iDevonian

The US had to abolish slavery before even being able to manage itself, let alone become a world power. All im saying is...slavery, the way it was practiced in the US, failed...inevitably, because of its immorality. Slavery was in the US, a destabilizing practice from the start due to its immorality. People figured this out, and they ultimately got rid of it. Slavery wasnt abolished simply because of economic reasons. It was abolished for reasons relating to...morality. Even economics have close ties to innate morality. It wasnt merely for economic reasons that hitler failed, nor was it merely about wealth. In africa, people are commiting immoral acts, and in many places its a catastrophy. This is clear in their own destruction. In Palestine, or rather Israel may be the better topic...Israel in harming people, is creating enemies, that...inevitably, will hit Israel back. Israel cannot indefinitely exist if it is immorally harming those around it. Israel is, currently, and this goes for many countries in the region, they are unstable, or are being destabilized by immoral activity. You mentioned somehting like....the media is related inside germany, well...media in the US is inside the US. Media in Israel is media inside Israel. Media is specific to its people in all cases. Regardless though, it doesnt define morality of people. This is obvious. Go to germany to this day, and ask what germans actually think that the massacre of jews was good. Its pointless. Its obvious that, morality transcends random media outlets. I dont even know what the argument is anymore really ok reading back. People seem to believe that the media drives decisions on morality, rather than people driving decisions on morality and the media just mimicking that. And that something like gay marriage, is only now acceptable because some random jews said something on the news about it or something. Ill let the conversation go. I mean, the politicians or news outlets dont just make stuff up for no reason, and people dont just support it for no reason either, aside from the fact that someone said it on tv. Which can easily be seen to not be true because people often dont follow the media. The media actually follows people. The only reason fox news exists, is because people support it. The media relies on the people, not the other way around for claims. The only reason Obama provides Obamacare is because people called for it, not that he called for it. Gay marriage doesnt exist because some politician called for it, it exists because the people called for it because people dont want to oppress gays. Could anyone even fathom the idea of slavery existing in todays world? This is too complex of an issue, i throw in the white towel.

Saying that I should just go do some reading, isnt really a refutation to my claim. The holocaust failed, because it...by its nature was destined to. Hitler failed, because...his wrong acts, were destined to. Right, the world, isnt going to sit back and just let some guy run around taking stuff over and mass murdering people. It doesnt matter if he has the media on his side. People, over time, come to determine, in a vague sense, what is morally right and wrong, and clearly, everyone recognized that what he was doing was wrong. Whether it was the murdering of Jews, or if it was the expansion into france, or the battles against the soviets. Regardless, you have so many opponents, that recognize his actions as immoral...because they were. It doesnt matter if the media said other wise, he failed because, mankind has the ability, and certainly does...have internal moral development, that is greater than anything any media outlet can create. I just think its silly that people think the media can define morals, when guys like hitler with mass media support ultimately got destroyed.

Sure it did.

Nations from around the world, joined together to take Hitler down, and you think that is some kind of fluke that was his fault?

There was nothing stable about slavery in the US. Nothing stable about slaves trying to kill their masters hahaha. Contrary to the benefits that it may have appeared to have brought, there was nothing stabilizing about it. Ok good, and why did worldwide powers intervene? See that, it crossed international laws, built by other means that likely werent media related. The key point here is that...his movement failed. It didnt fail because Americas media was better than germanys. It failed because...the development of intellectual advances in morality had taken place, and the world joined together to go beat him up.

Lets keep it simple, and we can examine Hitlers movement, which had lots of propaganda, and lots of media support. Why did he fail, if the media should have transformed people to support him?

Sorry, maybe I have misunderstood your questions. I have no doubts in my beliefs. I just am clear when I say, they are my beliefs. That is what they are, beliefs. I am indeed certain of my faith and beliefs, and I am sure you are too. However, faith, and belief, it isnt the same as...knowledge. People are limited in what we know though. We have reasons to believe in things, and often, these are rational and good reasons. But what we see in the world, is that...its very easy to see. We have, a world that believes in different things. Many for example, many people, are christians, and they will say...well...I am certain of X. But then, you ask for proof and it doesnt exist. We turn to Sunnis, its the same story, we turn to shia, its the same story. Thats not to say any particular group is wrong. What it shows us though, is that, these groups are of believers, not of knowers (unless we are all knowers and nobody is truly wrong). A sunni, in our eyes, is not a knower, he is not certain of the truth of his belief, even if he or she claims they are certain of Sunni Islam. They couldnt be, because it isnt true...right? So, we have to recognize, what it is we have certainty of. When a christian says they are certain of Jesus as God.... well, what are they certain of? Are they certain of belief, or knowledge? They couldnt truly know that Jesus were God, unless it were true, so they must be, believers, not knowers. There is nothing wrong with believing in something, and what you or I believe in, may indeed be true. But I dont think I want to be the kind of Shia who says...yes, I am certain of absolute knowledge and truth in Shia Islam. Because if I did that, I would be just like the Sunni or the Christian who says...yes I am certain of yadda yadda. Rather, I choose to say, yes I am a believer, and I am certain of my belief and faith. It seems to be a more humble route, rather than simply saying that we know for a fact, that everyone is wrong and we are right :P. It has nothing to do with doubt. Alright, ill let it go, I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions. Thats fine.

No such publication, in regards to the shape of water spoken of in this topic...exists (not in any legitimate scientific journal at least). There is no publication of any study with respect to this discussion.

The media influences, but ultimately, it is up to the development and evolution in people, to determine if the influence is accurate or not. Which is why guys like Hitler got their butts kicked, even though they had all the media propaganda in the world behind them. And some may say, well morals are not relative, they dont evolve. They are absolute and from Allah. Well, people still need to evolve and develop an understanding of how Allah has implemented morals. Wahabis believe that morals are absolute too, but clearly people still need to learn what that absolute is. Allah has created us in a way, in which we trive for truth, in our hearts, regardless of what some random jewish person says on tv. Nobody should ever believe that some random person in the media, is more influencial than what Allah has granted us, ourselves.

People should take notice of how young mankind truly is. I mean, I could ask this question about slavery. Why were people ok with it before? But in only a matter of a couple hundred years...which equates to just a few generations, it has been abolished? Its because people, and societies as they exist today...are still young. We have much to learn about our morals, even now. Slavery was abolished due to the advance of intelligence? Intelligence and knowledge of moral decisions go hand in hand. I am confident in Mutah Kings position on this one. It is true that social media can influence change, however, moral decisions as we view them, are dependent upon beneficial changes. So the two really go hand in hand. The media cannot...for example, video games and movies in the US, for example, grand theft auto is a very popular game here in the US. But realistically, it doesnt drive people to want to go hijack a car and shoot people. Arnold swarzanegger in the terminator is one of the most popular movies around, but whens the last time a terminator fan has tried to mimic the movie? People notice media ideas, and may decide to try those ideas...however, whether or not the ideas prosper or fail, depends upon the development of the morals of the people. Which as Pure ethics mentioned, may hold relation to economics, or intelligence. All of these things are closely related. Prosporous ideas = good. Whether economically, or intellectually beneficial. One may say, well Hitler wanted to destroy all the jews, and people supported him for economic reasons, does that make it good? Well, hitler failed, so that question cant be posed. Well, The US dropping bombs in Iraq, potentially for oil related reasons may benefit the US, does that make it good? Well now we see the reprecusions, and the alterations in how government and people act. So again, the question cant be posed. However, if we look at slavery, people supported slavery for economic reasons, and it led to more hardship than good, economically, and it failed and still is gone to this day. As it will likely continue to be, for as long as we are here. Because it is a morally good and prosperous idea. In regards to gay marriage, so far, it has prospered because...well, whether or not a gay person gets married, isnt going to hurt anyone, and actually it could be argued that, by oppressing gays, the detriments could be greater than just letting them marry. Which is what this is coming down to. It has nothing to do with jewish media, its about reality. And you know...I dont understand why anyone believes that it is morally good to stop gays from being married to begin with. I mean, its easy to figure out. Just walk up to a gay person and say...no, you cant be married. Immediately you will see that it is morally wrong when you see their response. Also, and i dont know if Mutah is making this point, but the politicians...often act on behalf of the people. The reason democrats cheer for free health care, is because everyone asks them to. So the media and politicians are often following society, not necesserily the other way around. Why was gay marriage accepted in certain states? Because people who wanted to get married but couldnt, said hey...I want to get married, allow me to get married and I will vote for you. Its not that...the politician just came up with the idea out of nowhere to allow gays to be married. ill quit blabbing though lol.

I dont know if Ugly Jinn is saying that X certainly did not happen, I think he is just asking for evidence that X did happen. One sec, ill take a look at what youre asking. I dont think I said anything should be discreditted. I dont know enough about the topic to even judge that. What I will say though, is that if there is a lack of evidence for something that I believe in, I wouldnt say that it were absolutely true. Because of course, without evidence, there would be no way of knowing that it certainly was true. This is something we consistently find here on SC. People speak as if they do know, but in the end, we are all, pretty much on the same boat. In this particular case, sunnis and shia.

Lets look at the definition of discredit. " 1 : to refuse to accept as true or accurate : disbelieve <discredit a rumor> 2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of <a discredited theory> 3 : to deprive of good repute : disgrace <personal attacks meant to discredit his opponent> " If something lacks evidence, then its lack of evidence could certainly be used to discredit it. If something lacks evidence, it wouldnt be a bizaar idea if someone didnt accept it, or decided not to accept it because it was not evidencially true.. Whether or not you as a person decide to discredit the idea, is up to you, but I certainly wouldnt say it is irrational to deny belief in something that you are uncertain of.

Why not?

hm. May I see it? Maybe it was already posted in the discussion.

I think the hadith Ugly was referring to, were particular ones about Imam Ali proclaiming Imamate. Thats fine.