[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They demonstrated that if a decision is based on one or more false assumptions, we would get unexpected result. Biden assumed that there were 300 thousand Afghan military personnels which are well trained and well equipped to suppress the Taliban. It turns out to be false.

Something that's obvious for someone may not be obvious for someone else. Someone still believes that the earth is flat. It doesn't mean that there is no universally accepted objective reality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some of us have to learn the hard way.

And some of us learn a little too late.

Conservative radio host Phil Valentine died of COVD over the weekend, after spending several months attacking masks and questioning the safety of vaccines. These stories are hitting with far more frequency as the Delta variant continues to spread across the country. Valentine's family announced, prior to his passing, that he would be far more pro-vaccine once he got out of the hospital, that day will never come now. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this.

[alancalverd]

Biden assumed ...... It turns out to be false.

The pledge and timetable for withdrawal were set by Trump, therefore almost certainly based on falsity. The absurdity of setting a date (the 20th anniversary of 9/11) fixed by the earth's orbit of the sun rather than a clear military dominance and establishment of a stable competent government, just shows how stupid and gullible a president can be - as if we didn't know. Beware of a man who prays - or waves a bible even if he's never read it.

Quite different from Norman Schwarzkopf's  press briefing on Desert Storm: "When it's over, we'll tell them who won."

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Washington Post releases a staggering report about the war in Afghanistan that shows an alarming lack of strategy, gross mismanagement of funds and a continued pattern of painting the war as successful from Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump.

No organization can survive in long term based on lies. That's why it's almost universally thought as immoral act. Only in extremely rare case that it becomes acceptable and necessary.

New Rule: The Big Liars | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Would you opt for a life with no pain? - Hayley Levitt and Bethany Rickwald

It's basically what's being offered by most religions in afterlife for those who follow them.
Science and technology offer similar things, except that they can be done while we're alive.

In current situation, perhaps Covid patients and covid virus are more representative. They're contagious and affect more of us.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It can be achieved through persuasions or threats.

persuade : induce (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.

Persuasion, the process by which a person's attitudes or behaviour are, without duress, influenced by communications from other people.

Persuasion means convincing our opponents that either:
- their current terminal goal is wrong, so we need to show them what we think is the correct one, which is compatible with our own goal.
- their current terminal goal is correct, but they chose wrong instrumental goals. We should then show them better instrumental goals, which are more effective and efficient in achieving their terminal goal, and also compatible with our goals.
 
On the other hand, threat is

a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

which means that we don't have to change their goals. But we need to identify what's important for them. It's presumed that avoiding pain or damage is important for everyone, since it's a common adaptation to evolutionary process. The threat can also be extended to involve someone else which are important to our opponents.

Another possibility, although not yet practical, is by editing neuron connections in someone's brain.
This would be an absolute power to control someone else. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only way to prevent them from self destruction is by making them understand the concept of universal terminal goal, which is the only logically defensible position.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When a society uses only approximation to the universal terminal goal, or some forms of instrumental goal instead of the real one, then any additional power  will amplify the effects of the discrepancies. And they are most likely undesired.

[alancalverd]

Would you opt for a life with no pain? - Hayley Levitt and Bethany Rickwald
It's basically what's being offered by most religions in afterlife for those who follow them.
Science and technology offer similar things, except that they can be done while we're alive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Would you opt for a life with no pain? - Hayley Levitt and Bethany Rickwald
It's basically what's being offered by most religions in afterlife for those who follow them.
Science and technology offer similar things, except that they can be done while we're alive.

Death never becomes part of the requirements in science and technology.

[alancalverd]

You missed the point. Religions by definition offer things that cannot be done. Things that can be done are called engineering, medicine, farming, whatever....

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You missed the point. Religions by definition offer things that cannot be done. Things that can be done are called engineering, medicine, farming, whatever....

Whose definition are you using?

re·li·gion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

[alancalverd]

Yep, that's the one!

Selling a nonexistent product to people who can't claim compensation because they won't know it doesn't exist until they are dead! Belief in someone or some group who is supposed to be in charge but for whose existence and activities there is no actual evidence.

It gets worse. Some religions sell the concept of an omnipotent omniscient controller who has determined everything, then suggest that you can  get him to change his mind by asking nicely, flagellating yourself,  or butchering a virgin. 

It's sometimes difficult to distinguish between religion and pornography.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's sometimes difficult to distinguish between religion and pornography.

Does it make them immoral?

[alancalverd]

Pornography is defined as "that which tends to deprave or corrupt". Anything that induces a person to harm or degrade another fits the bill in my view, and harm surely includes contradicting rational thought.

Most people enjoy a bit of porn (test 1) but wouldn't admit to inflicting it on their children (test 2). So it's immoral. Some people get a feeling of religious ecstacy, but wouldn't enjoy being criticised for worshipping the wrong god, or seeing their children killed for the same "reason". So it's immoral.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Pornography is defined as "that which tends to deprave or corrupt". Anything that induces a person to harm or degrade another fits the bill in my view, and harm surely includes contradicting rational thought.

You seem to have your own definition for English words.
Here's the definition I got from Google.

printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

And merriam-webster.

1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

Most people enjoy a bit of porn (test 1) but wouldn't admit to inflicting it on their children (test 2). So it's immoral. Some people get a feeling of religious ecstacy, but wouldn't enjoy being criticised for worshipping the wrong god, or seeing their children killed for the same "reason". So it's immoral.

Some people would admit to inflicting it on their children. On what ground would you call them immoral?

[alancalverd]

My definition comes from English statute law. It's a powerful one because it concerns the effect of the material, not the presumed intention of its creator, and can thus be tested long after the death of the author. It is also broader than the Google or Webster definitions because it can include depictions of violence.

There's a neat distinction between erotic and pornographic: it's the difference between being tickled with a feather and slapped with a whole chicken.

[alancalverd]

Some people would admit to inflicting it on their children. On what ground would you call them immoral?

The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others. That's depraved and corrupt.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some people would admit to inflicting it on their children. On what ground would you call them immoral?

The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others. That's depraved and corrupt.

Does it include Buddhism and Jainism?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Immorality often involves ignorance or false convictions  which causes someone to have wrong priorities. Take any action or behavior that you think is immoral. You can always find something which is believed by the perpetrator that you think is false.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others. That's depraved and corrupt.

We can analyze religions like any other memes. The fact that some of them have survived for millenias suggests that they have some benefits for their societies, which outweigh their cost and flaws. One of their main benefits has been identified centuries ago.

On March 4, 1806, during a meeting of the national committee Napoleon said:

“Je ne vois pas dans la religion le mystère de l'Incarnation mais le mystère de l'Ordre Social. La religion rattache au ciel une idée d'égalité qui empêche le riche d'être massacré par le pauvre."

 translation: “I don’t see in religion evidence of the mystery of the incarnation, but rather the mystery of social order. Religion associates heaven with an idea of equality that keeps the rich from being massacred by the poor.”