Other Random question of the day

I'm gonna presume that by "if the world peace was actually active" you mean "if we had world peace".

Coetris paribus, yes it would definitely be a better place. Of course, if we let go of that assumption the exact method for achieving world peace might be worse than the lack of it, but in the hypothetical scenario it just magically happened whatever other evils might grow worse I don't think they would quite reach the level of suffering or destruction that a war causes.
 
imagining what "world peace" truly means is quite hard to understand for me at least if it was the generic: everyone's happy and there are no world conflicts or major problems then i suppose so.
 
Random question of the day:

Would the world really be a better place if world peace was actually active? (Feel free to discuss this question in this thread: Other - Random question of the day: The Discussions)
Possibly... Though I recommend checking out that one experiment scientists performed where they provided rats (mice maybe?) with a complete and utter utopia, and watched them die off.

So I guess it depends on what you mean. If peace only means "no war" or if it also means "no hardship".

Many scientific strides were and are founded on the threat of death and/or suffering.
 
Be incredibly suspicious that it was some kind of set-up, I would try to be as nice as possible but continually be on high alert.
 
Be extremely alarmed as a married man of his age reeeeaaaally shouldn't be going out with anyone of mine
 
Politics are kind of an integral piece of people's lives. The same could be said for romance, or religion, or philosophy.
 
Because why not, it's literally everywhere nowadays.
 
I was hacked a few years back on youtube, luckily it only took a password change to keep them from coming back.
 
Not sure if I asked this before, but...

Random question of the day:

If you could bring one object or person with you to a deserted island, who or what would you bring?
 
I don't think it matters much to me tbh, you have to do the work either way, there will always be time constraints. I guess as a freelancer you're a bit more, well, free to arrange your time the way you want (like if you need to wake up late and work until late as opposed to fixed hours). But given that I worked as a freelancer on top of having a full-time job at a company, I didn't get to enjoy that anyway.
 
Random question of the day:

When working a job, do you prefer to work for one company or do you prefer to be a freelancer?
As I've been working since I was 16, I've had a LOT of jobs. At one point I even tried doing a thing on my own. Lemme tell ya, trying to secure your own clientele and keep track of things actually being profitable is NOT my forte. While "working for the man" doesn't have a lot of freedoms, it definitely takes care of all the bullshit that encompasses working for yourself. I dunno. It's a trade off from one pile of crap for another.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top