JohnDoeLS

Game of Thrones definitely isn't nihilistic and kill off good characters at random, if it was, Jamie and Bronn would be dead the moment that Dragon showed up.

I don't think it's a lack of guilt or shame. It's justifying that guilt and shame, avoiding it and deeming it as something else. It's so easy to justify guilt when you are a believer of yourself, saying "if they were in my place, they would have done the same thing."

It is unique in the degree of its sheer brutality that is still being practised nowadays.

DEA and CIA influence the cartels in Mexico all the time, the only reason the United States doesn't have drones blowing shit up in those conflicts is because there is nothing to gain from those regions they are not as unstable as it is in the Middle East.

That's a pipe dream. The US is always going to send soldiers to wherever place that has conflicts, if not try to manipulate how the situation turns out by supporting the side they like, the end results are always about benefitting them in the end or biting them back in the ass. I am also sure there was a complete withdrawal of the US army in Afghanistan. Even if Islam isn't negatively viewed, this still won't happen. Either way, these wars didn't start because of Islam or the US's want for the rest of the world to conform strictly to their value.

What do you mean?

A culture with sharia law that oppresses women, an unnecessary heavy punishment for minor crimes is objectively regressive, things like killing gays and atheists. Reprehensible facets like this shouldn't be tolerated, this shouldn't even be argued. No one is proposing to start a war over it, nor is anyone saying this should justify anything more than a rejection, which is nothing more than that all of these should not happen in progressive places, anyone can come to progressive countries as long as they share the same progressive value as those countries. On a side note, I don't live in the United States, I happen to live in Singapore, a multi-cultural society and I have a few Muslim friends who are nice and chill people. I know for a fact that the factor for violence cannot be solely put on religion but there is, however, a culture in the Middle East that pushes the violence and regression in Islam constantly and no one really has a good solution to solve it.

I am on the side of rationality. I gave my view on why people might not respect Islam over other religions as the topic had asked and pointed out the regressive elements in the Quran and its main character, I also said I can't be sure because humanity has always found a way to start violence.

What you just said is fundamentally retarded. I hope you are kidding.

No. You are missing the point, I am telling you what these two did to gain respect in contrast with each other, one was clearly more peaceful than the other and hence why people see one better than the other. I know what moral relativism is but should you accept cannibalism? No one should automatically reject culture but no one should tolerate ones that are clearly regressive.

Jesus Christ turns the other cheeks and dies for people's sins instead of resorting to violence.

I can't be sure, it's been around in my mind for a while. There is definitely a significant amount of violence and regressiveness in Islam's ideas that are being followed, one cannot deny that Islam is sexist, and it's been shown why people might think Christianity is more secular with the different direction the individual MCs takes in their stories, the Prophet approves of polygamy, child marriage, conquest and there is a significant amount of harsh punishment in the story that overshadows it's supposed good elements. It's also important to take note of the other ways humanity has tried to start violence but the tenants that are being followed in Islam right now are literally written in the Quran.

I wouldn't say that, I think Christianity is just as regressive as Islam. It's just that with the presumably more secular and peaceful leaning mindset, there is more respect for Christianity than Islam, although I know that both can be interpreted in a hideous way, one lean towards that a little more.

Sure. The moment the reports of terrorism stops, Sharia laws stopped being taken so seriously, the sexism of woman ceases, and when it's some other radicals blowing things up. The reason it's not respected is mostly due to the terrorism thing. I personally think Islam has some undesirable elements in it, and just like the Bible but what makes Islam more, in a sense, radical is that Christians don't really believe eating shellfish is betraying the command of God or stealing equals death and working on the day of Sabbath deserves a brutal punishment. It's just a little side notes in the book that no one really cares about, because Jesus, with all the "turn the other cheeks", and getting crucified altruism bits overshadows all those things as compared to the Islamic Prophet being a conqueror, one just seems a little more...intense.

Started in the 80s with the Soviet. Or in the 1950s when that religious guy started to talk about Western corruptions. Yeah, I have no idea too. Wasn't Iran pretty progressive before the 1977 revolution? I think the leaning against western corruption and desire to fight western imperialism might be one of them.

What the heck are you talking about here? Where in this, did you claim to write about how his intention of doing it was because he had the hots for anyone's wife? You didn't, here's what you wrote. There are no facts here, you said it yourself. Paranoia, fears, jealousies, and insecurities being awakened in other members. These people are not being logical here, they are unable to see what's good or bad for the trip, are you telling me these are facts now? HOLY SHIT REALLY? No. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THEY WERE SERIES FROM THE FUTURE. But seriously, collective consciousness didn't originate from Star Trek buddy, that was just a way of saying it, don't be ridiculous now. Also what? Why wouldn't they be going into space if they have a collective consciousness? There is still much to gain from explorations, what's the logic here? That is called a conjecture, and logic applied with incomplete information. Sure, that's what happens but how does this relate? A boy doesn't know about cars on the road because his mother didn't bother to explain, and what a comparison, a kid looks at the road all day and sees cars coming and going and he thinks there is no danger on the road. If there isn't enough information What's the relevant information that is missing then? I just told you why a collective consciousness would benefit the trip and here you are telling me about incomplete information to determine if the logic of truth is based on incomplete information, you are not at all telling me what's the incomplete information in finding out if there is something definitive in morals. Finding lies can also contribute to finding truth through the process of eliminations. https://www.google.com/search?q=can+logic+reach+truth%3F&oq=can+logic+reach+truth%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.3940j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic You would have to link me bud. lol. I never say it is definitive that moral truth is absolutely logical, I just found it interesting that if a collective consciousness was in place, that situation of insecurities and paranoia would never arise.

That's interesting since the leader has to be the logical one while the rest of the group succumb to their emotions, if everyone else were logical and was a hive mind, this problem wouldn't exist.

This is a question on whether if there can be a definitive conclusion to moral questions, in other words, a truth. That's why I asked if the truth is supposed to be logical if it is logical for us to kill a person to survive, is it what should be true to the matter, that our life matters more than the others. I swore that I read that truth was a way to debunk mysticism and baseless things a year ago, either way, this doesn't matter. When I say the standard of right and wrong, I am referring to the criteria of truth, for something to be correct, a criteria must be met. My point is, are there absolute truth to moral quandaries? Can we go by an absolute truth? Or are there none at all? And if there is, what if it's illogical? We can technically sustain ourselves currently, even without transportations, and work, we can be sustained by nothing but medicine, food, shelter and water, of course, that's not what we want, so what is the truth to life? Survival or pleasure? Is there an illogical truth to existence, life and moral questions?

Okay.

But isn't your contention that I do not understand love? And, if you were punched, choosing to smile back can be a reaction but if no one else saw it, no one would have an opinion of it, and punching you multiple time while you are smiling really doesn't add anything to the love/hate equation because there must be a reason this person in question is punching you, would it not be better to resolve it than to just keep smiling? Of course, this is part of the context and you just told me how love is truth yet I have shown you how love can be used to participate in evil to produce malice so I am not getting a well-developed answer on the subject.

Great. Was that one-word reply part of that intention? I do not follow.

You win. I can't beat just plain dismissing. Wait, are you trolling me?

Yes. You told me truth means to love and I followed that love can produce malice and hate can produce goodness then you told me I don't understand love. I am not sure what you are saying when you quote your axiom statement, I do not follow.

Well, I can't discuss properly with you if you won't develop.