Ryaga wrote:GranAttacker wrote:Ryaga wrote:Non-violence is great, I wish it worked.
What pacifism has to do with all of this?
And more, how come realism influenced approaches to reality won't make you look like a big douche? I mean, just go out preaching that the US should arm themselves to fight against terrorism rather than making healthcare better. Won't make people look very nice to you.
Also, Diego. I do not agree with drug use, but I understand your approach. You do it, but you know it is wrong. You know you harm yourself. Still, you do it because it is your will, and why refrain yourself if you are already wrong? I think that this is perspective which needs a lot of mental strength.
But also, it should be said that by acknowledging you're wrong, you must take the consequences. That means facing all evil that comes with it, knowing you made a choice.
Fighting terrorism isn't a realist view of things, at all, healthcare would be.
It's alot harder to mobilize an army over the lives of a few thousand people than improve the lives of millions more for the same effort.
Well, that's what political realism is about, that's what I studied in my brief studies of International Relations. It is realist because it is based on the classical realist assumption that the man is inherently evil and greedy,
"Homo homini lupus", as stated by Thomas Hobbes. This is very close also to theories of pessimism.
Now that it is stated that everyone is a greedy bastard, it should be wise to protect yourself against them. A realist, at least in the political sense, would choose buying a missile defense system instead of building a new school system. Why?
Just putting it in the realistic way. You build the new schools. But the absence of that missile defense system might give a opportunity to enemies bomb down your country, destroying also the brand new schools. How about that?
Ryaga wrote:It's alot harder to mobilize an army over the lives of a few thousand people than improve the lives of millions more for the same effort.
By extending pragmatism to social spheres, one could argue that it is a waste of money to pay health care for everyone, because some people do not deserve it. If someone has a disease that can not be cured, the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for their health, since it does not guarantees any return.
Considering
So realism isn't douche free in any way.