(REVISED-See details) What is more important: eradicating social issues or having an invincible national defense?

Would you choose to erase social issues such as racism, homo/islamophobia, etc. and create a completely tolerant society or would you choose to erase the chance of outside threats via an invincible national defense? (Let's say the "national invincibility" and "full tolerance" will follow you no matter where you move.)

You only have one wish. Which is a priority for you?

  • I would wish to erase social issues and biases from the world.
    67% (4)56% (9)59% (13)Vote
  • I would wish for an invincible national defense.
    33% (2)44% (7)41% (9)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|1
1|13

Most Helpful Guy

  • Attacks from outside the country are very rare.

    Our penetrable, imperfect defense hasn't allowed a death significant attack on US soul for almost 15 years.

    I live among the social issues daily. Social issues create poverty, crime, drug addiction. I'm much more vulnerable to those than some Jihadi in Syria.

    2|1
    0|1
    • While I do not agree with your assessment, you weighed both sides and the current atmosphere you're experiencing in order to make a decision. Some took this as "you can have One but not the other", like if you choose defense then your country MUST be morally bankrupt. That is not the point I intended to make or ask about. Next time I'll be more specific. Thanks!

Most Helpful Girl

  • Social issues. If we eradicated all social issues worldwide then there would be no need for national defense.

    1|1
    0|1

What Guys Said 12

  • I guess i'm too late to blend in now. but i'm gonna let it slide anyway.
    I kind of sensed of this question looks like those trapping your mind messing with your head realistic conflict experiement. i guess you didn't really intend to hook up with another theory on this site, or (please excuse my courtesy, this might be rude, i don't know , i have no idea how you gonna react ) you enjoy people biting off each other's back. and this is fun.

    though i'm still going in anyway.
    these two definitely are two of opposite pseudo prepositions, like the other version about the most penetrable sword against the most impenetrable shield. the prepositions cannot stand against its own paradox within the pratical box, but with another very conflicted face, they would be given the meaning of hypothesizing the consistency of their existence.

    there are nothing related to something named as eradication or invincibility. or someone could eradicate issues or someone holds the invincible defense. Because we, we human is the most screwed up , morbid , evil species in this whole world. everything with us is so unpredictable. if someone shuts up all the voice, makes everything working in the same way (i didn't say it never happen before, just on a small region of the continent), probably it would come up with a silently peaceful period. on the other hand , a world with no issue would have turned into an issue itself. why? to be fair, who knows? what is issue anyway? where is the bottom of issue?

    1|0
    0|0
  • As long as social issues in the world don't get better, a national defense is necessary for each of the hundreds of countries in the world.
    Instead of all together heaps of money to the military industry, it would be cheaper and everyone would be happier if social issues in the world were ameliorated.

    Listen to how President Eisenhower warned the US for the military industry:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

    Sad to say but he was prophetic.

    1|0
    0|0
    • Edit: Instead of throwing all together heaps of money to the military industry, it would be cheaper and everyone would be happier if social issues in the world were ameliorated.
      See what happened to Greece because of it's military spending.

  • A world where every country has a strong military and crap societies is a world that would be awful to live in. A world where every country is great to live in but has a weak military would be great to live in. Also, a good world to live in would reduce extremism and bitterness and reduce the need for a military while large militaries would just lead to a Cold War-esque race to the bottom.

    Also, why bother protecting an awful country?

    1|1
    0|0
  • I have voted for full tolerance - What is the point of protecting a messed up society it only preserves the injustice

    1|2
    0|0
  • This is quite simple you have to protect your home front before you can help or protect others. So in order to have social tolerance on things you have to feel safe because if not those issues such as racism will never get the full attention they deserve. Secure your country first and let the other stuff get figured out when you can give it the proper attention. The full tolerance would be open to attack because it would most likely go overboard with welcoming everyone even though they would be a threat to the security of the nation. The strong defense would allow the country to help it's people straighten things out while be able to extend protect to others in the world that are innocent and being murdered for no reason. No human should go through what some are having to in the middle east and other countries around the world.

    1|0
    0|0
  • national invincibility would abolish every social issue i can think of. we're allowed to lead civil lives in a society intolerant of violence because we're protected by the threat and use of violence.

    violence will be bred out if it's no longer depended upon. since outsiders are a threat, immigration will become an impossibility to satisfy our national invincibility. the resulting society will slowly become homogeneous until purity is achieved. without foreign influence, common ideals will propagate through out society. thus, eradicating all forms of social issues and violence.

    1|0
    0|0
  • In a ideal world you would have both, but we don't live in an ideal world, so I will choose invincible national defense, as a nation much less a society is nothing if it can't protect itself, how do you expect to work on anything if you're defenseless? and to the mercy of the world.

    Besides without protection and a defended boarder you won't have a society to begin with.

    1|0
    0|1
  • If all social issues were erased then there wouldn't be a need for an invincible defence.

    3|1
    0|1
    • A valid point but I do not think all killings are motivated by bigotry. Oftentimes countries go to war over resource procurement or retaliation, neither of which are social constructs.

    • Show All
    • @ubertroll thanks for your insight. While you're technically correct, I still stand by "within the context of this discussion, that extrapolation is inconsequential." obviously I did not mean to include all human interaction or everything that people touch or influence in the entirety of ever. It was implied but not tacitly stated so your argument stands and has merit. You pointed out a legit flaw in my wordage. I like that. :D

    • @kiran04 "Stop splitting hairs." Thanks for understanding. I probably added to the confusion by posting this question where it DID only apply to your society. Totally my bad.

      I'm picking MHO at the moment and saw this comment thread. I'm late to the party but heard that was the fashionable thing to do, so...

  • i was gonna ask why you reposted this but then i noticed the social thing is now world wide... eh screw it my safety comes first protect my country!

    1|0
    0|0
  • Without a defended border, you won't have a society to have issues in. This is a no brainer.

    1|0
    0|1
    • YES. Exactly!

    • Show All
    • @thatkaruguy What are you on about? Societal issues are society specific. She didn't say all issues in every society around the world would vanish, and even if they did, some societies are incompatible even in the best of circumstances. Those societies would still war with one another even if their own were perfect. Smoking dope, dude.

    • if societal issues all ceased that means monetary, poverty and religious issues would end as well which would probably end all wars but even if it didn't like i said before she didn't say the armies disappeared

  • I would pick invincible defense, then we can work on the other issues

    0|0
    0|0
  • Since social issues are never going to be eradicated (that requires ethnic cleansing and strict control of thought and education...), I'd rather have the invincible national defense. We seem to be making plenty of progress on social issues as it is, no need to waste money on them when it could be going into the military (from which research has produced many of today's technologies now used in consumer culture and will continue doing).

    1|1
    0|0
    • Pretend both are equally possible though, which would you rather see happen? Really, invincible national defense isn't possible either.

    • "Since social issues are never going to be eradicated" - imagine a situation where you could magically wish away the parts in people that lead to intolerance. No genocide involved if you play Aladdin. :) Would this change your answer?

What Girls Said 0

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion!

Loading...