dimreepr

If I don't want to suffer, am I devoid of a moral compass? The world is full of bullies, most people just pay up and go home; heroes are few and far between, mostly bc they're bigger than the bullies and they tend to avoid that sort of problem...

That's the thing about the written word, a typo can cause so much confusion down the line. The him, and to some extent the it is, I think, pretty clear in the OP. Perhaps you could be more specific. That not everyone is equal doesn't mean not everyone is capable of greatness, the situation/context mould's the person, and when the hour cometh the most capable rises to greatness... Neither was Hitler... 😉

Indeed, nor should they. But as Nietzsche suggests, not everyone is equal and it takes a great man/person to point out the difference.

No, 'he' made it relevant to others, when 'he' wrote the book; every other biggoted argument just used a different word.

Depends on the subject. 🙏 His delusion is that 'god' is relevant to the discussion; much like every other biggoted argument. Science doesn't give a shit what 'people' believe, some scientists do...

TBH, I'm indifferent to the issue, it doesn't even crack my top 20 of thing's to give a shit about; why would I waste my emotional energy, spending my daily chip allowance needs deeper problem's to warrant a reasonable return on my investments.

Who thinks he's right and why.

I'll start a new topic, you can can ask me there.

Utopia is the clue here, sure take steps towards zero but who cares, as long as it's not the final countdown, bc tomorrow we'll be faced with an even bigger stick and it doesn't matter who wields it, good or evil it's all the same in the end... 😉 For instance, are you sure Utopia is a good guy with a perfect defence system?

If anything it's the other way round, if for pop-science we say philosophy; science just wants to get on with it, without all those peskie journos asking personal question's, it only gets heated when god is used as an excuse to not try and understand (edit, gods, something else Dawkins was confused by 🙄); if you make an honest mistake the scientists are quite tolerant and happy to explain why. You, my friend is treading a fine line, as did I when I joined this forum and sometimes continue to do so, the difference between now and then is, I learned to listen to these fine people, before I argued with them. I'd hate to see you banned.

The 'only time' it was an effective weapon was in Japan; now, it's just a weapon of revenge, whomsoever pulled the trigger first; it's built into the contract, no one can afford to be seen too flinch. If you're facing who you think is a psycho, would you put down your gun? The best we can achieve is for all side's to take out one bullet at a time, the entropy of collateral damage, we'll just be left with one (probably a secret 10) each.

Such is the meaning of life...

Indeed, the answer is a bigger stick is difficult to define if enough of you continue to wield it...

They had a go with Dune and the children of dune, but it seems Marvel is more conducive to the screen...

What are you trying to prove here? That 'we' don't fully understand is trivially demonstrable, that you think you do is trivially denied; if you think that equal's a stalemate, you need to learn chess...