Does humanity deserve Corona?

[WinterHold]

Humans can be better; that's for sure. Harnessing empathy is not a hard task, it comes naturally and can even be taught, but you will find the so-called values of "nationalism" blocking empathy from various human societies, in simpler words it makes humans "selfish"; not caring for others just because some borders on paper says that "this is American and this is an Asian".

Yes, I always say that empathy is natural, but it's also about the easiest thing in the world to overcome. 

Nationalism is a method for switching it off. But just about anything will do. People who look different, or dress differently, or advocate opinions that are slightly different from the norm -- they will be mocked. People easily find reasons why it's OK to make others feel bad. 

On this forum you are unable to hurt us. There is no way for your opinions to jump through the screen and cause me harm. Nor are you particularly powerful in causing pain in the world. But nearly everyone posting here finds it acceptable to call you whatever name they can think of, and now they're talking about banning you from the forum. There's little or no empathy going on. And I'm sure if pressed everyone can justify this obvious lack.

Damage on the internet is mostly psychological; since people in it can't hurt you physically most of the time they will seek to destroy you psychologically. But the two-edged weapon is that people adapt; and that adaptation makes the attack more severe.

People who attack you were probably attacked once, so they repeat the same assault they once tasted against you. Trolls got trolled before; cold fucks got attacked by cold fucks before; and so on.

It becomes a redundant cycle that never end. But that's how the system of the internet got built.

When the institution is also a product of this "nationalistic sense"; its actions would also be serving the main concept that gave birth to it in the first place. From that, "selfishness" becomes more of a policy and guidance for any action done by the followers of that institution.

Let the religious lose faith and religion be eradicated; evil will not stop or even get touched. As I look around, almost all evil today is carried on by the institutions that don't even believe in any religion.

Corona made a lot see through their institutions and ex-values; when your own countrymen are more dangerous to you on a personal level -due to infection- than windmills built by the media, one has to think.

Yes, this is something like what they call "disaster capitalism." When there's an earthquake or a plague, it functions mostly as an excuse to ramp up the things they want to do anyway. So a virus allows us to discriminate more against different races, and give more money to the rich, and take more money from those who need it. 

By number, it's true that institutions without a religion are doing the most harm. That's because the most powerful institutions aren't religious ones. The World Bank and those places are devoted solely to Neoliberal values, and the charts and graphs they're showing now about the virus make it clear: they're calculating how many millions of people they're willing to let die in order to save certain industries. 

Exactly, milking the disaster and mining it for more profit.
The whole economic system is not even close to being religious; the crisis of 2008 and the oil-war we are seeing now between Russia/Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with religion. Blaming the wrong cause is simply betrayal for all the people who suffer because of this rotten economical system with its bubbles and its oil dependency.

I want to be careful in my definitions: religious institutions so-called can also do harm. Because religion as much as nationalism may serve as a rallying point and identity that allows us to switch off empathy for people not in the group. Some very religious people might deny that those are really religious groups, if their focus is on evil rather than good, but I'll go with the broadest definition. If a group defines itself as Hindu but is also killing Muslims, it's a religious group that happens to be bad. (Very stupid people look at the world and conclude that only such bad religious groups exist -- that this is the essence of religion. But obviously that's not the case.)

Where I agree with you is that values that are not determined by economics are necessary. Traditionally, religion has provided authority for values that can't be measured by quantifiable benefit to the bottom line. Supporting disabled or elderly people who don't contribute to the money world is something difficult for modern institutions to justify, and traditionally (though not necessarily) it's been religious institutions -- or at least people who define their motivations in religious terms -- who provide for such people. 

Maybe I'd shy away from using the word "religion" as a necessary opposition to nationalist and neoliberal evils. But I would use the word "belief." Because "belief" can refer to commitments that are unprovable by scientific or economic means. "I believe in equal rights for women," is a statement of belief. Again, religion has traditionally been the natural home for such beliefs, but non-religious people can certainly have them. It may be more difficult, though, since without a metaphysical framework such beliefs just become personal preference, and not rooted in a greater view of the universe. 

The stance I see moderate and convenient is building a system where everybody believes what they want, even choose the courts they want to judge their attacker, while the state's foreign and internal affairs are judged by Islam.

No state gives that kind of freedom to its citizens but we have archeological and documented evidence that such state did exist in the past:

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

The document ensured freedom of religious beliefs and practices for all citizens who "follow the believers". It assured that representatives of all parties, Muslim or non-Muslim, should be present when consultation occurs or in cases of negotiation with foreign states. It declared "a woman can only be hosted by a host with the consent of her family" and imposed a tax system for supporting the community in times of conflict. It declared the role of Medina as a ḥaram (حرم, "sacred place"), where no blood of the peoples included in the pact can be spilled.

When I think about the poor and the tired -and I already have M.S btw- I think that the suffering is already bad with the virus. In other words; the rich are the ones who will pay the most.

Here I think I'm going to disagree with you flat out. 

The rich get early testing and quality health care. They can go 6 months with no income and not become homeless -- or their income continues to come in from investments even if they do nothing for 6 months. 

As with the Senators caught doing insider trading, people in power profit from the suffering of the rest of us. 

So we reach our happy ending,
Rich and poor can now embrace
Once the cash is not a problem
Happy endings can take place.

Disagreements over spoils are
Always work out in the end
Cause the rich who hold the reins know
How to win back what they spend.

Some in light and some in darkness,
That's the kind of world we mean.
Those you see are in the daylight
Those in darkness don't get seen. 

-- Berthold Brecht

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWMl9oEU...b&index=20

But what about the billions they lost because of this?
In my opinion; fortune lost hurts the rich more than anything

Many people deserve hell. How many killers I might say?

I don't know anything about what the Koran says....

The best interpretation of Hell and justice I know of comes from Dante. And he is very clear that you and I can't be the judge. At one point he says that a lot of Christians are going to wake up on the Judgment Day and be surprised to find that many people "from the banks of the Ganges" (i.e. non-Christians) are going to be ahead of them in the line for Heaven. 

But again, I think we're all guilty to some degree, and it's better for me to focus on my own failings.

I think Dante's words are true in this -even though I never read anything from him-.
It all comes to the actions in Islam's case. If a person commit the deeds condemned by God in the Quran and didn't commit deeds enough to erase them; then their place is decided by God.