show indeed, girlfriend or not.
You write, "Serling often called for disarmament and peaceful solutions to international conflicts."
This is a well intended but immature understanding of international conflicts, and conflict more generally. The overwhelming majority of the time violence around the world is not caused by misunderstandings which can be resolved through reasoned dialog, but rather by violent men functioning as predators.
Peace activists have confused how we should behave in our dealings with civilized sane people, and how we need to respond to psychopaths, predators, and evil. You can't negotiate with the Devil, you either end him, or he ends you.
There is a solution. Remove violent men from this world. This may require removing all men. We can have world peace, real peace, historic unprecedented peace, peace beyond our imaginations.
What I've learned over the past few years is that getting rid of nuclear weapons won't solve the problem, as violent men would then just turn their attention to other means of horror, and we'd be right back where we are now in no time.
Thank you for your comment. I believe that at the time people didn't see that position as immature. Today it's different.
But I don't agree that only violent men are the problem, and that all men might have to be removed (like what, executed? I will resist). There are many, many women leaders that can be as bad as men: here in Europe you have Margaret Thatcher, Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Frauke Petre (these three are ultra nationalists or even fascists), Ursula Von der Leyen (a warmonger who is leading Europe to the abyss), Annalena Baerbock (warmonger and ecofanatic). In the US, you have HIlary Clinton ("We came, we saw, he died"), that lady in Supreme Court, and many others.
I think the problem is power - political and economic. Not gender (if I understood you correctly).
I just mean, calling for peaceful solutions has never brought us peaceful solutions. As example, Christianity is 2,000 years old. Some of the other religions are even older. They've been calling for peace for centuries, but they haven't brought us peace. Good people, good intentions, no results.
It's true, not all women are wonderful, agreed. But even the simplest examination reveals that the overwhelming majority of violence in the world at every level of society is committed by men. Not ALL the violence. Just almost all.
I would welcome any challenge to the proposed solution on my site, but you'll have to read it first to make the challenge credible. :-)
Have a good one, and thanks again for your focus on nukes!
Thank you. If the proposal I've offered doesn't appeal, that's ok, no problem. But it might serve as one example of the scale of thinking that will be required if we are ever to have world peace. Maybe this idea isn't it, but whatever the solution is, it will necessarily be a really big idea that lots of people won't like.
I met my first girl friend at a talk by Serling, so I'll always like the show. :-). It was a good show indeed, girlfriend or not.
You write, "Serling often called for disarmament and peaceful solutions to international conflicts."
This is a well intended but immature understanding of international conflicts, and conflict more generally. The overwhelming majority of the time violence around the world is not caused by misunderstandings which can be resolved through reasoned dialog, but rather by violent men functioning as predators.
Peace activists have confused how we should behave in our dealings with civilized sane people, and how we need to respond to psychopaths, predators, and evil. You can't negotiate with the Devil, you either end him, or he ends you.
There is a solution. Remove violent men from this world. This may require removing all men. We can have world peace, real peace, historic unprecedented peace, peace beyond our imaginations.
We just need to be willing to pay for it.
https://www.tannytalk.com/s/peace
What I've learned over the past few years is that getting rid of nuclear weapons won't solve the problem, as violent men would then just turn their attention to other means of horror, and we'd be right back where we are now in no time.
Thank you for your comment. I believe that at the time people didn't see that position as immature. Today it's different.
But I don't agree that only violent men are the problem, and that all men might have to be removed (like what, executed? I will resist). There are many, many women leaders that can be as bad as men: here in Europe you have Margaret Thatcher, Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Frauke Petre (these three are ultra nationalists or even fascists), Ursula Von der Leyen (a warmonger who is leading Europe to the abyss), Annalena Baerbock (warmonger and ecofanatic). In the US, you have HIlary Clinton ("We came, we saw, he died"), that lady in Supreme Court, and many others.
I think the problem is power - political and economic. Not gender (if I understood you correctly).
Hi Luca,
I just mean, calling for peaceful solutions has never brought us peaceful solutions. As example, Christianity is 2,000 years old. Some of the other religions are even older. They've been calling for peace for centuries, but they haven't brought us peace. Good people, good intentions, no results.
It's true, not all women are wonderful, agreed. But even the simplest examination reveals that the overwhelming majority of violence in the world at every level of society is committed by men. Not ALL the violence. Just almost all.
I would welcome any challenge to the proposed solution on my site, but you'll have to read it first to make the challenge credible. :-)
Have a good one, and thanks again for your focus on nukes!
Ok, I'll go there. Thanks.
Thank you. If the proposal I've offered doesn't appeal, that's ok, no problem. But it might serve as one example of the scale of thinking that will be required if we are ever to have world peace. Maybe this idea isn't it, but whatever the solution is, it will necessarily be a really big idea that lots of people won't like.