I need to know a question that when you ask it to someone, you can know if they are for war or against it. If they like violence or not. It must not be too obvious like "Are you against war?", it has to be something that will confuse them, but still get the answer to whether the are that type of person.
2007-05-29 05:07:00 · 7 answers · asked by John Ghost 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
In addition to the answer below, you may ask if the agree with one of Machiavelli's most famous quotes- ask them, "Do you believe that the ends justify the means in most cases?"
2007-05-29 05:14:21 · answer #1 · answered by M B 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For war?
What does this mean? I accept war and its purpose, but I would hardly categorize myself as a war proponent. Furthermore, you appear to correlate war and violence too directly. Violence takes on a plethora of forms that need never include the political concept of war.
If I am attacked on the street, or worse, one of my family members suffers direct and unwarranted physical assault, then, in the moment I can arrest this abuse, I most certainly adhere to an appreciation for violence that never once influences my feelings toward war.
I suppose I am just "that type of person"!
2007-05-29 12:16:11 · answer #2 · answered by el_dormilon 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No one likes war ask a veteran. I am thankful that I have never had to serve my country in uniform thanks to those who have gone before me. I know that if the call had come I would have obeyed it and I hope I would not have let my comrades down.
However there is only one thing worse than being in a war and that is losing one.
Then who actually wins a war the soldiers sailors and airmen don't. Not in UK anyway
2007-05-29 12:27:43 · answer #3 · answered by Scouse 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
your question and the answer you seek is too simplistic
People support the war are not FOR WAR, but willing to go to war for a purpose. That is not a love of violence, just a realistic view of the world.
You may not like this war, but wars are often justified
2007-05-29 14:45:11 · answer #4 · answered by rbenne 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you not think weakness deserves to be exploited, and the weak dominated? I mean, should we let those obviously not capable of proper governance, to the detriment of all, get away with it, or let all those whom undeservingly occupy positions of power or authority rule our lives?
I sometimes think most of those at the bottom of the heap whom do not migrate to higher levels brought it onto themselves through their lack of ambition. I have little sympaty for such people and think that whatever limitation they have as a choice for labour is a choice they took through inaction. What do you think?
2007-05-29 12:27:50 · answer #5 · answered by concentrated points of energy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why do you want to confuse someone? If it is to trick them into giving the answer you want, that's just dirty. Ask openly if you want a *real* answer.
2007-05-29 12:16:59 · answer #6 · answered by Elven 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would you agree that sometimes force must be used to achieve peace? There's you're question.
2007-05-29 12:11:11 · answer #7 · answered by Treblacram 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋