Isn't being angry is indicative of nervousness more than low EQ?

It's quite simple how wars work:

No country goes to war without having a reason to justify it's actions to "international community", to avoid denouncements.

Israel had a good reason to go to war but problem is those reasons are not important to other states, so to make it important their police entered sacred place to provoke Arabs into attacking.

This worked because Israel now had a right to defend it self.

The real reason however (behind the scene) was to stop terrorists getting stronger, which if left over would be serious for Israel in the future.

"Killing civilians" is subjective.

"If nothing is wrong, then there are no problems to be solved"

If nothing is wrong then isn't that anarchy?

Usually when someone with a superior IQ is asked a question and show little to no effort in finding the correct answer, that can be an indicator of their intelligence. — Shawn

You mean?

Usually when someone with a superior IQ is present a problem and show little to no effort in solving the problem, that can be an indicator of their intelligence.

Otherwise we talk about knowledge not IQ.

I don't agree because my understanding is that lack of conversation, poor conversation not knowing what to say etc. is what makes one emotionally less intelligent.

Internet however makes people talk more so it likely contributes to overall EQ of the population.

There is saying that smart phones make people "stupid", and that likely also applies to conversations on the internet because again from my understanding it affects IQ not EQ.

So my opinion when people use LOL, ROFL or OMG that only reveals their low intellect, but are otherwise emotionally intelligent.

Morality:
"Treat others as you would like others to treat you."

Is there a valid answer to this question?

If not, the correct answer depends on morality of the questioner.
If you don't know the answer, on what basis are you going to judge us?

If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that abortion and killing already born person are morally at same level? — Antinatalist

Yes, I unless you don't have to choose between 2.

Because procreation (and protection of it) is natural to all known life, stopping procreation is not a natural thing, I think nowhere in the nature we can observe such behavior?

Except for us humans ofc, that would likely be very unusual or not a normal thing.

What makes human fetus so special compared to animal fetus?
But I was meaning human fetus and comparing its life for already born animal´s life. — Antinatalist

Because it's natural for one kind to protect it's own kind rather than other kind.

In moral philosophy is a concept of  "a person".  A person has always value, and her/his life is always valuable, at least according to most moral philosophers.
Most moral philosophers don´t define couple of months old fetus as a person. — Antinatalist

I understand, same problem as with current "criterias" that we currently have.

One may also ask. what is life and when does it begin?
Does sentience define life?

but lack all the essential criterias, which are important when we evaluate a value of life of some being — Antinatalist

I see your point, but current criterias are unfortunately not universally accepted.

Ending life is about human rights, so if those criterias are not governed by morality then aren't they exposed to immoral conclusions?

For example, if we exclude morality then we can also say that killing a retard person is favorable vs killing a normal one, or killing a 1 month old baby is favorable vs killing 30 years old person?

This is what most people may do if they're forced to death to choose.
Because one have to choose between 2 evils, so he chooses lesser one.

Morally they are all equal human beings regardless of their abilities, so I think the choice above should be random to be morally acceptable.

Same way if we exclude morality, and human rights don't apply to non sentient being, a fetus, then what makes this morally acceptable?

is it by definition a human being or perhaps some animal. — Antinatalist

I would not dare to compare human fetus to animal fetus and then draw conclusions based on perception or differences between 2 fetuses.

Selective antinatalism such as "a better gene pool" is likely a subject to morality.
On another side birth control regulated by law (ex. for common good) is probably morally acceptable.

I'm personally against any type of antinatalism, but if I had to choose it would have to be morally acceptable.

Some people maybe but not all.

The ability to sentience is essential, when we are discussing are we going to give - or give we not - human rights for some being. — Antinatalist

Why?

Given the fact we are talking about human being then we should give it human rights regardless of it's abilities.

I mean, something either is human being (it exists and is alive) or it is not (does not exist or it is dead)

A reason to live is to respect the fact that you were born in the first place.

The chance to be born is very small.

The essence is that "A human fetus is biologically human" (not "it could be")

lack of sentience or intelligence does not make it not-a-human being.

antinatalism is simply destructive and as such not good.

Same way auto destruction is harm against myself, antinatalism is harm against humanity.
Both are bad.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? — BitconnectCarlos

Assuming there is no law that would govern on what the community is allowed to do, we don't expel them or punish physically because that neighbor didn't do "physical" damage to anyone, he just thinks what he thinks.

This individual like anyone else builds an image of itself in his life, as such he already expelled himself.
If the community is majorly against his views his punishment will be present in the community by social distancing which isn't pleasant, otherwise he wins.

How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for? — BitconnectCarlos

I think by taking the kind and weight of "damage" into account:

Saying you will do something is not the same as actually doing it. (the kind damage)

Saying to kill someone is not the same saying to demolish that person's car. (the weight of damage)

What would be the opposite of "joy" and "happiness"?

You name it but it's surely not "fear"
It's not fear because the opposite of fear is "courage"

I mentioned fear because courage affects joy but not necessarily happiness, while fear affects them both regardless.

One may enjoy (feel joy) in being brave to do what ever he wants at that point.
But there is no guarantee this makes him happy for doing it right?

On another side if you feel fear it will affect both your joy and happiness.

"this is the right distance for a killshot?" — TheMadFool

I may say "this is the right distance for a killshot?"
Isn't my thinking in this sense merely my judgement? a mental ability.

How does my judgement about distance affect time?

We know measuring distance is not same as measuring time because of speed factor (ex. the speed of my arrow), therefore we could also say "this is the right moment to release my arrow?"
But doesn't this depend on relative speed of the arrow and the speed of the deer?

Isn't relative speed affecting both scenarios?

We know relative speed can make our perception about time wrong, did you ever walk train station in opposite direction of the moving train?
You must have noticed the station moving and the train staying in place right? :smile:

Does the train station example affect time or distance or something else? and if so why?

Yet, Christianity has, to my knowledge, a list of unforgivable sins. Go figure! — TheMadFool

This is incorrect.

No sin is "unforgivable" as long as once asks for forgiveness.

What you are referring to is Jewish doctrine and/or out of context interpretation.

If you scroll down, unforgivable sin is refusal to ask for forgiveness or to claim that work of the holy is the work of the unholy, both of which means no forgiveness and it thus not forgiven.

In the simplest sense, could time be space? — TheMadFool

I would say no because then we can assume "non movement" trough space as stopping (or slowing down) the time which isn't the cause.

A question may arise, what about inanimate nature? it is subject to time as well.

Hypothetically yes but the laws of physics as we know it do not allow travel into the past.

Some theories, most notably special and general relativity, suggest that suitable geometries of spacetime or specific types of motion in space might allow time travel into the past and future if these geometries or motions were possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

Time travel into the past It is therefore theoretically not possible, but due to lack of our knowledge about universe your hypothesis is not completely invalid.

I'm assuming proving individual cases count as "this person is not guilty and will not be executed"

Otherwise it depends on how many resources you have and how much it costs per case.

You have limited resources. Are they better spent trying to prove state fallibility in an effort to get the death penalty removed, or do you try to save a single life?

P.S. We assume it is better to have a 100 serial killers go free than to have one innocent person executed. — James Riley

You present 2 scenarios with same problem:

1. Multiple innocent people waiting for execution on one side
2. Single innocent person waiting to get executed on another side

Assuming these scenarios are happening in same time then I would choose first scenario by spending resources on proving state fallibility because odds are I'm going to save more than one person even if proving state fallibility fails.

Shouldn't the question be "Capitalism vs Socialism" instead?

Because democracy is a form of government while socialism is not, how do you compare these two?

I would say, If the question is complex such that there is no universal explanation then the question is more important.

Otherwise it's all about forming a great answer.

> Would it be clear to say that time is the experience of synthesis between man and the Exterior world.

I would say no because time would then be a personal thing based on personal perception.
However time is constant regardless of observer.

For example a car might pass by you very fast, but if I watch the car from helicopter 2km above it then our perception of time may not be the same.

Likewise if one of us is drunk, then our perception may also not be the same.

----

If we don't take into account the past, present and future then I would say time has no meaning such that it is present only (there is no future time or past time)