> The idea that every problem can be solved peacefully isn't a bad one, but it's just something you have to accept in faith, not something you can ground in truth.
No claim about the future can be grounded in "truth", but I can give a very strong factual basis to peaceful change: Centuries of history, in all the democracies in the world. No other means, including violent revolution, has achieved more positive change for humanity.
> I can give a very strong factual basis to peaceful change: Centuries of history, in all the democracies in the world.
Isn't there just as much (if not more) history for e.g. autocracies? Couldn't you make the same argument for autocracies a few centuries ago? How is the mere existence of democratic history convincing of anything?
> No other means, including violent revolution, has achieved more positive change for humanity.
Wasn't it violent revolution that led to many of these democracies in the first place?
And how in the world am I supposed to argue with abstract claims like that? If you'll claim no other means has achieved better, I'll just claim that, actually, other means have achieved better. I'm sure you're convinced now, right?
No claim about the future can be grounded in "truth", but I can give a very strong factual basis to peaceful change: Centuries of history, in all the democracies in the world. No other means, including violent revolution, has achieved more positive change for humanity.