>>214025226
Reasonable outlooks, but not unchallengeable.
>cycle of hatred
That wouldn't work per se, as internal affairs exist.
I'm sure you can come up with a lot of hypotheticals right of the bat, where "don't intercede on my affairs" can easily cover things that would force a moral and wilful combat capable person to go full violence simply because the alternative is injustice. Not to mention that it's just a retreat. It's not life.
But there are actually escape clauses here. Conflicts, even murder under economic pretext, they aren't inherently evil. Couple that with unstable, at times illusory nature of the cycles of hatred, that both makes it easier to battle them, and allows, naturally, configurations where people both can do all the stuff but without harming innocents unjustly, assuming participants are mature and self-responsible. Rules of engagement, dueling codexes, etc.
>world peace
That too can be challenged. Happiness isn't an intrinsic property or goal of life, and absense of it doesn't necessarily mean discontent. One's just calm. That alone is good on its own.
>we can't trust each other
>(especially , especially, especially, especially white people)
Pic related.
>to treat one another with human decency, fairness, justice, love, equality, and benevolence.
Likewise, one can't trust anyone, but one doesn't need to, as lack of trust isn't synonymous with preemptive hostility. If anything it's actually unwise.
>All countries should be stripped of nuclear weapons
And that is especially challengeable. Disarming and weakening only gimps capacity to kill, protect and survive. It provides no actual boons, other than to naive people who can't handle power and have no long-term foresight for potential enemies.
Combatting evil is harder when you're weak, and evildoers will only thank you for such handicaps based on ill-informed ideas and misplaced, ill-thought sentiments.