Does humanity deserve Corona?

[Belacqua]

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.

Yes, as Auden said: "Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return." And it's important to remember that we don't really know anyone posting here -- they could be in bad situations, and get relief by posting their anger, for all we know. 

It seems from history that every new medium of communication is popularized primarily by anger and pornography. And since this isn't a forum for porn.....

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.

The last time I went to the US I was stuck in the Chicago airport for a long time, and pretty much forced to watch CNN. (The only way to escape it is to pay for overpriced food in a restaurant.) So after so many years of not seeing it, I was struck by the fact that CNN "news" is just obvious Neoliberal propaganda. Completely  shameless. So it's natural that anyone who takes it seriously will be unaware of the economic evils that powerful countries commit. That leaves religion and ethnicity as the easiest things to blame, I guess.

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

It's tricky, because of course someone who is completely convinced that his system is the best one won't be willing to leave it out of his government. Why should he? I wouldn't expect a scientist to leave his science aside when voting for environmental policy. 

That said, however, as a modern guy I of course want secular institutions. And as a resident of Japan I'm quite aware of how religion can be worked up to serve evil ends. 

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

I suppose that in an absolute way, someone with more money stands to lose more money. 

But a poor person stands nearer to disaster and homelessness. Bloomberg could lose billions and still not be in danger of having to go without insulin injections (if he needs them). Whereas lots of people in America face ruin. 

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.

Yes, if you put it that way Dante would agree too. With the stipulation that you and I and Dante aren't the ones who decide -- only God knows. 

I think I mentioned earlier that within Christianity there are also variations on this. Neoplatonic Christians have been known to say that hell is a condition brought about by losing knowledge of God. In this view, evil is something we do as the result of being in a hellish condition -- separation from the Good. "Hell" comes first, but not as punishment, and then evil is the result of that.