PEOPLE’S cameras and anti riot windows.

Same.

I’m glad you’re getting therapy. You’re right to tell people exactly how bad it’s been, because this isn’t small. I am very sorry.

Nuclear is not a solution, evidence 836382.

The existence of the divine is unfalsifiable, so it cannot be rationally proven or disproven. Still, something may exist even if it cannot be proven. Some classical arguments do not prove God outright, but may make the existence of a creator slightly more probable than not. The strongest of these is the cosmological argument: since the universe appears not to be eternal, it suggests a cause or creator beyond it. If such a creator exists, then the creator is not identical to what is created. Therefore, nature is not God.

Yes, but you can’t say that you made money before the sum of the dividends and the reselling price is superior to the buying price. If you invest 100€, the probability to loose 100€ is small; but to loose some of these 100€ not so much. If you invest well, the probability to lose money at all may be small, but if you gamble intelligently on sports it is too.

It’s the same equation: more risk=more potential profit, less risk=less potential profit. I fail to see the difference with gambling.

So, not unlike sport gambling. You study the teams, their forces and weaknesses, their history, and make the informed decision to gamble. It’s still gambling.

No, I wanted to say: “he created them with the ability to reason”

I mean if we accept the hypothesis that God exists, and that he created humans, he created them with a reason.

It’s Monday for Jesus too.

Norwegians are Protestants… that doesn’t make any sense 😅

Religion has nothing to do with Brazil’s defeat… that was the joke.

It may be different in your country, but in mine there are takeout pizzas that aren’t a chain, and 95% of the time they are better.

You can all repeat that we don’t need a moral foundation because people act in their material interest, if you don’t answer to my arguments it’s worthless.

This means that, from a systems perspective, human society in its current state is in an unstable equilibrium which is maintained through increasingly contradictory balancing actions.

Marx understood the system enough to know that the collapse wasn’t probably occuring during is lifetime. Yet he chose to die poor. He didn’t do that for is own benefit, he did that because, consciously or not, his morals pushed him too.

1) try to keep balancing the current unstable equilibrium until we die hoping the collapse is defeated long enough that we don’t experience it or 2) work to resolve the contradictions in current society and move to something that won’t collapse.

None of this is moral yet.

It is a very moral choice. Do I take everything I can take now, and screw the others, I may suffer too lately but at least I enjoyed the maximum now, or do I try to create a better society for everyone, even if I have to suffer to make this change occur, and even if, in case our revolution fails, I suffered for nothing? Or, to put it in Kantian words, do I see in others means or ends? It’s the core of any moral discussion that we have here.

In essence, if you value humanity existing, then that’s pretty much all the moral foundation you need.

It’s still a moral foundation necessary for Marxism. Now, Marxism pretends that no moral foundation is needed. This contradiction is Marxism “original sin” and why it, in fact, doesn’t work. We can’t construct a socialist society without putting the moral question at its core. We can disagree on details, but if we deny the very existence of an objective good, then the movement will quickly derail. That’s exactly what occurred in the 20^th century, that’s why Marxism, while having good intentions, created these monstrous bureaucracies that killed so much people and dangerously wounded the socialist ideals for a long time. There were no moral guardrails to prevent them to.

My human existence is not threatened now. I’m middle class in a western country. I have no egoist reasons to fight the system.

Now I’m socialist. I believe we should fight for the well being of the workers of the world. For the poor, the oppressed. But because it’s good, because it’s the right thing to do. That makes me an idealist socialist, and I feel no shame about that.

And you know what? Most materialist socialist have no egoist reasons to fight themselves. Marx himself could have lived a very comfortable life as a bourgeois intellectual. He didn’t because, unknowingly, he was in fact idealist. Actual materialism is by essence right-wing.

There is however, no way for me to discuss this topic in detached philosophical terms without sounding like a massive asshole

There may be a clue to something here.

What’s clearly understood can be clearly explained. When you see children killed in Gaza, you don’t think it’s objectively evil?

we can just get most people to help with the project of maintaining human society

But why would we try to maintain human society if it’s not inherently good?

But why should be base our political platform on what is good for the majority of people if there’s no objective good?