posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:15 AM
The danger of that position, in my mind, when I was deciding which angle to approach from, was having to defeat the perception that peace is merely
the absence of war, which would have had me arguing that nothing is more powerful than something.
Arguing that peace is more than the absence of war necessarily leads one (as far as I can tell) down one of two paths: utopian cooperation (dangerous)
or peace through enticement- soft power, which is more or less where I went.
I cut out the middle man because starting out with the defintion of pen=peace and then moving on into soft power could create the appearance, at least
superficially, that I had lost ground and been forced to redefine the pen as something considerably closer to the sword than it really is (which, come
to think of it, happened anyway, thanks to my shrewd opponent).