CreateDebate


Debate Info

83
84
Yes No
Debate Score:167
Arguments:88
Total Votes:196
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (42)
 
 No (45)

Debate Creator

Coldfire(614) pic



Can we achieve peace through war?

Seems to me to be counter intuitive. like f*cking for virginity.

Of course its never us who are the bad guys, its always them, but "until the lions tell their tale, history will favor the hunters." - African Proverb

 

peace propaganda

Yes

Side Score: 83
VS.

No

Side Score: 84
6 points

Gandhi's suggestions to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war. Gandhi proposed that the Indians rebel against themselves and the British in order to achieve peace and stability in India.

See Mohandas K. Gandhi: Indian Home Rule (1909).

2 years ago | Side: yes
Coldfire(614) Disputed
4 points

See Mohandas K. Gandhi: Indian Home Rule (1909).

I am not going to read a book in order to attempt to see your point of view; I did a quick search of a few excerpts here and there though. One excerpt has the dialog attributed to Gandhi (the Editor) at one point saying: “I have already described the true nature of Home Rule. This you would never obtain by force of arms. Brute-force is not natural to Indian soil. You will have, therefore, to rely wholly on soul-force. You must not consider that violence is necessary at any stage for reaching our goal."”

That pretty much destroys your claim, but I'm willing to humor you and continue with this if you wish. So if it interests you, can you please quote something that supports your notion that Gandhi suggests “to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war.”

As the title indicates, this fictive dialog is more in regard to India’s fight for independence rather than war or peace in itself. At any rate, even if the non violent image of Gandhi is not true and he actually thought that war can lead to peace as you claim, I don’t regard a historical figure’s opinion on any subject to be a truth no matter how much I agree with it, or disagree with it as the case may be.

I implore you to actually add something to the debate, share your own philosophy on the subject instead of someone else’s.

2 years ago | Side: No
rob0915(58) Disputed
3 points

That pretty much destroys your claim, but I'm willing to humor you and continue with this if you wish. So if it interests you, can you please quote something that supports your notion that Gandhi suggests “to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war.”

"It is possible that those who are forced to observe peace under their pressure would fight after their withdrawal. There can be no advantage in suppressing an eruption; it must have its vent. If, therefore, before we can remain at peace, we must fight amongst ourselves, it is better that we do so. Unless we realize this, we cannot have Home Rule ... We have to learn, and to teach others, that we do not want the tyranny of either English rule or Indian rule" (Indian Home Rule; 1909).

Political unrest is not peace, sir. Regardless of whether India's fight for home rule was or wasn't a "war", there was still conflict. Gandhi suggested that India "vent" by means of a civil war.

Peace is achievable by war. If I remeber history correctly (which I do), the end of World War II marked peace for the world. I don't think WWII was fought with water guns or rainbows, it was a war and it achieved peace.

The question is not should we achieve peace through war, but can we. The answer is yes, we can and no we shouldn't.

2 years ago | Side: yes
4 points

Yes, we can achieve peace through war, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in Japan is evidence of this. The Japanese surrendered immediately thereafter.

So, under the "Just War Tradition" the principle of "proportionality" was followed and met.

Supporting material - "Violence, Politics and Morality: Ethical and Political Issues in War and Peace," by R. C. Smith, Politics Lecturer at Waikato University, New Zealand.

2 years ago | Side: yes
Coldfire(614) Disputed
4 points

I really hope you’re being sarcastic. Tens of thousands of Japanese civilians died in that attack. Not military members, but innocent civilians. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was not an act of war; it was an act of terrorism. We struck fear into the hearts of the Japanese people through the use of terror.

There were a substantial amount of military leaders that admitted that it wasn't a well thought out plan, it wasn't justified, and that alternative methods of retaliation to the attack at Pearl Harbor would have been preferable. (See attachment)

And I honestly don’t see in any way how you can make the claim that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was an example of Just War Tradition or proportionality. Neither were followed or met. It wasn’t a justified act and the president at the time completely exceeded his power to give the order. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a blatant disregard to both Just War Theory and proportionality, wtf are you smoking?

Supporting Evidence: Military views about dropping atomic bombs (www.colorado.edu)
2 years ago | Side: No
4 points

It would depend on your definition of "peace." One definition of peace is simply a time of no war. Under that definition, of course. Ending a war results in "peace." But then you wouldn't "achieve" anything. You went from peace to war and then back to peace.

So it would depend on what you mean by "peace."

2 years ago | Side: yes
Skaruts(155) Disputed
3 points

Ending a war doesn't mean peace. It only means they stop shooting each other. But it doesn't necessarily mean they will love each other after that.

It's the same as with two kids ranting about something to the point they yell at each other. At some point they start fighting physicaly. And some time later, either one of them is taking a beating and the other one claims victory, or they both get tired and stop the agressions. Do they then go play football together as if nothing happened? No. They will still hate each other, at least for some time. And in that time the possibility that they may fight again is fairly high. And most likely their disagreement will never be solved. They will just hopefuly get over it over time. But even so, the existence of that unsolved disagreement may still become a reason for a fight in the future.

So, what did their fight solve? Did it bring peace between them? Nothing, and No. If their first discussion had been reasonable, they might not reach an agreement, but they might still be friends and, who knows, an agreement might come someday. But since it turned into a fight, it created hostility between them, that most likely will bring more fights. That's what war does, with the exception of isolated cases like hitler, where most countries were actualy forced into war, and when the nazis were safely contained it all ended and germany was no longer an threat, thus lost the enemy status (maybe after some time, even, but I don't know about that).

2 years ago | Side: No
Apollo(1586) Disputed
4 points

Ending a war doesn't mean peace.

That's the definition of peace.

It only means they stop shooting each other. But it doesn't necessarily mean they will love each other after that.

That's not what peace is. All "peace" is is a time without war, not some idealistic utopia of togetherness.

2 years ago | Side: yes
minnieloveme(11) Disputed
2 points

According to most sources about the World War II in Pacific, Japan had surrendered to the British and the Allies which resulted the total peace ending up the bloody and terrifying war. In this case, after several years, the Axis Power nations we're already associated with its neighboring countries like the US and others. It's just after the event that the Axis Nations fought for supremacy and glory but tragically lost to more powerful Allies. In this instance, war is a bridge to achieve more productive and understanding Treaty or Peace among nations.

2 years ago | Side: yes
3 points

It would depend on your definition of "peace." One definition of peace is simply a time of no war.

Indeed, perhaps I should have been more specific.

Ideally, I see the possibility that our species can stop fighting over small fractions of this tiny blue pixel we call Earth, and evolve, awaken, develop into a peaceful species. That would mean no more wars, none. That would mean no more oppression, none. No more intolerance, none. And no more undue suffering by way of making resources scarce in order to make a buck on our fellow human.

Practically however, I see the probability of something like this (considering our continuous destructive behavior, greed, ignorance, intolerance, and struggle for power) to be either far out of our reach, or unattainable if our destructive behavior leads to the very extinction of the species before we can break out of this infantile state.

My ideal concept is what I mean personally as peace, but a very basic definition of peace would be ‘no war.’ If a government terms the lull in between wars as a state of “peace,” but oppression, and intolerance still exist during that time, then perhaps it’s not my definition of the word that you should be concerned with.

I implore you to even consider a very basic definition of the word in regard to the debate question. You support the affirmative position that we can achieve peace through war, please elaborate on how war can achieve peace, because as you said yourself: "Ending a war results in 'peace.' but then you wouldn't 'achieve' anything.

So using a basic definition here is the debate question again:

Can we achieve peace (no war) through war?

2 years ago | Side: No
3 points

If you are oppressed, coerced, etc can you defend yourself by attacking?

A good defense is a good offense, and a war may eradicate oppressors, coercers, and so forth while showing others that it isn't smart to mess with you. If you want peace, prepare for war.

2 years ago | Side: yes
3 points

Of course we can achieve peace through war! What are y'all, a bunch a' hippies? All we's gotta do is go in there an kill ery last un of em Moozlims, and maybe those Hindoos, too, what with thair shaved heads an sitting down all weardly an all! It aint natural! That's right, we'll sure as heaven have peace on tha day all those goshdarned pagans have been swallowed up by the very ground they walkt on!

2 years ago | Side: yes
Liber(1718) Disputed
3 points

I digressed, of course.

I believe that there is only one way that war can ever achieve peace, and that is by destroying the whole of humanity, for if there are but two human beings still alive and together, then there shall be disagreements between them which could very well lead to violence.

2 years ago | Side: No
2 points

Whilst it is true that a lot must be paid for war, the question is, if the price is worth the changes it'll bring in overcoming the conflict of interests?..........

Case in point: Gandhi had won freedom for his people through every non-violent methods that scarred many who were victims of impeccable british treatment.

Whilst freedom was truly granted and a large scale revolution or war would've caused the loss of millions of life, the amusing fact herein is, millions paid for not having a war.

The world wars brought with them famines for many parts of india which were STILL taxed to finance the british's exploits. Thus the people were not able to sustain themselves and yes MILLIONS had lost their lives, a better administration after a revolution would've lessened if not completely eliminated a death toll.

2 years ago | Side: The Indian Example
2 points

Yes peace can be achieved by war and it has been proved. War has been the solution to many things such as peace.

2 years ago | Side: yes
Coldfire(614) Disputed
2 points

Can you please give an example of how "it has been proved" that peace can be acheived by (or through) war?

2 years ago | Side: No
NZgirl(15) Disputed
1 point

Of course it hasn't been "proved!"

This is a debating site - yeah?! If it had been proved, there would be no debate. There are only opinions. That's what it's all about, and having supporting material too.

2 years ago | Side: yes

HAHA! I want to say that I agree that war is a solution in certain circumstances. If you are invaded and you defend yourself, you are half the cause of a war, but it's better than the alternative.

The reason I laugh is because your statement is saying that among other things, war is a solution to peace...it certainly is :)

12 days ago | Side: Yes
2 points

In my opinion war is crucial to ridding the world of people/places that have made an effort to disrupt human Rights of the area and as such they should be met with punishment equal to there acts, furthermore i would argue that war is needed to stop things such as slavery which is a just war.

2 years ago | Side: yes
Coldfire(614) Disputed
2 points

In my opinion war is crucial to ridding the world of people/places that have made an effort to disrupt human Rights

And in doing so, we effectively become the ones who disrupt human rights ourselves, namely the right to life. Of course we always think we are the ones who are doing the right thing, but often times when we look at a situation from another perspective, our opinions can do a complete 180.

Here is a passage from a book I would suggest anyone to read entitled “Endgame” by Derrick Jensen: (its pretty long but worth it in my opinion)

“Let’s tell this story again: Last Tuesday nineteen Arab terrorists unleashed

their fanaticism on the United States by hijacking four planes, each containing

scores of innocent victims. These terrorists, who do not value life the way

we Americans do, slammed two of the planes into the World Trade Center

and a third into the Pentagon. Courageous men and women in the fourth

plane wrestled with their attackers and drove the plane into the ground, sacrificing

themselves rather than allowing the killers to attack the headquarters

of the CIA or any other crucial target. Our government will find and punish

those who masterminded the attack…

…Here is another version of the same story: Last Tuesday nineteen young men

made their mothers proud. They gave their lives to strike a blow against the

United States, the greatest terrorist state ever to exist. This blow was struck in

response to U.S. support for the dispossession and murder of Palestinians, to

the forced installation of pro-Western governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and

many other countries, to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed

by U.S. bombs, to the nine thousand babies who die every month as a direct

result of U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and to the irradiation of Iraq with depleted

uranium. More broadly, it was a response to the CIA-backed murder of

650,000 people in Indonesia, and to the hundreds of thousands murdered by

U.S.-backed death squads in Central and South America. To the four million

civilians killed in North Korea. To the theft of American Indian land and the

killings of millions of Indians…

…Here’s another version: Last Tuesday was a tragedy for the planet, and at

least a temporary victory for rage and hatred. But let us not seek to pinpoint

blame, nor meet negativity with negativity. The terrorists were wrong to act

as they did, but to meet their violence with our own would be just as wrong.

Violence never solves anything. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye only ends

up making the whole world blind.” Even if you believe the United States and

the global economy are fundamentally destructive, you cannot use the master’s

tools to dismantle the master’s house. The most important thing any of

us can do is eradicate the anger that lies within our own hearts, that wounds

the world as surely as do all the hijackers in Arabia and all the bombs in the

United States. If I wish to experience peace, I must provide peace for another.

If I wish to heal another’s anger, I must first heal my own.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To see the entire free excerpt that I retrieved this passage from click the link below for the pdf.

Supporting Evidence: Free Endgame excerpt on PDF (www.sevenstories.com)
2 years ago | Side: No
Sabina07714(12) Disputed
2 points

I don't agree with you!!

I think that first of all, no matter how critical the situation is necessary to consider the pros and cons.

In the story known first and second world wars. But who will ultimately suffer? People.Spilled so much blood of innocent people. Many wives and children were left alone

First of all we must try to come to an agreement or reconciliation of the parties and find a common language.

2 years ago | Side: No
2 points

Yes we can. Human nature is based on conflict anyway. In almost all organisms on Earth, a display of strength is needed to show who is in charge and at the top. As long as someone who is in charge maintains order peace can be achieved easily. It is only when opposing sides come together when conflict results.

2 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

War can provide what we need for a better future. And can fade into distant past in the present future

World peace..... when people say that i think of one banner ruleing the entire world under one gloryous planet united and free to prosper and further advance there understanding of the world. This is what all men should stride for. However politics is ever changing from the cavemen time till now there are pointless wars.

Nations have come close to being able to seize world peace. Despite having to kill alot of people to do it. But when i think back more than 100 years i feel nothing when it says how many die. My life is here and now. And my world is not at peace ..... AND I KNOW ONE THING. i would die for world peace. and i would kill as much as needed. And i would hate myself. But i know that if we did . and 1000 years later men looked back and felt nothing for us i would be happy in the knowledge that No one else must achive this and live can advance so quickly and life can finaly be free and beautiful.

How ever this is not here yet and i would die and kill Millions more. so that billions will not have to

If this happened alot of bad shit would go down but it would be far more positive

Nothing is impossible stride to peace the present will be the past the past is what defines the future. And in the future we forget the past and look to the present and will it be one or still ravaged with pointless wars

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Yes we can because if we fight, then we are going to prove that in order for war to stop there needs to be peace.

2 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

I really think in the future the bad guys would finally listen to us and achieve peace because war I know we win but people die doing it until 4/450,000,000 only survive or at least figure something out to not die in the war.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Nuclear bombs on hiroshima?

Ww2 is over

I

Sorry but its possible

1 year ago | Side: Yes

For peace first their has to be war, everybody who does not want peace and human rights first need to be rid of for the world to live in harmony

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

i say that peace is what happens when trust and chance is shared among countrys!

this has never happened.

1 year ago | Side: Yes

Peace being achieved through war implies that there isn't initial peace. If there is initial peace, then a war ends that peace. If one is in a state of war, then there is no way to achieve peace but through the given war.

Can one achieve peace through war? Not where peace exists.

Can one achieve peace in a war but without going through it? No of course not.

12 days ago | Side: Yes
5 points

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Theodore Roosevelt

The price of war is too much.

2 years ago | Side: No

The notion of perpetual war brings perpetual peace is absurd. War never brings peace, it only creates more war.

2 years ago | Side: No
mr-kidd(9) Disputed
2 points

thar is no way to bring more war if thar is no one to mack war. the simpol truth is that if you have no more oponets then you have no woryes and if the grates thret you have to face is some one in your kingdom rather then somone els in thare kingdom the thret becoms much ezyer to deyol with

2 years ago | Side: yes
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
4 points

So peace, to you, is killing anyone who would disagree with the ruling party?

I wouldn't even want peace, if that were the case.

2 years ago | Side: No
3 points

We still have wars today. This proves that peace is not achieved.

2 years ago | Side: No
Apollo(1586) Disputed
5 points

We still have wars today. This proves that peace is not achieved.

No. Peace is a temporary state. It is not something that, once "achieved," is permanent. Peace comes and goes. Wars are merely times between peace.

The fact that we still have wars today only proves we can't SUSTAIN peace.

2 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Perpetual peace is achievable because of free trade and markets, but when it is constricted, war breaks out due to the scarcity of resources. All wars are fought over the scarcity of resources. War is taking what they have instead of producing then trading for what they produce.

So, instead of being productive through free markets and trade, war is destructive because natural resources are destroyed, which are the factors of original production, and people are killed. The two fundamental resources to production is nature and people, perpetual wars are the reason why there is no sustained peace.

HOW DO WARS ACTUALLY CREATE PEACE?

2 years ago | Side: No
2 points

You are right. Peace is a temporary state. I was about to dispute you that it can be a permanent state, but the fact is, we can't prove that. Permanent last forever and forever can never go away whether earth exists or not.

2 years ago | Side: yes
Skaruts(155) Disputed
2 points

Peace is not a temporary state. Peace is a state in which humans are totaly responsible for it's continuosity. Wars never solved any issues between countries, except the liberation of opression in such countries that had it, and the destruction of dictatorships, such as hitler's (yes, without capital H, for I disagree that such a being deserves that).

All wars except those I aforementioned as exceptions have left all involved coutries with the same views as they were before, only with the added general opinion that the offending ones are a bunch of assholes. Only over time their issues were slowly softened (if you will) or even solved through other means than war, leading to the world we have today where Japan and russia and the US aren't necessarily enemies.

It all comes from political or religious interests (being economic interests in the political category in my point of view), and those are only solved by having the relevant polititions of each country discussing the matter, not by killing millions of unrelated innocents (soldiers included there) because they are losing power over petroleum interests like the US was getting into under Bush's time.

We can't sustain peace because we're too greedy and selfish and stupid to elect people that share these same adjectives. And we're too stupid to solve problems in a way that no one gets harmed. Wars don't come and go, we bring them.

2 years ago | Side: No
Coldfire(614) Disputed
2 points

No. Peace is a temporary state. It is not something that, once "achieved," is permanent.

According to whom? Feel free to give me any definition you can find, cite the source, and then proceed to explain how peace (by said definition) can be acheived through wars specifically. Not ending of wars, but the creation of them. How can the creation of war lead to peace?

The fact that we still have wars today only proves we can't SUSTAIN peace.

Okay, you've made your point, peace can refer to the period of time in between wars, I get it. You can stop playing the fool now and add something constructive to the debate.

If peace in this debate means "a period of time with no war," (or any other definition you can find for that matter) my question is whether or not we can achieve that by creating more wars.

2 years ago | Side: No
3 points

We will never gain any sort of peace through war.

War only brings war. Defeating your enemy usually brings along a grudge and a need for revenge, bring war back into the picture.

All we gain is more war, and more broken families.

2 years ago | Side: No
3 points

peace cannot be achieved thru war but thru consenses agreement,so i entreat all manner of people to enbrass dialogue in solving a situation.

2 years ago | Side: No
2 points

It kind of depends on where you have the war and such. But I strongly believe that you can't achieve through war for EVERYONE. But you can't achieve it through different war tactics and plans for yourself I suppose.

2 years ago | Side: No
2 points

I totally disagree! People, TOTALLY! We CANNOT achieve peace through war.

How you can say that we can achieve peace through war? I even cannot say these words together!

Definetely, people cannot do something bad (war, murderers, bomb attacks, and so on) in order to get good results, especially peace.

Do you know consequences of wars? Undoubtedly, it is incredible bad!

People died, buildings ruined, environment destroyed!

Hence, what kind of peace can be if there is too much viloence in the world?

2 years ago | Side: No
Arcane(59) Disputed
1 point

But we have had many advancements as a result of war. Medicine, safety, tolerance, technology. All of it is increased after a war. War is, ironically, a time when people come together for a common cause, regardless of their differences. And saying that something bad cannot bring good things afterward is a false statement. Let's say if someone murdered another person. That would cause negative effects to the murderer, the victim's family/friends, and community. But the murderer could feel remorse and as a result, look for a counselor to become a better person. The community could help out the victim's family financially and emotionally and begin a program to help prevent crime from happening in that area. The murderer could also "turn a new leaf" and even apologize sincerely to the victim's family/friends, maybe filling the gap caused by the murder. You cannot have something bad without something good following it. In a school where bullying is an extreme problem, students and staff could come together to prevent it, building new relationships in the process.

2 years ago | Side: yes
20112618(22) Disputed
1 point

So, how can you say that apologise of murderer can fill the gap caused by him?!

Yes, probably you know that there are some financial/emotional help from the government, although do you believe that it can help to injured side?

I do not think that it will help to victim's family, they will not just care about whether the murderer become better person or not, due to their relative died! /Nothing can replace died person, even billions of dollars/

Consequently, why don't you consider about achieving something new and necessary without war or killing people?

As example, many great inventions were invented in peaceful time, therefore, humanity easily can achieve anything (I mean good things) without war.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

No we can't. War has gone on for many years and I still don't see any improvement. War is just stupid. We shouldn't waste our time fighting if we aren't getting anywhere with it. The goal is to get peace right? If we're not doing that, then why fight?

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

What do parents teach their children to do during a fight?- To use their words to express their feelings, not to blow each other up.

Plus, no amount of land or oil is worth a human life. War is the opposite of peace. Therefore, using war to achieve peace is going to do more evil than good.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

However, it can be achieved through international governance and trade. Most of the wars since the end of the Second World War have been civil rather than international in nature. The international system today incorporates a lot of the tenets of Immanuel Kant's "Perpetual Peace." On the subject of those civil conflicts though, many groups go to war to correct economic inequalities or improve their human security situation, but engaging in war is widely agreed upon to make human security worse. In general, it's pretty counterproductive.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I can't say exactly that a war is the only way to get peace. I am just going to express my own view point which is right according to my world view. Ofcourse there are a lot of examples where peace is achieved through wars, but what cost is payed for that...I think violence is the last way which we should use to achieve our goals and especially peace, because real peace can't be achieved through wars.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I believe peace can not be achieved through war. We must find out the causes of war and try to eradicate them. The important thing is that all the political leaderes of the world must recognize the importance of peace, economic development and dialog with their people who elected them and try to listen to the political leaders of foreign countries who have different views and way of thinking.

2 years ago | Side: No
1 point

Peace is the worlds great lie, it is most impossible to find a solution. WAR. the word applies that both sides have an equal chance of winning. in war when one side concers the other side is left to cower in fear and rage.

1 year ago | Side: No
1 point

you can never build real happiness over the deaths of others. war will only create pain. pain will create hatred and hatred will create war..why can nobody understands that ?

1 year ago | Side: No
1 point

according Lord buddah we can't achieve peace through war .and according to Jesus we love even our enemies ,so how can we fight with each other. war is just a word for meaningless. so why should we participate meaningless things? war is a good thing for loosing properties and valuable lives.so what is the profit in that?

1 year ago | Side: No
1 point

WAR IS THE OPPOSITE OF PEACE SO HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE PEACE THROUGH A THING THAT NEVER TALLY WITH.ACCORDING 2 MY IDEAS WAR IS JUST A DESTRUCTION 2 THE WHOLE GLOBE NOT ONLY 2 THE HUMAN RACE.

1 year ago | Side: No

No. Peace can never be permanent. Even the slightest disputes can lead to war. Diplomacy is at least better than war in settling problems. But I don`t think that peace will be attained permanently by any means necessary.

1 year ago | Side: No

Peace being achieved through war implies that there isn't initial peace. If there is initial peace, then a war ends that peace. If one is in a state of war, then there is no way to achieve peace but through the given war.

Can one achieve peace through war? Not where peace exists.

Can one achieve peace in a war but without going through it? No of course not.

12 days ago | Side: No


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.