Posted in Philosophize

Is advertising for alcoholic drinks a scam?

There are companies that exist to make us drink. Not only that, but their goal is to get more people to drink their product and drink more.
Huge marketing departments. Art directors, clubs, social pressure, friends.
All the advertising messages we receive show us the pleasures of alcohol. Are there any that tell us how dangerous alcohol is? No, but about driving drunk, yes.
It’s not about not allowing it (prohibition), but to start not advertising it like tobacco.
Other non-alcoholic (Coca-Cola, Red Bull…)

What do you think about drinking and selling alcohol?

Is it necessary for our life?
Is it like food and water?
Isn’t it poison for our bodies?
Isn’t it poison for our mind and consciousness?

I think about it all the time and I still don’t understand why we’ve made such a big business out of it. We’re fighting against cigarettes and smoking. But there are messages about enjoying alcohol instead of danger.

Funny commercial with Charlie Sheen

Think about it. Share your opinion.

Posted in Philosophize

Why Freedom of speech does not apply on social media?

Why is there no freedom of expression on social media?

Because it’s a private platform and has its own rules written by whoever owns the domain and platform. Social media is private property! Social media platforms are not a public square. They aren’t public property, owned and operated by government.

Freedom of speech does not apply to social media because social media is owned and operated by private businesses. The proprietor of a social media platform has the legal right to determine what can and cannot be said on the platform.

Free Speech and Social Media: What Are Your Rights?
Many people are complaining about being kicked off social media platforms, either because of particular posts or because of a series of posts. Professor of law at New York School, Nadine Strossen, explains why you can’t apply your freedom of speech on Facebook, Twitter etc…

Is it fair that major social platforms shut down or ban the profiles of those who make misinformation? Is it necessary and justified in order to protect citizens?

This is a very sensitive issue. In principle, I say it is better to avoid censorship. But when a person harms society by spreading false and baseless information, something should be done. At the very least, it should be reported and punished if the action is done with obvious negative intentions.

But Who decides if an information is false and harmful?

I cannot suggest a perfect solution, but a simple idea to develop. In my opinion, it is important to initiate a public investigation to verify the origins of the phenomenon. Investigate also the intentions of who did it. Perhaps the fact of being investigated and prosecuted could be a deterrent and set an example to commit such actions.

Is it better to have a personal website?

Getting a personal site is better because you can publish whatever you want, within the limits of legality, without having to submit to the rules or share intimate information with a private company.
In fact, Socially Owned Platforms could be the future social network.

What are Socially Owned Social Platforms, and How Will They Solve the Problems of Social Networks?

As you can understand from the title, it aims to explain what are decentralized social networks.

More Sources:
Posted in Philosophize

SHOAH: The world remembers what Israel has forgotten

Holocaust Memorial Day

Last week we had the International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

There is a bit of hypocrisy in my view, because the first people who should remember are the people who were the victims.

Erase a population from the Map

Ironically, it seems that they are doing what someone else has done to them: I mean, erase the existence of another population. As we can see, on the American platforms of Google Maps and Apple Maps (Look on your smartphone).
They also changed all places and cities names from Arabic to new Hebrew names.

The civilised world

Whenever someone says: “Palestinians are terrorists attacking the civilised world”.

Was an attack against the civilized world

US President Joe Biden

Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the shooting attack in Jerusalem that claimed seven Israeli lives. He said the incident “was an attack against the civilized world”, according to the White House in a readout of their telephone call.

World reacts to rising violence in Israel-Palestine conflict – Al Jazeera

Last days, the violence increased again after Israel raid on Janin refugee camp (click to read more). In response, Fighter groups answered (click to read) to violence.

But Biden’s repetition of the same sentence reminds me of the scandals by US army in Iraq.

I Cannot stop thinking about the civilised world they *wanna* build.


The 55-second clip, that was seen by millions of television viewers across the world when it aired on September 30, 2000, showed al-Durrah clinging to his father, Jamal, behind a barrel as bullets flew around them.

The father is seen gesturing frantically to try to stop the shooting as the boy screams in terror.

The camera then cuts to a shot of the motionless boy slumped in his father’s lap. A French TV report blamed Israeli troops for killing the boy, which Israel has long disputed.

Images of al-Durrah taken from the film were reproduced on stamps, and on murals painted across the Middle East; schools and streets were named after him; and he became viewed as a martyr in Gaza.

Daily Mail (UK)

“I’ve been hit,” the Palestinian father quoted his son as saying.

The first bullet struck Mohammad’s knee. The helpless father assured his son that an ambulance will soon arrive to transfer him to the hospital. But Mohammad insisted that he was fine and capable of enduring the pain.

“Don’t be afraid dad,” Jamal recalled his son’s words.

Moments later, Jamal, who himself sustained multiple wounds, found his son’s head falling into his right lap with a deep wound on his back.

MEMO (Middle East Monitor)

Remember this…

Posted in Philosophize

Who to follow on social network for a healthier life

I’ m not a big fan of proprietary platforms like Instagram, Twitter and Tik Tok.
Instead I’m a big fan of decentralised social platforms as Mastodon.

The main reason is that we put our intimate personal lives in hands of people We should not trust. And history showed us many times that we definitely should not.

Anyway We can talk about main alternatives on other posts.
In this post I’m going to share people and channels that share positive contents for our society.

I’m also trying to avoid the fake ones. People that they show positive contents but they fake it. Like compilations where people save cats/dogs in danger, but actually they put them in danger to make these videos.

I always take care when it’ s about to trust contents on internet.
So I’m going to share just genuine contents and this list will continue to grow during time .

On Instagram

Samuel Weidenhofer (Video creator)

Samuel Weidenhofer is a video creator.

Motto: “For more Kindness”

He makes altruistic videos where He helps people in troubles.

He does it differently! He seems not just looking for likes and followers, instead He gain donations.
He shows us that people in trouble or living in street are a lot of times more altruistic than wealthy people. Wealthy people are usually selfish.

It made me thinking a lot. That much that I wanted to share his channel.

Posted in Philosophize

What Scientists say and think about God? – You’ll be surprised

For Big questions, we also need great minds.

As we started our journey from the article, “How many times have we asked ourselves about the origin of creation“.

We continue and search thoughts expressed by the greatest scientists in our history. Nothing about theologians.

OK! Is there a “Creator” or a “Great Intelligence”?

An atheist says: “We can’t proof it by science, and we can’t see anything. Then God doesn’t exist.” Agnostics, on the other hand, claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable.

Adventure with the science guys

  • Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642)
  • Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882)
  • Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)
  • Michio Kaku (1947 – present)
  • Dr. Francis Collins (1950 – present)
  • Bill Nye (1955 – present)
  • Neil DeGrasse Tyson (1958 – present)

Galileo Galilei – “That great book”

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes — I mean the universe — but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language, and the symbols are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it; without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.

Galileo Galilei in “The Assayer” (1623), as translated by Thomas Salusbury (1661), p. 178, as quoted in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (2003) by Edwin Arthur Burtt, p. 75

Charles Darwin – “I have never been an atheist”

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) in his last years, as he wrote in a letter (1879) to John Fordyce:

[My] judgment often fluctuates…. Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. — I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, — that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

Letter to John Fordyce (link)

Albert Einstein – “A superior mind”

It’s interesting because a scientist see Nature and Universe by a completely different way rather than a usual man. A great scientist spend his lifetime looking for the deepest laws and rules in our cosmos.

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. […] This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as “pantheistic” (Spinoza).

A.Einstein, in answers he gave to the Japanese magazine “Kaizō” in 1923.

Albert Einstein had a special and personal concept of God, influenced also by Spinoza (1632-1677, philosopher).

Dr. Michio Kaku – “Is God a Mathematician?”

The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God.

Dr. Francis Collins – “A different set of questions”

Some scientists see religion as a threat to the scientific method that should be resisted. But faith “is really asking a different set of questions.”

— says Collins

Dr. Francis Collins has served as the director of the National Institutes of Health since August 2009. He is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, where he led the successful effort to complete the Human Genome Project—which mapped and sequenced all the human DNA and determined aspects of its function. The project built the foundation upon which subsequent genetic research is being performed. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. In 2007 Collins received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honour, and in 2009 Pope Benedict XVI appointed him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Collins has also published several books about the intersection of science and faith, including the New York Times bestseller “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.”

Why its so hard for scientists to believe in god

Bill Nye – “We are actually Agnostic”

Neil DeGrass Tyson – “Atheist or Agnostic?”

One of the most famous and contemporary agnostic scientists is Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Astrophysicist).

Final thoughts

As final thoughts, it’s not a matter of only scientific research. Because our ability and position to answers some ambitious questions are faraway our prediction. I can’t imagine when we could be able to find out and solve such mysteries. One thousand years? Two thousands? One Hundred thousands?

Excluding our extinction by ourselves, of course…

We can give one conclusion. There is a higher order, a predictable design. There are signs that every phenomenon is following a specific, designed rule that connects everything.
We can also see that this is the result of an intelligence somehow.

I’d like to leave you with an interesting piece from an interview with Martin Rees, a famous cosmologist. In this interview, he shares his thoughts about the Nature Laws.

This post will be updated with new sources and researches!

Feel free to share your knowledge and sources to make a constructive conversation.