British Values

[RWStanding]

A general election is looming. With endless cant about Socialist, Conservative, and British Values.
There is no such thing, and the only priority today is survivalism and the environment. After long decades of neglect with the only ‘value’ monetary profit.
In the unlikely event that our present world survives intact, we have a choice of Universal values. Broadly, those pointing to feckless individualism, or the authoritarian state, or responsible communities. Not to any absolute ‘evil’ other than the global mayhem and wars of today.
In our present critical environmental situation, caused by a vastly excessive human footprint on the world, we have no ‘nice’ choices. England’s population is excessive and expanding, with consequent endless building into nature’s preserve. Mass migration across the world must end. Making goods simply for profit needs to end. As with social services, such as medical and dentistry currently in the news, which should be for absolutely everyone as needed and available, with no private elite.

[Impenitent]

the sky is falling...

stay where you are, don't make anything, let "mother nature" run over you

I don't think many people will vote for that, but who knows?

-Imp

[godelian]

In our present critical environmental situation, caused by a vastly excessive human footprint on the world, we have no ‘nice’ choices. England’s population is excessive and expanding, with consequent endless building into nature’s preserve.

This is debatable.

If the population is excessive, then they cannot be fed. If they cannot be fed, they just die, which then solves the initial problem. Hence, the population is never excessive unless nature says so.

But then again, if the world population is too large, who exactly needs to be eliminated to address the problem?

Mass migration across the world must end.

In that case, you would need to address the reason why people migrate. But then again, you do not even try to figure out these reasons.

Personally, I migrated from the EU to SE Asia, because I do not like the unbearable nosiness of the government back home.

Making goods simply for profit needs to end.

That removes the incentive to produce pretty much anything. Imagine that the farmers stopped producing wheat, rice, and corn. Since they are not allowed to make money, they would leave the land fallow. Pretty much everybody on the globe would starve. Of course, I would pay extra for some of the remaining wheat, rice, or corn that some idealistic farmers produced just for having fun. These farmers would make some unexpected extra profit from my unexpected tip. Maybe they do not even want the tip, but I still want the produce. How can I convince them to sell it to me and not to someone else? Given the massive shortage, that question would become a matter of survival.

As with social services, such as medical and dentistry currently in the news, which should be for absolutely everyone as needed and available, with no private elite.

If medical or dentistry were for free, then the current capacity would not be enough. You would probably need ten times more doctors, nurses, and dentists. So, these services would end up costing ten times more in total. Who is going to pay for all of that? Imagine you do that with every product or service? Say that beef fillet is available for free, because everybody should be able to eat as much as he wants. Now people start feeding beef fillet to their cats and dogs too. It is for free anyway. Now that the beef fillet is for free, we need ten times more than before.

I do not want to live in a country where they do too much of that kind of things. There are shortages of everything. You end up queuing for everything. The government requisitions all possible income from everybody, institutes a massive bureaucracy in a vain attempt at collecting more taxes, and is still perennially short of money. That is why I hate freebies. That is why I do not want to live in a country where the government hands out freebies. It always degenerates into hell on earth.

[Age]

In our present critical environmental situation, caused by a vastly excessive human footprint on the world, we have no ‘nice’ choices. England’s population is excessive and expanding, with consequent endless building into nature’s preserve.

This is debatable.

If the population is excessive, then they cannot be fed. If they cannot be fed, they just die, which then solves the initial problem. Hence, the population is never excessive unless nature says so.

But then again, if the world population is too large, who exactly needs to be eliminated to address the problem?

I thought you just answered this, when you said, 'Nature says so'.

In other words, 'Nature will say who, exactly, needs to be eliminated to address any, perceived, 'problem', here'.

Which will obviously be different, at different 'periods of time'.

Mass migration across the world must end.

In that case, you would need to address the reason why people migrate. But then again, you do not even try to figure out these reasons.

Have you even tried to figure out the reason why people migrate?

If yes, then what is the reason?

Also, a natural part of being human is to discover, which happens and occurs through exploration, which travel, or migration, is needed. So, ending 'migration', itself, is never going to happen, and occur.

Furthermore, what does 'mass migration' even mean, exactly?

Human beings have been migrating ' out of "africa" ', 'on mass', some might say, for millions of years.

So, again, how could 'migration' and/or 'mass migration' ever end?

Personally, I migrated from the EU to SE Asia, because I do not like the unbearable nosiness of the government back home.

Okay, but does the reason for your own 'personal migration' here relate at all to 'the reason' for 'mass migration'?

Making goods simply for profit needs to end.

That removes the incentive to produce pretty much anything.

Talk about this being a prime example of the adult human being, in the days when this was being written, when they, literally, thought or believed that the reason for existence was to 'obtain money' or 'make profit'.

Just so you are aware "godelian" 'the incentive' to produce things was once to assist in living, and surviving, only. And then 'bartering' was employed, which assisted in living, and surviving. But then, and very sadly and unfortunately, human beings began becoming greedy and selfish. And, from then on 'it was all downhill', as some here might now say.

Now, once 'greed' and 'selfish' is removed and once again human beings live properly and Correctly, then production of things will happen and occur not for money nor profit, but what all things are best produced for, exactly. Which is; for just assisting in helping making living, and being alive, better, simpler, and easier for absolutely every one, only.

Imagine that the farmers stopped producing wheat, rice, and corn.

The human beings, which you call "farmer" here, will never just stop producing these things here. After all they do want to stay alive, keep living, and keep surviving.

do you think that the only reason so-called "farmers" produce things is for just 'money' only?

I know all of you adult human beings do, and produce, just about all you do for 'money' only. But, I also know that you adult human beings are not going to just stop doing, and producing, things if it means you will just end up not living anymore. you will, obviously, keep producing things that make life, living; being alive, better, simpler, and easier for "yourselves".

Since they are not allowed to make money,

How and why did you 'jump to' 'the conclusion', 'they are not allowed to make money'?

The statement and claim, 'Making goods simply for profit simply needs to end', says nothing about anyone not being allowed to 'make money'.

That statement and claim could be interpreted as 'wanting' to make goods simply for just 'making money' needs to end, that is if human beings want to keep on surviving, and living on, this one and only home, and homely place called earth.

All of you human beings are free to keep 'making' as much money as you like. However, if you human beings 'want' to keep living, and surviving, then all you have to do is just get rid of your Wrongly learned and misguided 'want' and 'desire', [selfishness and greed], to keep 'making more and more money'.

After all there is, obviously, no actual real reason, purpose, nor necessity to just 'make money' anyway.

they would leave the land fallow.

While others living in concrete boxes in cities would freely love to leave also, and go and live 'on those, now left and vacated, lands'. As always human beings will just keep moving, and migrating, anyway.

Pretty much everybody on the globe would starve.

This would have to be one of the most ridiculous and ludicrous claims ever made on this forum.

This one believes, absolutely, that human beings instead of just growing a few fruit and vegetable plants they, instead, would just die out of starvation. Could you be more 'blindsided' here "godelian"?

The natural 'want' and 'desire' to 'keep living' will absolutely always override any stupidly learned 'want' and 'desire' for pieces of paper with numbers on them or for just numbers on a screen in a so-called 'bank account'.

Adult human beings can be the most stupidest living thing on the planet but even they are not 'that stupid'.

Of course, I would pay extra for some of the remaining wheat, rice, or corn that some idealistic farmers produced just for having fun. These farmers would make some unexpected extra profit from my unexpected tip. Maybe they do not even want the tip, but I still want the produce. How can I convince them to sell it to me and not to someone else? Given the massive shortage, that question would become a matter of survival.

This here is a prime example of Wrong teachings, absolute deception having been employed and followed, and one who has been indoctrinated into believing that 'money matters' more than even life, itself.

Saying you would pay extra for what you can get your hands on misses, completely and utterly, the whole point here. If the human species 'wants' and 'desires' to keep living, and surviving, then human beings need to stop producing and doing 'for monetary profits'.

As with social services, such as medical and dentistry currently in the news, which should be for absolutely everyone as needed and available, with no private elite.

If medical or dentistry were for free, then the current capacity would not be enough. You would probably need ten times more doctors, nurses, and dentists.

So, well to this one here anyway, if medical became free for absolutely everyone, then all of a sudden more people will become sick.

So, these services would end up costing ten times more in total.

you seem to have, once again completely and utterly missed the whole point here. Which is; to stop producing and doing for 'monetary profit'.

Who is going to pay for all of that? Imagine you do that with every product or service? Say that beef fillet is available for free, because everybody should be able to eat as much as he wants. Now people start feeding beef fillet to their cats and dogs too. It is for free anyway. Now that the beef fillet is for free, we need ten times more than before.

you might as well, literally, talk about 'red herrings' being for free here, as well.

I do not want to live in a country where they do too much of that kind of things. There are shortages of everything. You end up queuing for everything. The government requisitions all possible income from everybody, institutes a massive bureaucracy in a vain attempt at collecting more taxes, and is still perennially short of money. That is why I hate freebies. That is why I do not want to live in a country where the government hands out freebies. It always degenerates into hell on earth.

But, the 'love of money' and 'stealing from' the already downtrodden, and supporting and uplifting further the already 'monetary rich' generates into heaven on earth, right "godelian".

you appear to be living in a very particular part of "south east asian", or you appear to be completely blind to what is around you.

[godelian]

do you think that the only reason so-called "farmers" produce things is for just 'money' only?

After all there is, obviously, no actual real reason, purpose, nor necessity to just 'make money' anyway.

This here is a prime example of Wrong teachings, absolute deception having been employed and followed, and one who has been indoctrinated into believing that 'money matters' more than even life, itself.

People share with their next of kin, often without expecting anything in return.

The more tribal the society is, the larger the number of people that they recognize as being kin, and the more people they are willing to freely share with.

So, the first question then becomes: Why did the tribes and clans disappear in the West? We know from history that they used to exist. Nowadays, they don't anymore.

Well, is is the Christian Church that dismantled the Germanic tribes and clans by banning cousin marriage. It made the tribes easier to rule as individuals. It is important that they do not help each other when attacked by the ruling class. Therefore, it is Christianity that degenerated society with the purpose of having more power over the individual and in that way to extract more resources out of the masses.

People in the West are indeed more greedy because their society has a history of rule by Christianity.

But then again, even in a non-western society, tribal solidarity does not scale infinitely.

That is where (tit-for-tat) trade kicks in:

Quran 2:275. Those who devour usury (riba) shall not rise again except as he rises, whom Satan of the touch prostrates; that is because they say, 'Trade is like usury (riba).' God has permitted trade, and forbidden usury (riba). Whosoever receives an admonition from his Lord and gives over, he shall have his past gains, and his affair is committed to God; but whosoever reverts — those are the inhabitants of the Fire, therein dwelling forever.

The tribe only scales so far. That is why it is necessary to switch to tit-for-tat trade beyond that point. Since Allah has permitted trade, he has also permitted trade profits.

Of course, western-style financial shenanigans ("usury") are clearly forbidden. So, the western usury-infested fiat bankstering system is a depravity.

The superiority of Islam over Christianity is a well-known and well-understood fact. Christianity is not a valid moral theory. On the contrary, Christianity is just a bad joke. Unlike what Paul wrote in Galatians, it is not God's law that is a curse, but Christianity itself.

The superiority of Islam over blank-slate atheism is another well-known and well-understood fact. Atheists do not even have a documented moral theory. How can they conclude anything in terms of morality, when there is nothing to conclude it from? Where is their documentation? Where is their "scripture"?

[Age]

do you think that the only reason so-called "farmers" produce things is for just 'money' only?

After all there is, obviously, no actual real reason, purpose, nor necessity to just 'make money' anyway.

This here is a prime example of Wrong teachings, absolute deception having been employed and followed, and one who has been indoctrinated into believing that 'money matters' more than even life, itself.

People share with their next of kin, often without expecting anything in return.

The more tribal the society is, the larger the number of people that they recognize as being kin, and the more people they are willing to freely share with.

So, the first question then becomes: Why did the tribes and clans disappear in the West? We know from history that they used to exist. Nowadays, they don't anymore.

Well, is is the Christian Church that dismantled the Germanic tribes and clans by banning cousin marriage. It made the tribes easier to rule as individuals. It is important that they do not help each other when attacked by the ruling class. Therefore, it is Christianity that degenerated society with the purpose of having more power over the individual and in that way to extract more resources out of the masses.

People in the West are indeed more greedy because their society has a history of rule by Christianity.

But then again, even in a non-western society, tribal solidarity does not scale infinitely.

That is where (tit-for-tat) trade kicks in:

Quran 2:275. Those who devour usury (riba) shall not rise again except as he rises, whom Satan of the touch prostrates; that is because they say, 'Trade is like usury (riba).' God has permitted trade, and forbidden usury (riba). Whosoever receives an admonition from his Lord and gives over, he shall have his past gains, and his affair is committed to God; but whosoever reverts — those are the inhabitants of the Fire, therein dwelling forever.

The tribe only scales so far. That is why it is necessary to switch to tit-for-tat trade beyond that point. Since Allah has permitted trade, he has also permitted trade profits.

Of course, western-style financial shenanigans ("usury") are clearly forbidden. So, the western usury-infested fiat bankstering system is a depravity.

The superiority of Islam over Christianity is a well-known and well-understood fact. Christianity is not a valid moral theory. On the contrary, Christianity is just a bad joke. Unlike what Paul wrote in Galatians, it is not God's law that is a curse, but Christianity itself.

The superiority of Islam over blank-slate atheism is another well-known and well-understood fact. Atheists do not even have a documented moral theory. How can they conclude anything in terms of morality, when there is nothing to conclude it from? Where is their documentation? Where is their "scripture"?

Since you quoted that part of what I asked you, just so you become aware you did not answer the actual question asked.

[godelian]

Since you quoted that part of what I asked you, just so you become aware you did not answer the actual question asked.

Your beef seems to be with the profit motive:

The statement and claim, 'Making goods simply for profit simply needs to end', says nothing about anyone not being allowed to 'make money'.

My answer is otherwise very clear: Allah has permitted trade but forbidden usury. Trade profits are fine. Profiting from financial shenanigans is not.

Pretty much everybody on the globe would starve.

This would have to be one of the most ridiculous and ludicrous claims ever made on this forum.

Are you even moderately familiar with 20th century history? Nothing has killed more people in the 20th century than removing the profit motive from agriculture. Look at just the following two examples, i.e. the Holodomor (Ukraine) and the Great Leap Forward (China).

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

The Holodomor,[a] also known as the Ukrainian Famine,[9b] was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1930–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union.

Others suggest that the famine was primarily the consequence of rapid Soviet industrialisation and collectivization of agriculture. A middle position, held for example by historian Andrea Graziosi, is that the initial causes of the famine were an unintentional byproduct of the process of collectivization but once it set in, starvation was selectively weaponized and the famine was "instrumentalized" and amplified against Ukrainians to punish them for their rejection of the "new serfdom" and to break their nationalism.

Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was "not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you." The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died. Parents who resisted cannibalism died before their children did.... At least 2,505 people were sentenced for cannibalism in the years 1932 and 1933 in Ukraine, though the actual number of cases was certainly much higher.

The same happened in China:

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

The Great Leap Forward was an economic and social campaign within the People's Republic of China (PRC) from 1958 to 1962, led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Party Chairman Mao Zedong launched the campaign to reconstruct the country from an agrarian economy into an industrialized society through the formation of people's communes.

Millions of people died in China during the Great Leap, with estimates ranging from 15 to 55 million, making the Great Chinese Famine the largest or second-largest[1] famine in human history.

The major changes which occurred in the lives of rural Chinese people included the incremental introduction of mandatory agricultural collectivization. Private farming was prohibited, and those people who engaged in it were persecuted and labeled counter-revolutionaries.

There are of course other examples, but these two catastrophes are the most spectacular ones. There is only one conclusion possible. Removing the profit motive from agriculture leads to mass starvation.

Only by blatantly ignoring 20th century history, you could try to come to different conclusion. By the way, there are few people as dangerous as the ones who believe that they can change or improve human nature. It is not heaven on earth but hell on earth that they create.

When you propose a set of rules to govern human behavior, you'd better make sure that they match exactly human nature -- without trying to improve on it. Almost nobody can do that correctly. That is why the religious scriptures are so amazing. You can organize a society along those lines and still not end up with a catastrophic carnage. Your idea that it would be possible to abolish greed or selfishness, is dangerously naive. Human nature cannot be changed. You can only accept what it truly is.

[godelian]

British Values.

By the way, where is that thing, "British Values" even documented? How can anybody conclude anything from something that is not even properly specified? Where the hell is the definitive documentation for that thing?

Seriously, the notion itself of "British Values" is ridiculous. Ideas that cannot be documented are simply laughable nonsense. The notion of "British Values" is especially stupid when held against Islam, which at least does have proper documentation.

Reasoning from undocumented "British Values" is suitable for illiterate idiots only. It proves that politics is often very, very stupid.

[Age]

Since you quoted that part of what I asked you, just so you become aware you did not answer the actual question asked.

Your beef seems to be with the profit motive:

The statement and claim, 'Making goods simply for profit simply needs to end', says nothing about anyone not being allowed to 'make money'.

My answer is otherwise very clear: Allah has permitted trade but forbidden usury. Trade profits are fine. Profiting from financial shenanigans is not.

So, if God/Allah has, supposedly and allegedly, permitted 'trade', but forbidden usury, then what part of the word 'trade' makes you think or believe that 'swapping/trading' produce/goods for unnecessary pieces of paper, coins, or screens with numbers on them has absolutely anything to do 'trade', itself?

And, if 'usury' means, the action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest. Then why do you imagine that this was forbidden but 'trading' produce at unreasonably rates to make unnecessary and unreasonably high 'profits' is permitted?

Have you ever once considered that your interpretation of what Allah/God has, SUPPOSEDLY, said and claimed could be Wrong or Incorrect in any way at all?

Or, is this not possible in your belief and imagination?

Pretty much everybody on the globe would starve.

This would have to be one of the most ridiculous and ludicrous claims ever made on this forum.

Are you even moderately familiar with 20th century history? Nothing has killed more people in the 20th century than removing the profit motive from agriculture. Look at just the following two examples, i.e. the Holodomor (Ukraine) and the Great Leap Forward (China).

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

The Holodomor,[a] also known as the Ukrainian Famine,[9b] was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1930–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union.

Others suggest that the famine was primarily the consequence of rapid Soviet industrialisation and collectivization of agriculture. A middle position, held for example by historian Andrea Graziosi, is that the initial causes of the famine were an unintentional byproduct of the process of collectivization but once it set in, starvation was selectively weaponized and the famine was "instrumentalized" and amplified against Ukrainians to punish them for their rejection of the "new serfdom" and to break their nationalism.

Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was "not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you." The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died. Parents who resisted cannibalism died before their children did.... At least 2,505 people were sentenced for cannibalism in the years 1932 and 1933 in Ukraine, though the actual number of cases was certainly much higher.

The same happened in China:

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

The Great Leap Forward was an economic and social campaign within the People's Republic of China (PRC) from 1958 to 1962, led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Party Chairman Mao Zedong launched the campaign to reconstruct the country from an agrarian economy into an industrialized society through the formation of people's communes.

Millions of people died in China during the Great Leap, with estimates ranging from 15 to 55 million, making the Great Chinese Famine the largest or second-largest[1] famine in human history.

The major changes which occurred in the lives of rural Chinese people included the incremental introduction of mandatory agricultural collectivization. Private farming was prohibited, and those people who engaged in it were persecuted and labeled counter-revolutionaries.

There are of course other examples, but these two catastrophes are the most spectacular ones. There is only one conclusion possible. Removing the profit motive from agriculture leads to mass starvation.

Only by blatantly ignoring 20th century history, you could try to come to different conclusion. By the way, there are few people as dangerous as the ones who believe that they can change or improve human nature. It is not heaven on earth but hell on earth that they create.

you are, still, completely missing and misunderstanding things here. But, please carry on as you are.

When you propose a set of rules to govern human behavior, you'd better make sure that they match exactly human nature -- without trying to improve on it. Almost nobody can do that correctly. That is why the religious scriptures are so amazing.

So, you actually believe that human being scripted writings and human made up rules, made and forced upon others, are 'so amazing'.

Are you sure that this is what you want to believe, say, and claim here "godelian". For, obviously, 'religious scriptures' were written by your human beings. Or, were not yet aware of this irrefutable Fact?

You can organize a society along those lines and still not end up with a catastrophic carnage. Your idea that it would be possible to abolish greed or selfishness, is dangerously naive.

Well considering the irrefutable Fact that I never even thought that, let alone said it anywhere, you view or belief here is Truly twisted and distorted.

Human nature cannot be changed. You can only accept what it truly is.

And, what do you believe is 'human nature' "godelian"?

[godelian]

So, if God/Allah has, supposedly and allegedly, permitted 'trade', but forbidden usury, then what part of the word 'trade' makes you think or believe that 'swapping/trading' produce/goods for unnecessary pieces of paper, coins, or screens with numbers on them has absolutely anything to do 'trade', itself?

If you swap goods against other goods, then it is called "barter". If you swap it against currency, it is called "trade". But then again, you seem to believe that currency is unnecessary. The existence of currency is traditionally justified from solving the problem of the double coincidence of wants:

Having a monetary medium can resolve this issue as it provides freedom for the former to work on or give away other items of interest, instead of being burdened to provide a particular item to the latter, impeding innovation in the long term, especially if barter was implemented on a larger scale.

And, if 'usury' means, the action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest. Then why do you imagine that this was forbidden but 'trading' produce at unreasonably rates to make unnecessary and unreasonably high 'profits' is permitted?

Usury ("riba") has a different definition in Islam. It means that the only interpretation possible for a particular fee, is interest. It has nothing to do with a high or low rate of interest. For example, you can enter a 20-year rental contract for a house, after which you can buy it for one dollar. One interpretation is that the rental fee is actually a mortgage payment. However, as long as nothing in the contract invalidates the dual interpretation of the monthly fee as a rental payment, the contract is not usurious. The actual amount of the monthly payment does not matter, because that is not what it is about.

Have you ever once considered that your interpretation of what Allah/God has, SUPPOSEDLY, said and claimed could be Wrong or Incorrect in any way at all?

Can you point out an actual error instead of hypothetical ones?

So, you actually believe that human being scripted writings and human made up rules, made and forced upon others, are 'so amazing'.

Religious law is mostly a matter of self-discipline.

Religious law only potentially becomes a matter of enforcement if you damage the interest of others and create victims. In that case, adjudication by a court of law attempts to prevent a cycle of revenge between the aggrieved parties to potentially be started.

Are you sure that this is what you want to believe, say, and claim here "godelian". For, obviously, 'religious scriptures' were written by your human beings. Or, were not yet aware of this irrefutable Fact?

Our biological firmware was not written by humans. That view would be circular. If humans wrote it, then who wrote the firmware of the humans who wrote it? Therefore, the true origin of our biological firmware and hence also of its release notes, i.e. the religious scriptures, cannot be human either.

And, what do you believe is 'human nature' "godelian"?

We cannot read our own biological firmware but we can read the release notes that go with it.

It is definitely possible to believe that a particular scripture is not the release notes for our biological firmware. What does not make sense, however, is to believe that our biological firmware or its true release notes would be of human origin.

[Age]

British Values.

By the way, where is that thing, "British Values" even documented? How can anybody conclude anything from something that is not even properly specified? Where the hell is the definitive documentation for that thing?

So-called "british value" could be 'argued' as traveling to other lands, making no effort to integrate with the peoples of those lands, not learning their language, sticking to one's own religion, forcing one's own customs onto people of other lands, and taking control over 'those people' and 'their lands'. Which is a bit like what all people of "theological religions", like "islam", try to do.

As can, once again, be seen here, clearly.

Seriously, the notion itself of "British Values" is ridiculous. Ideas that cannot be documented are simply laughable nonsense. The notion of "British Values" is especially stupid when held against Islam, which at least does have proper documentation.

But it is only so-called 'proper documentation' made up on and from 'misinterpretations' and 'misdirections'.

Reasoning from undocumented "British Values" is suitable for illiterate idiots only. It proves that politics is often very, very stupid.

Okay. But, you are yet to prove that you have not, stupidly, misinterpreted writings in just other human being created stories and books, like the 'quran'.

And, if you would like to even try to, then, please, let 'us' discuss this.

[godelian]

So-called "british value" could be 'argued' as traveling to other lands, making no effort to integrate with the peoples of those lands, not learning their language, sticking to one's own religion, forcing one's own customs onto people of other lands, and taking control over 'those people' and 'their lands'. Which is a bit like what all people of "theological religions", like "islam", try to do.

For a starters, that is a bit disingenuous for a country that traveled the world to colonize more than half the planet at gunpoint, while making no effort to integrate with the peoples of those lands, not learning their language, sticking to one's own religion, forcing one's own customs onto people of other lands, and taking control over 'those people' and 'their lands'. At least, these new migrants are not doing all of that at gunpoint!

Secondly, religion has nothing to do with territory. It is a belief. Imagine that you fly around the earth on an airplane, crossing borders every ten minutes or so. Do you change all your beliefs every ten minutes?

Thirdly, do you really believe that other people should adopt feminist and LGBTQ "values"? A great number of British people do not do that either! You see, when there is a difference between the beliefs in the West and outside of the West, I still need to find one, single example in which the western take on the matter is not misguided. Everything that is uniquely western tends to be uniquely wrong. Ultimately, it is always a manipulative lie of which the real purpose is to more easily extract resources from the masses.

Okay. But, you are yet to prove that you have not, stupidly, misinterpreted writings in just other human being created stories and books, like the 'quran'. And, if you would like to even try to, then, please, let 'us' discuss this.

At least, the beliefs embodies in the Quran are fully documented. That means that we have something to debate, unlike in the case of the so-called "British values" which are not even documented. So, what is there to debate about "British values"? Nobody knows what they exactly are!

[Age]

So, if God/Allah has, supposedly and allegedly, permitted 'trade', but forbidden usury, then what part of the word 'trade' makes you think or believe that 'swapping/trading' produce/goods for unnecessary pieces of paper, coins, or screens with numbers on them has absolutely anything to do 'trade', itself?

If you swap goods against other goods, then it is called "barter". If you swap it against currency, it is called "trade".

So, it sounds like if I asked you, 'Would like to 'trade' the loath of bread that you made, for my three cows, or even for these 17 virgins that I have here', then you would not be able to understand comprehend the 'trade' here. Is this right?

But then again, you seem to believe that currency is unnecessary.

Well what 'seems' to you is not necessarily the actual case at all.

The existence of currency is traditionally justified from solving the problem of the double coincidence of wants:

Having a monetary medium can resolve this issue as it provides freedom for the former to work on or give away other items of interest, instead of being burdened to provide a particular item to the latter, impeding innovation in the long term, especially if barter was implemented on a larger scale.

But, you adult human beings can 'justify', in the sense of 'justifying' only to some, only, absolutely anything, no matter how Wrong that it really is.

And, if 'usury' means, the action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest. Then why do you imagine that this was forbidden but 'trading' produce at unreasonably rates to make unnecessary and unreasonably high 'profits' is permitted?

Usury ("riba") has a different definition in Islam.

So to just about every other word could as well.

Which, once again, partly shows and reveals the very reasons WHY you adult human beings have been arguing, bickering, fighting, and even killing each other over the last few millennia or so hitherto when this is being written. And, especially so you adult human beings who have and hold different 'theological religions', and especially more so those who have the strongest convictions or faith and belief in any of the, chosen, 'theological religions'. Of which ALL are misguided and misdirected in some ways.

Is the different definition in "islam" more right or more correct than the definition in any other religion or dictionary?

It means that the only interpretation possible for a particular fee, is interest. It has nothing to do with a high or low rate of interest. For example, you can enter a 20-year rental contract for a house, after which you can buy it for one dollar. One interpretation is that the rental fee is actually a mortgage payment. However, as long as nothing in the contract invalidates the dual interpretation of the monthly fee as a rental payment, the contract is not usurious. The actual amount of the monthly payment does not matter, because that is not what it is about.

Okay, if you say and believe so. But, I do not yet see how this example explains your interpretation of the God/Allah supposedly and allegedly, 'forbidding usury' here?

So, how is the word 'interest', 'in your interpretation', defined in "islam"?

Have you ever once considered that your interpretation of what Allah/God has, SUPPOSEDLY, said and claimed could be Wrong or Incorrect in any way at all?

Can you point out an actual error instead of hypothetical ones?

1. Yes.

2. I never pointed out any 'hypothetical errors'.

3. I just asked you another clarifying question, which you have, again, failed to answer, and clarify, as well.

So, you actually believe that human being scripted writings and human made up rules, made and forced upon others, are 'so amazing'.

Religious law is mostly a matter of self-discipline.

Why only 'mostly'?

Why not 'always'?

Religious law only potentially becomes a matter of enforcement if you damage the interest of others and create victims.

Well, obviously, taking, and thus 'stealing', money from others, which could have actually saved those other's lives is, again obviously, causing and creating so-called "victims".

If one does not share, what they do not need, and what could save another's life, or even make another's life better, then this, obviously causes and creates "victims".

Or, conversely, if one steals from another what they actually need to keep living and surviving, then again "victims" are being caused, and created.

What you are doing 'now' is 'damaging the interest of others'. So, what, supposed, 'religious law' will be used on you as 'enforcement'?

By the way, here is another 'actual error' of yours here.

In that case, adjudication by a court of law attempts to prevent a cycle of revenge between the aggrieved parties to potentially be started.

But, what has this got to do with your claim about what 'Godallah', supposedly and reportedly permits and forbids?

Are you sure that this is what you want to believe, say, and claim here "godelian". For, obviously, 'religious scriptures' were written by your human beings. Or, were not yet aware of this irrefutable Fact?

Our biological firmware was not written by humans.

And, let 'us' not forget that you do not know what the human being so-called 'firmware' is, yet.

That view would be circular.

Therefore, for you to be the only one who brought 'that' up and said and wrote 'that' here, makes your circular claim even more bizarre.

If that view would be circular, then i suggest you do not bring that view up here.

No one else, besides you alone here, had 'that view'. Well not that I am aware of anyway.

If humans wrote it, then who wrote the firmware of the humans who wrote it?

I hope you are asking 'you' this alone here. As you are the only one who had and is holding 'that view'.

Therefore, the true origin of our biological firmware and hence also of its release notes, i.e. the religious scriptures, cannot be human either.

So, all of the 'religious scriptures', of the world, well to "godelian" were not written by human beings.

This now makes some wonder, whose hands actually created those texts, writings, books, and scriptures if it was not by humans?

And, what do you believe is 'human nature' "godelian"?

We cannot read our own biological firmware but we can read the release notes that go with it.

So, I just have to read the 'release notes', written down in the middle of any country on earth, and any 'period of time' throughout history, to read what you claim are the 'release notes of human biological firmware', right?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then in 'your own personal release notes', which you follow, use, and believe in, what does it say about is 'human nature', exactly?

If you do not answer this question now, then why not?

It is definitely possible to believe that a particular scripture is not the release notes for our biological firmware.

Just like it is definitely possible to believe that all particular scripture, or just one, is the so-called and so-claimed 'release notes' for your human 'biological firmware'.

And, if one does believe this, then it would also be extremely simple and easy for them to find 'the part', in 'the release notes', which states what is 'human nature', exactly.

And, it would be especially easier and simpler for one like "yourself" who says and claims that 'the answer' is in 'the release notes', correct?

What does not make sense, however, is to believe that our biological firmware or its true release notes would be of human origin.

Again, to believe so would be 'very, very circular'.

So, why you keep bringing this up here, when absolutely no one else that I know of has even thought this seems Truly ridiculous. But, 'each to their own', as some say.

All 'we' know here is that ALL 'scriptures' were written down by human beings. Unless, of course, absolutely anyone has actual proof that shows and reveals otherwise.

Which, if anyone does here, then would you like to bring it forward please?

[Iwannaplato]

Atheists do not even have a documented moral theory.

That's a bit like saying monists, or pragmatists, or holists don't have documented moral theories. It's a category of people not based on moral unity.

How can they conclude anything in terms of morality, when there is nothing to conclude it from?

You decided that the Koran and Islam was where you would seek answers. Using similar intuition and preference any particular atheist can choose what they consider moral. Presumably you wouldn't choose a religion which had morals you thought were abhorrent. It matched your already present values and the experiences you had when entering the religion or participating in it felt right to you. Atheists can make similar choices and find their way through a similar methodology.

Where is their documentation?

They can, like anyone else, when arguing for certain behaviors or against others in a consequentialist way refer to sociology, psychology, various sciences, etc. For the foundational values, again it comes from their own values.

Where is their "scripture"?

Obviously they don't have one. But the same cognitive processes that led you to decide the Koran is the right scripture, they use to notice and develop their own values. You chose to give authority to something, from that point forward you then follow that authority, but that is AFTER you used processes quite similar to those used by atheists, when they choose.

[Age]

So-called "british value" could be 'argued' as traveling to other lands, making no effort to integrate with the peoples of those lands, not learning their language, sticking to one's own religion, forcing one's own customs onto people of other lands, and taking control over 'those people' and 'their lands'. Which is a bit like what all people of "theological religions", like "islam", try to do.

For a starters, that is a bit disingenuous for a country that traveled the world to colonize more than half the planet at gunpoint, while making no effort to integrate with the peoples of those lands, not learning their language, sticking to one's own religion, forcing one's own customs onto people of other lands, and taking control over 'those people' and 'their lands'. At least, these new migrants are not doing all of that at gunpoint!

Which is why I, specifically, used the words 'a bit like'.

I, specifically, use those words to illustrate that the other migrants who do not use guns are 'not like' the previous migrants, but are 'a bit like' in other ways.

Secondly, religion has nothing to do with territory.

I never ever thought it did, let alone ever implied it did, let alone ever said it did.

So, why did you say and write what you did here?

It is a belief.

Yes, 'literally', some might say.

Imagine that you fly around the earth on an airplane, crossing borders every ten minutes or so. Do you change all your beliefs every ten minutes?

I only have one belief, only, which I have no intention of changing. So, no I do not imagine that I would change that one and only belief.

Thirdly, do you really believe that other people should adopt feminist and LGBTQ "values"?

This is not the belief I have, nor what I believe.

A great number of British people do not do that either! You see, when there is a difference between the beliefs in the West and outside of the West,

you talked about 'imagine' and 'crossing boundaries' before. So, what and where do you imagine 'the line', and 'boundary', is between some so-called "west" and "east", exactly?

I still need to find one, single example in which the western take on the matter is not misguided.

There are some examples of where you adult human beings all over the world, in the days when this has been written, have not been completely misguided Incorrectly, yet.

But, this seems to be getting few and few in some ways, but, luckily, conversely in other ways.

Will you enlighten 'us' to where you 'take on matters', which you believe are not misguided?

If no, then why not?

Everything that is uniquely western tends to be uniquely wrong.

This is, obviously, from your own personal point of view only here.

So, are you capable and brave enough to explain to the 'rest of us' how and why you hold this view and believe this view so strongly?

Ultimately, it is always a manipulative lie of which the real purpose is to more easily extract resources from the masses.

1. What would this 'extraction of resources from the masses' be in relation to, exactly? Is it so some make 'more money'? Which, by the way, you have been 'trying to justify', and which you have even claimed 'Godallah' permits? But, if it is not 'money', then what is 'it', exactly?

2. When you wrote, 'it', here, what are you referring to, exactly? Is 'it' the, 'Everything that is uniquely western tends to be uniquely wrong', belief and claim of yours? If no, then what is 'it', exactly?

Okay. But, you are yet to prove that you have not, stupidly, misinterpreted writings in just other human being created stories and books, like the 'quran'. And, if you would like to even try to, then, please, let 'us' discuss this.

At least, the beliefs embodies in the Quran are fully documented.

The beliefs embodied in other religious texts, like the "christian scripture", are also fully documented. But, that in absolutely no way at all makes them 'justified', 'verified', True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct. Like, for example, that the Universe began, all at once, once upon a time, in the beginning.

Even the beliefs embodied in the 'religious texts' of 'science writings' are also fully documented, but are also not all True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct at all either. Like for example that the Universe began, and is expanding.

Also, what you seem to be, still, completely and utterly missing and misunderstanding here is that even if 'what is written' is absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then 'it' can still be misinterpreted or misunderstood Wrongly. And conversely, 'what is written', which is just plain old Wrong can be misinterpreted as being true and right.

Again, if you would like to discuss 'this', with me, then there are countless examples that I could bring-to-light, and show you.

That means that we have something to debate,

But, I do not do 'debate'. I much prefer to just 'look at', 'see', and 'discuss' only 'that' which is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, only, and instead.

unlike in the case of the so-called "British values" which are not even documented. So, what is there to debate about "British values"? Nobody knows what they exactly are!

There is absolutely nothing 'to debate' here, regarding that, or them, or anything else for that matter.