Do i get to be known as the guy that ends starvation/made world peace

by Anonymous 12 years ago

13 people have no soul.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

maybe s/he meant get a million dollars then solve world peace, MAYBE IT WASN'T A SPELLING ERROR!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Anonymous comment is anonymous.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Of course I'd love to have a million dollars, THEN end world hunger or have peace!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That is exactly why I YYA'd this post!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"Happiness always looks small while you hold it in your hands, but let it go, and you learn at once how big and precious it is"... Maxim Gorky. Oh, and you're an ass. Good day.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Selfish bitch.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Bit harsh :/ also, maybe if you created world peace / ended starvation they'd give you a million pounds anyway?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This probably sounds really harsh, but having people die from hunger/wars is actually a good thing. It helps prevent the world from overpopulating even more.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'd love to end world hunger and poverty, and would do it in a heartbeat... but as someone else said, overall, it sucks but has to be said - we kind of need people to die. Everyone living well into old age (past 80 and older) just isn't sustainable. It costs a lot to keep old people; they tend to have a lot of health problems, need carers, and they don't often work. While it sounds like a job-generating scenario, remember that the old people who don't fall this ill will likely take up jobs; it sucks to say it, but a lot of jobs only become available because people die. "Aging population" is a real issue in employment and property-buying. Not to mention, that just generally having more PEOPLE, even young or adults, is not really that viable. Like I said, not enough jobs, distribution of food and wealth, them all needing homes... this stacked on what I said above about having problems with jobs and home-buying means likely younger people would just end up homeless and jobless. If you try to distribute wealth equally, then well done, you just invented communism, and no, that doesn't work in the long-term either. Saving people is wonderful, but saving EVERYONE is unrealistic.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The only way to really create world peace would be to take away everyone's free will, people don't want to be peaceful, they want to be better and more powerful than everyone else and then they want to prove it. World peace would probably mean completely abolishing religion too and not allowing anyone to mind. Anyone who would go for world peace over $1 million is no less selfish, they're taking away everyone's right to be individual just so they can have piece of mind that they did the 'selfless' thing. If someone gave me a choice between world peace and $10, I'd go for $10, and that's not even in my currency.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So basically, you believe that: -a person's right to individuality takes precedence over millions of people's right to life. -all people are selfish and want to be more powerful than everyone else without earning it. -the only reason for ending the meaningless destruction that is war would be for "piece of mind." -the destruction of all religions (whose golden rules promote world peace), is necessary to achieve world peace. -the lives and safety of countless innocent people are worth 6 pounds to you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'll back him on that yes. -What kind of life would they be forced to lived if they don't have individuality and free will. -Yes that is pretty much human nature. -Most people who voted no way were voting that way so they don't look like selfish assholes. -Religions have caused more wars than help the world. -I can sponsor a child providing him with a life and safety for only 25 cents a day.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

-The kind of life that doesn't involve killing, stealing, and destroying. People aren't alowed to do that currently, and most of them don't mind. I don't think the safety of billions should be compromised for the free will of thousands. -That doesn't mean all humans act on it. Very few people would feel restricted if they weren't allowed to start wars. -I seriously doubt that. If some genie appeared and asked me to choose either a million dollars or world peace, I would choose world peace. With enough hard work and smart choices, I could get a million dollars. I could not possibly create world peace on my own. -That's not the religion's fault. We can practice our religions without starting wars, and we can start wars without practicing religion. -Helping one child for 40 days does not equal saving millions of lives around the world for the remainder of our existence.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

- No, what I said was that every person who is ever going to live's right to individuality does. - Yes, otherwise there wouldn't be war in the first place. - Yes, that's why people would choose it, to believe that they'd done the right thing, why else? - Yes, I shouldn't even need to justify this one, remember the crusades? or the witch burnings? or the Holocaust? or 9/11? Would you call those peaceful? Just because many religious people are peaceful doesn't mean that religion isn't responsible for just as much unrest. - Yes, If those countless people were basically the unified robots they would be required to be to achieve world peace then absolutely.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

-Most people's right to individuality isn't dependant on violence. -No, there's war because ONE person wants to take over, and everyone else is defending themselves. -I don't know, maybe because it is the right thing? Not all kindness is selfish. People do the right thing because the right thing is right, not because it will give them some sort of pleasure. -So in other words, if somehow we magically made violence physically impossible, or if we went into people's minds and programmed them to be good, then religion would still need to be destroyed? Anyway, if religion is so bad, who cares if it disappears? -Peaceful != identical

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Andddd, here comes the debate.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It would cost well over a million dollars to end world hunger, and if I could end world hunger I would win the Nobel Peace award, which comes with about a million dollars.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I would love to have a million dollars and then end world hunger!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

To everyone saying that people need to die from war and starvation because of overpopulation, seriously go fuck yourselves. If the only solution to this problem that you can come up with is that people should suffer and die because of being born in the wrong environment/situation, and then you justify it because overpopulation is SUCH a huge concern, maybe you all should just take it upon yourselves not to fucking reproduce. I know that given our human nature world peace is impossible and life will never be fair, but at least I have the goddamn decency to admit that wars and famine are NOT good things. Assholes.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They're not saying war and famine are good things, but they need to happen though. Just like it sucks that old people die, but imagine a world where you have no room to have a home, no jobs, no food. Overpopulation IS an issue and we have no solution for it yet. Get off your high horse.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Someone did say that, and no they don't NEED to happen. It's unavoidable because humans are assholes. There are plenty of solutions, just none universally desirable. All I'm saying is to brush these things off with an "eh, better you than me" attitude is fucking deplorable. Not a single person who said that would feel the same way having gone through those things, and they really shouldn't be so nonchalant about accepting that other people should have such a fate "for the greater good." I'm not on a high horse. I'm not feeding the hungry or petitioning our politicians but also I'm not deluding myself into thinking that things like that are necessary or beneficial. They aren't.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Those who YYAed (not talking the Grammar Nazis here) wouldn't be able to handle the guilt of having an opportunity and ignoring it for wealth.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I YYA'd just cause I'm selfish.

by Anonymous 12 years ago