What's funny is there's lots of posts tonight, and I was really got interested in reading this post until I realized I wrote it at the end. :P
Thanks. I couldn't remember where I was talking about that so I went back and found it in the Chapter "basics" where I was explaining that violence is a last resort and that it often isn't benefical to you. It kind of reminds me of the Sun Tzu quote: "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." -- I do say that sometimes you do have to fight, but especially when you're teaching a child it's often not that time.
Ironically, I was finding the me who has spent 3 more years deep diving into history was debating the me who wrote that. It's not totally wrong, especially in context, but it could probably be phrased more accurately.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2
Minor changes related to world war 2 being definitively the biggest conflict of the past 200 years. By body count there's a number of Asian conflicts that were comparable such as the Taiping rebellion, so I'd probably call it among the biggest conflicts. My note about relative non-combatant nations faring the best after the war still stands. Later on when I mention that sometimes you should fight anyway I probably would have wanted to mention that world war 2 nonetheless is widely seen as a moral war and although non-participants fared better it's still the right thing to do regardless if you personally benefit.
Of course the point I was making is that fighting doesn't magically confer benefits on the fighters, which I think remains.
Of course the point I was making is that fighting doesn't magically confer benefits on the fighters, which I think remains.