Zacryon @ Zacryon @feddit.de

Posts

0

Comments

301

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's pacifism and striving for civil solutions to conflicts.

I understand the need of violence to defend yourself and others from violent attacks. And if this is absolutely necessary and there is no other way out, then at least don't commit atrocious crimes, don't kill innocent civilians, don't rape, don't mutilate. This is not acceptable as it is the worst humankind has to offer.

And I think it's of utmost importance for everyone involved in this conflict to find peaceful and civil means. Violence leads to violence. It's a vicious circle hard to escape from. Where would this end? This conflict has been going on since decades with what end? Only death everywhere, broken hearts and destroyed lifes. For what?

When do people stop being so stupid to think that violence is a desirable way to solve conflicts?

Even though I'm not a fan of it, I see the necessity of violent defense if some party is invading your country and killing your people.

However, there is a difference though in how you use that kind of violence to defend yourself. Killing innocent civilians, mutilating or raping them certainly can't be justified in my opinion. Even if one side does this.

Thank you. Even though it's worse enough to lie about that, which makes such claims less trustworthy - and I thank you for the notice - it does not cover the atrocious mutilation of women I talked about earlier.

Thanks a lot for the link! I watched the whole video. This definetly puts things into perspective regarding the trustworthyness of several news reports. I especially liked and agreed with the last part of his talk.

Didn't knew that BBC was a shitty israeli propaganda site. However, I saw this covered on multiple news portals. Could you provide your source that this was debunked? This could change things for me. I don't want to spread fake news of course.

I didn't claim that they did the same. I asked whether it is justified to commit atrocious crimes just because one side crossed a moral line by commiting another (not necessarily similar) atrocious crime.

I have seen this covered on various news portals. I just chose one of them. Why do you think this is fake news?

No. Not in my opinion.

I didn't notice that they were debunked. Could you please provide some sources on that? That could bring me up to speed and change a few things.

Because there is no "experience" after death. You just start to rot.

How come that you refuse this so confidently?

Here just a few works from that wide field:

• Enhanced Interplay of Neuronal Coherence and Coupling in the Dying Human Brain
• AWARE—AWAreness during REsuscitation—A prospective study
• Neurochemical models of near-death experiences: A large-scale study based on the semantic similarity of written reports
• Surge of neurophysiological coupling and connectivity of gamma oscillations in the dying human brain
• Surges of Electroencephalogram Activity at the Time of Death: A Case Series
• Time to loss of brain function and activity during circulatory arrest

To me it sounds like both are justifying it.

Please elaborate how Adolf Hitler used kidnapped civilians as a justification for his actions.

And because one side crossed a moral line that justifies doing the same?

In my opinion raping women, mutilating them, even cutting off their breasts and playing with that (source) crosses a moral line.

I despise violence and condemn both sides for the crimes they are committing.

In pictures: The Ukrainian religious sites ruined by fighting

Probably never. Cutting of breasts of raped women and playing with that did probably also not help (source). Idiots everywhere.

And also fuck Hamas and everyone who thinks that violence and killing are good ideas.

The Abrahamic religions do not have a monopoly on the concept of God.

Yes. I just made few examples on popular concepts. And I can make similar examples for a lot of other concepts. However, to discuss this further, we need some clear definitions.

Do the ridiculous things now ascribed to electricity [...] prove that electricity doesn't exist?

This is a form or erroneous attribution. It reminds me of the luminiferous aether of which physicists thought for a long time that it exists until it was disproven. This is a testable hypothesis. Your pixies might even be testable to a certain degree. But beyond a certain point they aren't. Therefore being in the realm of pseudoscience again.

If we observe electricity, of course elctricity exists. But if we don't know its cause, it's important to investigate it. We have to investigate cause and effect instead of just assuming that a higher power plays a role. That's our only way to gain knowledge and separate fantasy from reality.

And currently, religions with their concepts of deities reside in the realm of fantasy.