Best.Korea

The soldier appears to be a black man. In USA, 1 in 30 of black men are in prison. This man too was in prison. He decided he no longer wants to be oppressed.

North Korea saved him from US oppression.

Most of wars, rapes and violence are committed by heterosexuals. Even when adjusted for percentage. Why?

If you are into spanking children, accept this debate so that I may destroy you logically 😊

So many people are saying "boys shouldnt be called girls, boys shouldnt wear a dress".

Those people are transphobic. They are not opposed to surgeries alone. They are opposed to everything that makes trans child a trans.

I was just wondering something.

I could write 5 rounds in advance before the debate even starts, each round using characters to the max and each round containing new arguments instead of defending old arguments. That way, I dont even have to read my opponent's case or his refutations.

I say this, because reading what other person writes is often boring and sometimes too long.

However, I do like reading my own arguments. So I figured I can probably just skip on reading opponent's case.

Do I want for the world to be ruled by Putin?

Of course not. Only a crazy person would want that.

Do I want for the world to be ruled by USA? Of course not. USA is ruled by idiots who cant separate whats right from whats ideology.

Now, the third option might be China, which is worse than USA and Russia combined.

So it seems that in this battle, good guys cannot win because there are no good guys.

Literally, this is just one evil fighting with the other evil.

Good isnt even involved in this battle. So its not a battle of good vs evil, as media tries to paint it.

The battle is evil vs evil. So one of those evils will win.

Good cannot win, because there is no good.

P1. Good way to prevent pain of someone is to prevent birth of that someone.

P2. Abortion prevents birth of that someone.

C. Good way to prevent pain of someone is to have an abortion

Abortion is not only justified, but morally required in order to be a good person.

By law of morality: "Do not cause more pain than you remove",

Giving birth simply doesnt work. The world is cruel, and bringing the most sentient being in the world where that being will be tortured is simply a cruel action.

Justice is a moral principle described by 4 things:

1) What is banned for one is banned for all

2) What is allowed for one is allowed for all

3) What is mandatory for one is mandatory for all

4) Standard that judges one is a standard that judgeds all

For example, if everyone is allowed to do what makes them happy without destroying happiness of others, then homosexuals are allowed to do what makes them happy without destroying happiness of others. Engaging in homosexual activity doesnt destroy anyone's happiness, therefore it is allowed. Someone might say "it makes me unhappy to see all those homosexuals". However, there is nothing about homosexuality that prevents you from being happy and doing what makes you happy, and your hate is the one preventing homosexuals from being happy. More happiness is destroyed by hating homosexuals than it is gained by you not having to watch them.

Nonmaleficence is a moral law that says how you shouldnt do evil. You shouldnt do actions that cause more evil than they remove. It is also known as negative consequentialism.

Beneficence, on the contrary, says that you must act in a way that is good, or best. You must act in a way that your action brings good or brings more good than evil. If you can do good, you must.

The difference between Nonmaleficence and Beneficence is that Nonmaleficence tells you what you musnt do. Beneficence tells you what you must do.

For example, donating your kidney would likely save someone's life. By the law of Nonmaleficence, you dont have to donate your kidney. You are allowed to do it, but you dont have to. Nonmaleficence commands you not to do evil, but it does not command you to do good or to do whats best. You can do no good, but also do no evil. Or you can do no evil, and only do a little bit of good.

However, by Beneficence, you would have to donate a kidney, since Beneficence commands you to do the greatest good.

Of course, this depends on how good and evil are defined, but you get the idea about the difference between Nonmaleficence and Beneficence.

Now, there is also a third idea, which is Rules. 

Unlike Nonmaleficence and Beneficence, which are consequentialist theories that weight good and evil, Rules are moral absolutes that say how you must follow them even if following them produces evil.

For example, if you say "I will always tell the truth", then by that rule you would have to tell the truth even when doing so causes nothing but harm.

Rules, also known as deontology, do not weight good and evil. Rather, they maintain that certain actions are wrong in all circumstances. For example, "it is wrong to lie" means that you shouldnt lie even if it can save your life.

There are advantages to Rules over consequentialism, since Rules are in most cases easier to understand and follow.

For example, if I accept that lying is wrong, then I wont lie in any situation, even when lying would result in something good.

If I accept that violence is wrong, then I will not commit violence in any situation.

Rules dont require us to weight good and evil. Weighting good and evil may seem good and desirable, however the truth is that most people arent capable of weighting good and evil in complicated situations. Therefore, Rules are more suitable for most people.

Rule consequentialism is a form of combination of Rules and consequentialism, where we dont do things that are famous for having bad outcomes, and do things that are famous for having good outcomes. Therefore, Rules would be made according to that which is good in great majority of cases.

For example, "Do not kill", "Do not lie" or "Do not steal" are rules that are good in great majority of cases, therefore should always be followed.

Kant's Categorical Imperative is a way of making rules by simply asking what would happen if everyone did certain action.

For example:

1. Would society be horrible if everyone was stealing things from others?

2. Would society be good if no one was stealing things from others?

Since 1 and 2 are answered with yes, it follows that stealing is wrong. Therefore, the rule "Do not steal" is a universal law that we should always follow, according to Categorical Imperative. Even if stealing would result in good, for example stealing to donate to charity, it is still wrong.

I think this pretty much covers these three moral theories.

Most schools teach:

1) Knowledge

2) Rules, that are followed correctly by the lack of a certain bad action

What schools dont teach is doing good things, that is, doing the actions that are good.

Children are told to be quiet, to not cause problems. But children are not told "You must donate to charity today".

So why is following rules more important than doing good things?

If children were forced to do good things, wouldnt it be more likely that they will do more good things as adults?

I couldnt help noticing that society is slowly going back to oppressing transgender individuals.

I consider oppression of any kind to be bad not just for an individual, but for society as a whole.

Building society on hate should never be anyone's goal, as societies built on hate cannot last.

Transgender individuals have right to happiness. Preventing their happiness wont increase your happiness, but it will increase their pain.

Our society, in which just few decades ago your parents would kick you out of house if you told them you were gay and you would be homeless, today oppresses individuals who just want to be what they are.

Some people simply cannot accept that a person can want to be something more than what was given to that person at birth.

It costs you nothing to simply admit that a person can be what that person wants to be.

To place people in roles, against their will, is the same as enslaving them. Those roles, that people talk about, came from oppressive societies that existed in history. Those roles belong in history, not in present.

You wouldnt force someone to get married. You wouldnt force someone to have kids. Yet you want to force someone to be something simply because it suits your view.

However, we do not get to impose our views on others, as that is oppression.

If you want to be called the way you like to be called, why call others the way they dont want to be called?

If you want to be called a man, why call other person a man if that person wants to be called a woman?

It costs you nothing to call people the way they want to be called.

If you want to do that which makes you happy, why prevent others from doing the same?

After all, the standard is only just if it is universal.

If you dont want to feel pain, then you should also not want for others to be in pain.

Even if their pain is not your pain, it still follows that pain is bad irrelevant of who feels it.

If you desire freedom, then desire freedom for all. Desiring freedom only for yourself is both unjust and greedy.

Transgender persons cannot be denied of right to do what they want with their bodies.

If we do not own our body, then what do we own? Nothing. 

If someone else gets to decide what we do with our bodies, then that person owns our bodies. If someone else owns our bodies, that is slavery.

You have nothing to lose by respecting others.

So why not do it? 

100 years ago, scientists said that gay is wrong and a mental illness.

Today, scientists say that gay is okay.

Therefore, science changes its mind all the time.

Bible never changes its mind because Bible is the Infallible Word of God. Bible can never be proven wrong.

Science was proven wrong many times. For example, scientists used to claim that smoking is healthy.

Science changes. But my Bible doesnt.

My Bible will say the same thing in 20 years as it does today. Scientists wont. Thats because Bible is infallible, and science makes mistakes all the time.

Would you trust a person who changes his mind often?

Nuh-uh.

Before you all get upset about this topic, try to abandon your defensive stance for a second to actually understand what I am about to tell you.

In our society, there are lots of men who have consensual sex with women.

However, there are also men who are completely rejected by women. Lets talk about those men, and see how society encourages them to rape women.

If a man cant have sex consensually, then he can:

1. Stay a virgin

2. Rape

Our society should, by all standards in such cases, encourage 1 and condemn 2.

However, our society condemns 1.

By condemning 1,

by calling virgin men incels and losers, society is pushing virgin men towards committing 2.

Consider this example:

If a man rapes a woman, they call him an abuser.

If he doesnt rape her, they call him an incel.

So why is a person punished for choosing not to rape?

By all standards, 1 should be encouraged, but our society discourages and punishes 1.

So naturally, the question is: why?

Why punish people for being virgins? Why insult people who are virgins?

If somebody cant get sex consensually, thats not his fault. So why tease and insult someone for something thats not his fault?

This is especially common among young people, where they shame others for being virgins.

So one must wonder, why does society punish those who choose not to rape anyone?

Have you ever wondered how some people are able to have endless conversations about the dumbest things possible?

It seems that there are people who are able to have daily endless conversations about cats, dogs, cars...

Now, to have endless conversation where both sides are constantly agreeing with each other seems impossible. Yet I see people do it all the time.

I figured out there must be a pattern.

And yes, there is a pattern.

Take this example, just to make a case:

"Cat owners are people of high class and good being."

This sentence says:

Cat owners = people of high class.

Cat owners = people of good being.

Therefore, "cat owners" are put in group of "people of good being" and in the group of "people of high class".

How would you respond, to continue the conversation?

Very simple.

You must do one of these:

1) Say what other group belongs in group of "people of good being"

Or

2) Say what other group belongs in group of "people of high class"

Or

3) Say what other group do "cat owners" belong in.

Or 

4) Say what other group belongs in "cat owners"

Or

5) Say what group do "people of high class" belong in

6) Say what group do "people of good being" belong in.

So the conversation goes like:

-Cat owners are people of high class and good being

Response:

-I would say that dog owners are people of good being too 

Therefore, we place "dog owners" in group of "people of good being" to continue the conversation.

Simply, no matter what the other person says, just use one group the person previously mentioned and add something to it or add that group to something.

-Cat owners are people of high class and good being

- I would say that dog owners are people of good being too

-I agree, dog owners love animals in the same way cat owners do

-Loving animals is a sign that person loves everyone and cares about others

-If my cat has a problem, I care for her as if she is a human being. Her pain becomes my pain.

-If people dont care for the pain of an animal, how can they care for pain of humans?

-Humans need to help animals, since they are so similar to us

-Some people think that they have no duty to help animals. That bothers me.

-If someone is suffering, they have a duty. Everyone needs to know that.

-I dont understand how can people still hunt animals and increase their suffering. I would feel disgusted if I lived off someone's suffering.

And so on to infinity. Two persons can basically ramble forever by just using groups previously mentioned by other person, and then adding to those groups or adding those groups to something.

Do you like disjunctive syllogism?

Of course you do.

Despite complicated name, its actually very simple logic.

It will rain today or I wont bring an umbrella.

If one sentence is true, the other isnt. Very simple.

It is true that it will rain today.

It is false that I wont bring an umbrella.

Homosexuals deserve human rights or homosexuals should be tortured.

It is true that homosexuals deserve human rights, therefore it is false that homosexuals should be tortured.

Disjunctive syllogism is there to show options in arguments. It is usually consisted of 2 opposite options, where one must be true and one must be false.

It is useful in limiting your opponent's case and forcing him to argue for things he doesnt want to argue for.

This logic can be consisted of more than two options, however all options in it must be in the form of "one of these is right, the rest are false" logic.

Presenting options is useful to make case clear and to present the consequences of each option being true or false.

Given that some pedophiles are sentenced to 300 years of abuse in prison, death penalty seems like a relief at that point.

Do you like conditional syllogism?

It is very simple form of logic, and its also cute.

If it rains today, then I will bring an umbrella.

It rains today.

I will bring an umbrella.

If prices went up, I will buy less.

Prices went up.

I will buy less.

If gay people arent harming anyone, then gay people should not be harmed.

Gay people arent harming anyone.

Gay people should not be harmed.

Conditional syllogism is useful in an argument, as it lets you establish a link between two sentences.

If sentence 1 is true, then sentence 2 is true.

Sentence 1 is true.

Sentence 2 is true.

Who likes categorical syllogism?

I sure do.

Now, dont be scared by the name "categorical syllogism". 

Its actually not scary, but very simple form of logic.

All cats are animals.

All animals eat food.

Therefore, all cats eat food.

Simple, isnt it?

Its like math:

X = Y

Y = Z

Therefore

X = Z

Or in a different form:

X = Y

Z = X 

Z = Y

All people deserve human rights.

All gays are people.

All gays deserve human rights.

All gays are people.

All people deserve human rights.

All gays deserve human rights.

And that is categorical syllogism form of argument.

LGBT said at the start:

"It is about consensual adults"

Which changed to 

"We should indoctrinate kids about LGBT"

Which changed to

"You are an abuser if you dont let us indoctrinate your kid into LGBT ideology"

Which changed to

"Kids can get hormone injections which could castrate them"

Which changed to

"Kids can have sex change surgery and castrate themselves if they want"

In Europe, a 12 year old had a sex change surgery.

So at this point, its obvious that its not about consensual adults anymore.

In short, LGBT lied. They said "its about adults". You believed them.

These days, LGBT is saying "We will never accept pedophiles".

Will you believe LGBT?

You believed them before. It turned out they were lying. Will you believe them again?

Given that there will be no actual food, you could eat insects and wild edibles if thats your only option. The other choice would be starvation or fight for remaining actual food.

Also, would all water become radioactive? Yeah, that might force you to collect rainwater.

Of course, eating insects and wild edibles will make you skinny like Eugenia, but at least you wont be hungry and starve. 

Also, you wont be a threat to anyone, so increased chances of survival.

Christians are increasingly saying: "We shouldnt tell homosexuals that they will burn in hell! Its rude.".

If that wasnt bad enough, then comparing transgender shooter to Jesus Christ is where one thing became obvious.

Christians are changing.

They are literally re-interpreting the Bible and claiming that it means something it never meant before.

Therefore, all people for thousands of years interpreted Bible incorrectly? What?

These people today are false Christians.

Sorry but homosexuality is wrong. I have every right to say that homosexuality is wrong by the Bible.

Bible does tell us to love and tolerate, but it also tells us to say whats wrong and whats right.

Thats why I say: homosexuality is wrong.

I believe its obvious that homosexuals are not God's favorite people.

If any homosexual does pervert stuff and thinks he's gonna be rewarded for that by the God who specifically pointed out that he hates perverts and homosexuals, well, I dont know what to tell him.

Delusions are strong today.

Attraction doesnt seem like a choice. I mean, if it was a choice, person could change it any time a person chooses. However, it just seems impossible to change an attraction by choice.

Homosexual man could try not to look at men. However, he would still have imagination, because he would not be able to forget how men look like.

Acting on an attraction is a choice, of course. Therefore, when homosexual man chooses to act on his attraction, that is choice.

Lets think of this in a different way. God could have made me a homosexual. If He did, I would not be able to change it. I cannot change attraction by simply wishing it to change.

Now, Bible tells us not to judge, not to seek revenge and to love everyone.  That is what The New Testament is about.

That doesnt mean that we cannot tell homosexuals who engage in homosexual acts that what they are doing is wrong and that God will punish them for it.

Attraction is not a choice. Action is.

Now, I do believe there is an argument to be made here.

P1) Exposing children to sexuality harms children

C) Children shouldnt be exposed to sexuality

P2) If exposing children to sexuality harms children, then children shouldnt be exposed to sexuality.

Porn is an exposure to sexuality. Therefore, children who see porn would be exposed to sexuality.

Neuroscientific studies indicate that when minors who are frequently verbally abused reach adolescence, “they are less creative and curious, they are less capable of acquiring new knowledge and more prone to experience sadness and depression,” says David Bueno i Torrens, a biologist specialized in genetics and neuroscience and director of the first chair in neuroeducation in Spain, at the University of Barcelona. The same areas of the brain are activated, explains the biologist; what changes is the relationship between the different areas. “With negative education, the brain amygdala becomes more reactive to negative emotions, and the area that manages emotions, the prefrontal, becomes less capable of managing anxiety and stress,” he continues. Those minors, more apathetic, have a harder time finding motivation. In their search for stimuli, they may fall into drug use.

If atheism is right, both Christians and atheists end the same.

If Christianity is right, then most of the atheists go to hell to burn.

Pascal's wager is a probability based argument that says that we should believe in God to increase our chances of happy afterlife.

Now, no matter how many other options are there besides atheism and Christianity, it still logically follows that being a Christian increases your chances of happy afterlife more than being an atheist does.

There are basically these relevant options:

1) There is no God - Christians and atheists end up same

2) There is God who punishes Christians and rewards atheists - Atheists end up better than Christians

3) There is God who punishes atheists and rewards Christians - Christians end up better than atheists

The option 2) is the only argument against Pascal's wager.

If option 2) is proven less likely than option 3), then it logically follows that Christians are more likely to have a happy afterlife.

But how likely is the option 2)?

Is option 2) more likely than option 3) or equally likely as option 3)?

I would say not even close. First, if there was a God who rewarded atheists and punished Christians, such God would have to be immoral since most of Christians have similar or better morality than what atheists have. Therefore, the only way to argue against Pascal's Wager is to assume that immoral God is just as likely as moral God, and to assume that such immoral God for some reason prefers atheists over Christians. Such God would also need to be unreasonable God, since its unreasonable to prefer atheists when there was no proof or even a hint given during our lifetime that atheism is the correct path.

Second, the greatest religions on Earth are against atheism. So the God who prefers atheists for some reason created religions that are implying how atheism is wrong. These religions are all built on morality. Therefore, God who prefers atheists would punish those who follow morality.

So any God who prefers atheism would have to be immoral and unreasonable.

So, if we know that there are only 3 options for afterlife:

1) Atheists and Christians ending up same

2) Atheists ending up better than Christians

3) Christians ending up better than atheists

Option 1 is neutral, therefore it doesnt affect happy afterlife.

Option 3) is more likely than option 2), since moral and reasonable God is more likely than immoral and unreasonable God who prefers atheism.

Therefore, we can say that Christians are more likely to have better afterlife than atheists are. Atheism just doesnt seem worth the risk.

Now, I am not one of those Christians who believe that all atheists go to hell. In fact, God rewards according to good actions that a person does. We cannot say that all good actions of atheists will be negated due to atheism.

However, if a person is an atheist, it does increase his chances of being immoral. For example, most of the atheists are in favor of abortions, in favor of LGBT.

So it basically comes down to morality of a person.

Is fun worth the risk?

Its not even worth the risk in this life. Plenty of sexual partners make people depressed and suicidal. Alcohol, drugs, speeding... any sin really makes life worse.

You dont choose the place where you are born.

However, the place where you are born greatly affects your life and your decisions.

First, being born in loving and caring family greatly increases your chances of becoming a good person later in life.

Second, being born in an abusive family where you are hurt and neglected greatly increases your chances of becoming a bad person later in life.

From this, only one conclusion can be made.

There is a person who, if born in loving and caring family, would become a good person.

That same person, if born in an abusive family, would become a bad person.

The place of birth dictates if that person will be good or bad.

The place of birth dictates the choices that person makes.

Now, some might say "the person changes his choice in different situations, but its still the person's choice".

I would say thats not correct. Rather, its the situations that change that person's choice.

The person in loving and caring family learned a lot about being good and how being good pays off. Such person learned a lot about love and how love works.

However, that same person, when being born in abusive family, wouldnt learn any of that.

We make choices by the knowledge we have available. Now we see that the same person being born in two different families would have different knowledge available to him depending on which family he was born in.

Person in abusive family wouldnt know about how loving relationships are formed. That person would only know about how abusive relationships are formed. So naturally, that person would only be able to form abusive relationships.

The problem is not about knowledge alone, but also about values.

Person makes decisions based on that person's values.

Place of birth can change person's values.

Since the value of love doesnt exist in abusive family, the first value that person would learn would not be love. Values learned in abusive family usually consist of cheating, lying and harming.

With corrupted knowledge and corrupted values, can a person be blamed for being bad?

So therefore, such person would be good or bad depending on his place of birth.

Can that still be called free will?

Is such person good or bad?

How do you even meassure what makes a person choose to be bad, if not his place of birth and his life experiences?

Sheep came to establish their great democracy.

What is democracy? It is rule of the sheep.

Thats why the sheep are for it.

However, sheep are unfit to rule anything.

Sheep in 2001: "We should invade Iraq"

Sheep in 2016: "it was a mistake to invade Iraq"

Well, "mistake" is a strange word to use for the killing of million people. Usually, I use the word "mistake" to describe an error in grammar.

Sheep are stupid, so naturally a country governed by sheep will make bad decisions. To expect anything different would be pure stupidity.

Sheep elected Hitler. Contrary to the popular belief, Hitler was not a dictator. In fact, he was elected. Germany before Hitler was a democracy. Hitler had as much popular support as Trump did.

Who would have thought that choosing leaders based on popularity and their false promises could be bad for the country?

We are expecting  that "Stupid voters elect smart leaders".

What we get is "Stupid voters elect stupid leaders".

It seems unreasonable to expect that stupid voter makes smart decisions. He might make one or two smart decisions, but he will make much more decisions that are stupid. Therefore, stupidity prevails in the decisions of stupid voters.

What is interesting about stupid people is:

Stupid people dont know that they are stupid.

Smart people know who is smart and that stupid people are stupid. 

However, stupid people dont know who is smart and who is stupid.

Therefore, when stupid people elect a smart leader, its merely an accident. Its not an intentional action.

If democracy is the best system of government, then the best system of government is the one where we have liars and idiots as presidents. Liars, I say, because you have to make false promises to become president. Idiots, I say, it was already explained that stupid voters make stupid decisions and elect mostly idiots.

How is this different from monarchy? Well, in monarchy, king elects an heir. Now, lets say you have a good smart king. He will elect a good smart heir intentionally. His good smart heir will elect another good smart heir.

However, in democracy, electing a good smart leader is difficult. 

Even if we say "Leader doesnt have to be smart. He just has to be good.",

Is it reasonable to expect that voters elect good leader? 

If we take a look at morality of the masses:

Most people break speed limit and endanger traffic.

Most people refuse to help the poor.

Most people use lies.

Most people are sexually immoral.

Most people want to get rich easily.

Most people bully and abuse others.

Most people divorce at the expense of their children.

Most people only do good if it benefits them.

Can we expect from these people to elect a good moral leader? Probably not. So it is of no coincidence that every president elected by masses is sexually immoral, corrupt, thief or war criminal.

Democracy is a path to Socialism. However, not the kind of Socialism Marx hoped for. Rather, the Socialism where majority steals from minority. Any president promising free stuff for the masses has an advantage. The one with best promises for free stuff wins.

Now, the presidents are not allowed to say: "If you vote for me, I will give you 1000$ out of my own pocket".

No, that would be bribe.

But presidents are allowed to say: "If you vote for me, I will take 1000$ from the rich and give it to you".

The only difference between these two bribes is that one is also a theft.

Now, people say: Capitalism rewards according to merit. 

However, smart people in capitalism are not always rich. And the richest people are not the smartest.

This impossible contradiction, where capitalism rewards according to merit, while at the same time smartest people are not being the richest.

So there is some other factor in play other than being smart.

Back to democracy. Can we say that there is any benefit in democracy as opposed to kingdom? It seems that the only benefit is that masses have no one to blame but themselves when their country sucks.

Eh, I talk nonsense. I should support the rule of the sheep, I mean democracy.

When we talk about the predictions Bible made 2000 years ago, we have to understand that 2000 years ago no human could have known anything about things that Bible predicted. No human could have predicted things so accuratelly as the Bible has.

Some of Bible's predictions include:

1) invention of cloning and surgeries

Bible describes cloning and surgery in Genesis 2.

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam"

"and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof"

"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman"

This is basically how surgeries and cloning are done. In order to clone, you need some part of the person you are cloning. However, no one could have known this 2000 years ago.

2) invention of AI

Now, if you think that an accurate description of surgery and cloning isnt enough, how about the accurate description of what is an AI?

"saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed."

Now, obviously, this verse talks about an image that can speak, detect, think, and be like it has life. No one 2000 years ago could have known what is that about.

Today we know that AI mostly fits such description. AI is an "image" that speaks, detects, thinks, and acts like it has life and sentience.

3) government will control all trade, people will get chip implants

This verse literally describes chip implants in humans:

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name"

4) It will be discovered that Earth floats in space

Obviously, 2000 years ago, no one knew for sure if Earth is located on top of something or just floating.

Bible made a claim over 2000 years ago that Earth floats in space:

5) Christianity will be made known to the entire world

Jesus made a prediction that Christianity will be made known to the entire world until the end. He did this at the time when he had less than a hundred true followers.

"And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come."

6) Christianity will decline and people will engage in mass adultery and luxury

In the same way that Bible predicted the rise of Christianity, Bible also predicted its final and total decline, and that people will return to mass adultery, immorality and luxury.

"It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation."

Christianity is in great decline, where young people are becoming increasingly non-religious after so many centuries of Christian dominance.

With so many Bible's predictions coming true, one can only assume that Bible is indeed special in some way.

The problem with vaccines is that they could do irreversible damage to us, but we wont know it until its too late.

Some vaccines dont contain an actual virus, but genetically modified virus.

We dont know what such genetically modified virus does to the body and brain, because we are being infected with a different virus than the one that vaccine is trying to protect us from.

What this genetically modified virus does to the brain is unknown.

Does it make us smarter? Or maybe more obedient?

Okay, so... thats weird lol

Like, what makes them do that?

Plenty of false Christians have said that God's love is not unconditional, that God doesnt love evil people.

God himself says in the Bible:

"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends"

Further, God in the Bible says:

"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."

“But I say to you, Love your enemies... so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven... You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

As we can see in this verse, God loves his enemies and expects us to love our enemies.

"The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works"

Reminder: Mods have already explained to you that just because Bible says something or allows something, that doesnt mean you should follow the Bible.

Where in the Bible does it say that sex with a child is wrong?

What does the Bible say about child marriage?

What does the Bible say about a punishment for a man who marries a child and has sex with her?

Bible does tell people to obey the government and follow the law of the land, but Bible doesnt say its mandatory to follow human laws. Some countries allow child marriages. Some dont.

I said:

"It is true that Syngman had to violently surpress several uprisings during his term.  The difference being that Syngman was pro-democracy, pro-civil rights"

I am not going to say who said this, but I am guessing that he thinks its okay to kill 200,000 civilians if you are pro-democracy.

I am guessing his logic goes like:

"P1: Killing civilians is different if you are pro-democracy

P2: First South Korean president was pro-democracy

Conclusion: It was okay for first South Korean president to kill civilians."

This person was obviously justifying mass murder, so I was wondering if thats a violation of CoC.

Of course, I myself felt disgusted at those words. How could someone justify the murder of civilians? Thats wrong.

The proof for evolution doesnt exist. But lets face it, even if you had proof, I still wouldnt believe in it because I believe in creation.

I believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Therefore, if scientists say the opposite of what Bible says, I prefer to believe the Bible rather than to believe the scientists.

God hates homosexuals and rapists, but he hates homosexuals more. Thats why Bible commands death penalty for homosexuals. Obviously, God hates trans too, thats why Bible commands the death penalty for those who wear clothes of opposite gender.

And yes, God says that there are only 2 genders: male and female. So no, a man cannot become a woman. He can merely stop being a man.

In the area of morality, women are superior. Men are much more likely to be violent and commit violent crime.

Men make up to 90% of the prison population.

So obviously, women are better at being moral.

If you have society based on self-interest of individuals, then people will only help you when they need you and they will abandon you when they no longer need you.

It seems that such mindset brings some problems along with benefits. One problem are "social outcasts", which are the result of society abandoning individuals due to a lack of need for those individuals.

Individuals who are not needed by society end up having no friends or companions. In other words, they become "social outcasts".

Therefore, if "social outcasts" are a guaranteed result of a capitalist mindset, and the mental illnesses are a guaranteed result of "social outcasts", it follows that mental illnesses are a guaranteed result of the capitalist mindset.

Headquarters of the Revolution

Millions of lives become bullets and shells

Ready to defend you!

Soldiers, tightly grasp, your glimmering rifles

The weapon dictates the oath of

loyalty to the General

The Red banner, flying high above the fortress

Headquarters of the Revolution

Millions of lives will become bullets and shells

Ready to defend you!

The spirit of defending

our Headquarters is still alive

Our blood is boiling,

Our people are united

Our fortress is strong!

The heart of the Korean

Headquarters of the Revolution

Millions of lives will become bullets and shells

Ready to defend you!

Swear to protect

Kim Jong Il

Swear to protect

Kim Jong Il

Oath to protect the Great leader with our life

To us soldiers

This is our greatest honour!

From victory to victory

Headquarters of the Revolution

Millions of lives will become bullets and bombs

Ready to defend you!

"I will end war in one day"

And thats why Trump should be president. All others promise to extend war further.

"The growing chaos in Belgorod region, where local authorities announced a “counterterrorist regime” on Monday evening, was a rare case where Russian villages have come face-to-face with a conflict that the country’s army has unleashed across Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukrainian officials have confirmed fighting at the border.
Any capture of territory has not been independently confirmed by journalists on the ground. The Freedom of Russia Legion is not known to have participated in any major battles during the war.
“We are the same Russians as you,” said a statement put out by the Freedom of Russia Legion on social media. “We are distinguished only by the fact that we no longer wanted to justify the actions of criminals in power and took up arms to defend our and your freedom. But today it’s time for everyone to take responsibility for their future. It’s time to put an end to the Kremlin’s dictatorship.”"

Korea, commanded by General Kim il Sung,

was leading a resistance movement against Japan and was helping allies in WW2. 

Kim il Sung was helping the US fight against Japan.

Syngman Rhee at that time was not even in Korea. He didnt even fight in WW2.

During WW2, USA invaded Korea and established its own government on the south of Korea which it invaded and called it South Korea.

Syngman Rhee was made president of South Korea.

After coming to power, Syngman Rhee committed mass murders of his own people, killing thousands of people in South Korea for opposing to him. The US military helped him do that. They killed men, women and children in South Korea.

General Kim il Sung was deeply upset by this and by the idea that Syngman Rhee, who didnt even fight in WW2, became president of a south occupied by USA.

Therefore, when Kim il Sung decided to attack South Korea, he was merely liberating Korean territory which was occupied by the criminal USA.

Syngman Rhee was equal to Hitler by his crimes in Korea before the Korean war.

Syngman Rhee was a mass murderer, a criminal set up in power by USA.

North Korea never invaded anyone. It merely defended itself and tried to liberate its territory from the US.

There are plenty of people in the USA in 2003 who said that USA should invade North Korea (again) to "liberate it from dictatorship".

Then North Korea built nukes to protect itself.

Then those same people said: "North Korea should give up its nukes".

USA committed even more crimes during Korean war, including mass bombings of civilians which is an equivalent of terrorism.

USA never apologized for its crimes. However, it still kept its own citizens brainwashed against North Korea.

USA should agree to return the south of Korea to Korea governed by Kim Jong Un. It is the only right thing to do.

After killing millions of Koreans, USA has put itself in the place of being the eternal enemy of North Korea. 

As North Korea grows stronger in its nuclear weapons, North Korea is saving millions of lives by working to prevent another war with USA.

If North Korea did not built nukes, US would invade North Korea. That would result in a loss of millions of lives.

North Korean "self-defense ideology" says that no country should invade another.

And really, North Korea in its 78 years of existence never invaded anyone.

USA invaded more than 30 countries and committed plenty of crimes, including being the only nation to use nuclear weapons on civilians. USA's strategy of bombing civilians during wars has gone mostly unnoticed by its own citizens, who still think that their country is actually not a world wide criminal.

South Korea has very expensive house prices, about 1 million per house.

As a result, most people pay rent instead of owning a house. Some are homeless.

Other problems, such as high amount abuse, murder and suicide rates. Even children are often abused at care centers. 

South Korea has many places where it says: "No children allowed", forcing parents to leave their children at home or in day care to be able to go in a restaurant.

Some people dont want to have children, because they cant afford it or because they dont want their children to live in hell that is South Korea.

South Korea has the lowest birth rates in the world. It also has highest female suicide in the world, possibly due to wide spread abuse of women.

Here is a video of a North Korean defector saying that South Koreans are not well in the head.

This defector went to church in South Korea. They asked him in church "Who do you think is the greatest?".

He answered without a doubt: "General Kim Il Sung".

They reported him and he went to prison.

Apparently, having an opinion is illegal in South Korea.

He also said: "Everything that North Korean government told me about South Korea was true. Everything that South Koreans believe about North Korea is a lie".

He also added that some defectors are paid to lie about North Korea.

Recently, there were protests in South Korea where people asked South Korean president to step down due to bringing South Korea closer to war with the North Korea and with China.

Human logic can be only one of these 3:

1) Circular

2) Based on premises which are accepted as truth without asking for reason for the premises

3) Infinite reasoning

All 3 of these forms of logic are flawed.

1) is a logical fallacy.

2) is based on no proof.

3) cannot be proven at all, since infinity cannot be demonstrated.

However, if we accept any of these as basis for our logic, we end up proving God.

1) Circular logic: God exists because Bible says so. Bible is true because it is the word of God.

2-1) Unquestionable premise: God exists because it says so in the Bible. Bible is unquestionable.

(Awkward moment for people who think feelings are unquestionable).

2-2) If feelings are unquestionable, that means God exists because many people feel the presence of God.

3) Infinite reasoning: God exists because of infinite amount of reasons, such as God1, God2, God3...

So therefore, no matter what logic we use, God exists.

I dont believe in atheism, since there is no proof that it exists.

We heard stories about it, but stories are for babies.

So unless you can prove to me that you and your atheism actually exist, the only logical thing to do is to believe in God since I know that he exists as I can feel him talking to me.

There should be 2 laws:

1) Everyone must work

2) Every person must "help people if they need his help to live". "If they demand his help or if he is aware of their need for his help" which they need in order to live, he must help them.

Every person violating one or both of these laws should be reported to the government by others and the government will decide if the individual needs to be sent to re-educational treatment where his mistakes will be explained to him and he will be corrected.

If we implement these laws, then people of Iraq, Ukraine, Korea, Afghanistan, Syria, Europe and North America will finally get Communism they deserve.

As the name itself suggests, consequentialism is about consequences. This means action is good or bad depending on its consequences. Action is good if it results in good things. Action is bad if it results in bad things.

Utilitarianism is a popular type of consequentialism. It was originally based on pleasure.

Utilitarianism is based on increasing happiness and reducing suffering.

This means that action is good if it results in an increase of happiness. The best action is the one that produces greatest happiness for greatest number of people.

This position is also known as pro-natalism. The actions that are good are those that result in an increase in the amount of human life. The actions that are bad are those that result in a decrease in the amount of human life.

The actions that are good are those that result in the decrease of suffering. The best action is the one that decreases suffering the most. 

Popular in anti-natalism, which argues that reducing human life by not having children would reduce suffering.

Says that action is good if it results in an increase of total human knowledge, even at the cost of some human lives.

Says that action is good and desirable if it results in an increase of acceptance of different people and different ideas.

Popular in religious groups. It says that action is good if it, for example, causes more people to believe in God and to pray more.

Says that every individual has a right to do anything to protect his own life, and that we should respect such right.

Says that individual's body and property belong to him. Individual can do anything he wants with that which he owns. Actions are bad if they harm self-ownership of others. Actions are good if they increase self-ownership.

Says that our greatest priority is to ensure greatest equal liberty for all.

The second greatest priority is to ensure equal opportunity and same starting point for all.

The third greatest priority is to ensure that even those who benefit the least are still benefiting.

Says that we should base society on self-interest of individuals. Our actions should be such that we follow our interests and consider interests of others. Every action that affects a group of people should be in line with their interests.

Says that there are rules which are known to produce good outcomes, therefore those rules should be followed. If we know that being kind almost always makes the world a better place, then we should be kind.

Deontology is different from consequentialism in a sense that it considers some action always wrong even if it sometimes has good outcomes.

For example, if we say it is wrong to lie, then it is always wrong to lie. Even in situation where lying can save your life, you still should not lie.

Says that we should have universal rules. Rule for one is a rule for all. Act in a way you would want everyone else to act. For example, lying is bad because if everyone lied all the time, our society wouldnt function anymore. But if everyone told the truth all the time, then our society would function. Therefore, everyone should be telling the truth always. The simplest way to explain Categorical Imperative is: If you are wondering if what you are doing is really good, then just imagine if everyone else did the same as you.

Human rights say that every person has rights which should never be violated, such as right to life, right to property, right to education...ect.

Divine Command Theory says that God knows more about morality than humans. Therefore, humans should listen to God. The most famous example of this is 10 Commandments.

17) Liberalism 

Says that the only time you are allowed to use force on individual is only for the purpose of preventing harm to others. Individual can do anything he wants, including to harm himself, as long as he doesnt harm others.

Says that there are certain priorities which come above all else. For example, being forced to defend your country in war is good even if it violates your individual freedom.

Says that there should be universal standard that is same for all people.

Very common framework. It deals with "what would a virtuous person do if he was in this situation?".

For example, "What should I do?" is answered by "That what Jesus would do if he was in your place.".

Says that we should all try to be more caring about everyone and feel compassion for each person that suffers. That will help us become better.

Says that society works best when everyone agrees and has same opinion on plenty of things. So we should seek to create such society.

Says that there is no absolute rule, since every situation is different.

24) Moral absolutism 

Says that there are absolute rules that are true in every situation.

Says that those with power have a right to dictate what is right and what is wrong, and that when making decisions, we should be seeking to be in line with those in power.

Says that our actions, if they affect other people, should be beneficial for everyone affected. We should only make agreements that have mutual benefit. Society should have laws that are beneficial for everyone in society.

There are many more frameworks, and many frameworks can be made by combining these frameworks that were mentioned. For example, "increase life+decrease pain".

Each ethical framework contains 3 categories:

1) Obligatory - that which you have to do

2) Impermissible - that which you are not allowed to do

3) Permissible - If you want to do it, you are allowed to do it. If you dont want to do it, you are allowed not to do it. There is no punishment for doing or not doing the permissible. Althought there can be reward.