Iranian Chill Thread

[Chevil]

Anybody here watches Walking Dead series? Man I was barely breathing watching episode 9. Its best episode yet to this day.

It just repeating itself over and over .... and now , some characters have plot armor ... the last season is a disaster ...

 

[Madali]

The humanity is dead in them because like I said before they are not different from the Sunnis who support saddam because he is sunni and hate bashar because he is an alawite the same goes for the iranian members who fought against the Ba'ath in Iraq for 8 years but they support the same filth in Syria

Not many people love Assad but like in life, there are usually hard choices. It's like radiation treatment for cancer. No one goes for chemotherapy because they love being zapped by radiation rays, but because it is the best choice they have to defeat cancer.

It's the same way with Assad. Between Assad and Daesh, which one do you choose?

 

[haman10]

It might sound too late to ask, but I am really wondering what is your motivation behind being a firm supporter of Asad? I understand you take the position that the Iranian government is taking. But isn't the human cost way too much to keep ignoring the blood bath that is taking place? Isn't possible for you to be a "humanist" in respect of this conflict? I don't blame some religious Iranians here (without mentioning names) as they are being victimized by the current Iranian regime's representation of Shia Islam (and such claimed representation, is, in the best case scenario an arguable one). If we had a different Shia government in Iran, it could easily take another route all together in respect of Asad.

I don't know if you are a Shia believer or not, but I know that you are "culturally" Shia at least. I already understood your hints to avoid questioning your religious convictions. But apart from religion and ethnicity, the Syrain Civil War has already escalated to a ridiculously intolerable level of cruelty. I was walking around Sulimaniyah District in Riyadh about an hour ago, and found 2 Syrian ladies with a little child begging. That what made me write this post to you as its idea went through my mind while I was driving home.

Look wahhabi ,you probably know that i'm religious ,but believe it or not ,the main reason why i despise and resent you people is because you SUCK . not because of your wired *** beliefs .

I don't care if you hate Shia muslims or Iranians for that matter . not until you and your ideology start hurting others .

I don't give a damn about how you treat your women . not until you start to imprison Iraqi women for sex jihad and sell them on the streets .

You people SUCK . thats why i despise whatever you and your nasty country stand for .

Nothing is gonna change my opinion about you people even if the end of time comes and peace prevails . its about your nasty culture not about your religious beliefs per se .

 

[Salman_Farsi]

Fereydun Abbasi, the former chief of the 'Atomic Energy Organisation' who survived in Mosad's terror operation, is one of the 4 candidates of the Fundamentalists coalition in Shiraz.

 

[mohsen]

It might sound too late to ask, but I am really wondering what is your motivation behind being a firm supporter of Asad? I understand you take the position that the Iranian government is taking. But isn't the human cost way too much to keep ignoring the blood bath that is taking place? Isn't possible for you to be a "humanist" in respect of this conflict? I don't blame some religious Iranians here (without mentioning names) as they are being victimized by the current Iranian regime's representation of Shia Islam (and such claimed representation, is, in the best case scenario an arguable one). If we had a different Shia government in Iran, it could easily take another route all together in respect of Asad.

I don't know if you are a Shia believer or not, but I know that you are "culturally" Shia at least. I already understood your hints to avoid questioning your religious convictions. But apart from religion and ethnicity, the Syrain Civil War has already escalated to a ridiculously intolerable level of cruelty. I was walking around Sulimaniyah District in Riyadh about an hour ago, and found 2 Syrian ladies with a little child begging. That what made me write this post to you as its idea went through my mind while I was driving home.

You remind me of: Crocodile tears
If you had any respect for Syrian, you would agree with Iranian plan for a free election.
you are against it, cause you don't care about them. what you are saying is"accept cannibal terrorists or live in misery"
but believe me, nobody wants you anymore, may be you managed to fool half the Muslims in the past, but today 16.2.2016 they all know the true nature of the wahhabism and the so called Syrian opposition.

 

[raptor22]

Anybody here watches Walking Dead series? Man I was barely breathing watching episode 9. Its best episode yet to this day.

Is it worth starting watching it after 6 seasons? or I just forget the idea ...

 

[asena_great]

Anybody here watches Walking Dead series? Man I was barely breathing watching episode 9. Its best episode yet to this day.

when will they release the new episode ?

 

[Chevil]

Is it worth starting watching it after 6 seasons? or I just forget the idea ...

No it's not worth it .... First 3 season s are good , but others suck

 

[Azeri440]

when will they release the new episode ?

its out

 

[asena_great]

its out

WTF ? !!! i was wondering why new episode didn't released yet i ill start downloading now

If we are going with rankings, then we beat you guys were it really counts

Worldwide Penis Survey – Where Does Your Country Hang?

14.55 cm for Iran and a tiny, itsy bitsy 14.11 cm for you Turks. *drops mic*

World map of The Penis Size Worldwide (country) by Country - TargetMap

Want to know which country has the biggest penises in the world? | Metro News

 

[Daneshmand]

My dear friend, let me present once again my greatest of gratitude for the time and effort, there are people here (@Full Moon as an example ) that unfortunately can't understand that popular attractiveness and usefulness are usually two opposing poles of a rod in discussions, or else you would have seen social philosophers in abundance around.
Also I'd like to clarify another popular misunderstanding I do witness regularly (once again take @Full Moon as an example ), that someone with enough free time is called upon in rebuking voices, while that's the most stupidest of mindsets, as you would witness the biggest of businessmen and university professors are usually in command of majority of their time using it for their hobby and are mastering their time, while construction workers and low level employee labors are always and usually in short of their free time, hence someone specially in older ages that is capable of enjoying more of his daily time in whatever he feels hobby is more possibly categorized among the elite and successful men not vice versa.

You are welcome!

Clown puppets have only a singular moral function: 'to be pitied'. They can not be ultimately loved or hated, angered or cheered-up by, and even objected to or by. After all they are just puppets. Their sole existential function is for us to exercise our pity meanwhile through that pity for them, be magnanimous. Their theatrics only provides us with opportunity that if we cared and if we had the time to stop for a while and practice our pity on them. They are not to be taken more serious than that.

I believe if this is your point, then you have no choice but to accept the millenniums of intellectual and wisdom distance among the backward middle eastern societies and first world residence as I can't see even 2500's years old Plato's and Aristotle's yet be born among these third world nations, and so you have no other choice but to lose all your hope at least for the next couple of millenniums to come.

This is correct. If you cared to remember, I had made this point long ago while debating with you. In chizi hast keh onayei keh fekr mikonan, agar jayeh jomhori eslami democracy faransavi bood ya agar shah mondeh bood ya agar mossadegh 30 saal nokhst vazir mimond, Iran behesht mishod; bayad beh khodeshon tafhim konan. Kesai keh fekr mikonan agar Ahmadinejad va Jalili 40 saal royeh kar mimondan ya agar mosavi 95 saal digeh hakem mamlekat mishod ya agar Iran yeh faza-navard dasht ya agar agar agar va baz ham agar jor digari bood, moshkelat ma hal mishodan, bayad in noktaro befahman. I already know it. And I am stoic about it.

Rahe 3000 saal tafakor ro ba avaz kardan shalvar ya poshidan daman kotah nemisheh dar yek shab raft. Onam dar shabi tarik va payeh piadeh.

Now lets get back to the topic,
So dear @Daneshmand, you believe that the current boom in scientific products and west's unprecedented recent surge of quest for social and environmental prosperity, is just the end result of their efficient competent millenniums old educational ....

Again for 20th time, I have to re-emphasize, that education system ALSO is one of their inventions. As is that philosophy. As is everything else. Yani oon system amozeshi seh hezar saal pish beh ina elham keh nashodeh bood. Peyghambar keh beheshon nagofteh bood keh in karha ro anjam bedan. It was their untiring desire to understand more and in a deeper sense which guided them towards creating those systems. Their desire to learn (from universe) did not come as a result of attending Gymnasium or Lyceum but rather the Gymnasium, Lyceum and Modern Universities were invented by them to satisfy their original desire to study the universe around them.

and training philosophy nourished only in recent era, and not a restructuring in their approach toward constructing a fresh point of worldview during their age of enlightenment.
So you are suggesting that their age of enlightenment was an inevitable era in their constant line of evolution and not a redefinition of their approach toward analyzing the universe?

You see, this is what pains me. That we are still stuck between Zoroaster and Sophist traditions and still our predominant form of thought consists of hamina hamrahe yekam eteghadat mazhabi emrozemon keh beyneh maraajeh kalami va ahmaghai akhbari navasan mizaneh.

Maybe I should put a very short simplified history of philosophy here in order to make it more clear.

Basically the story of thinking, philosophy and sciences starts with Zoroaster. He puts forward a philosophy (as part of his religion) that we humans have something called human nature and this human nature is oscillating between lie and truth. The goal of humanity is to find the truth and uphold it but he does not entirely clarify what that truth is or how to uphold it, except that he promises of a great reward on final day of judgement if we did uphold the truth.

This idea spreads and finds its way into West. There, Sophists teach arete to make humans virtuous. For them truth is not absolutist in nature and everyone and every nation can have its own version of truth since truth of an object under our study is dependent on us and how we perceive that object and how much we know about that object. The sky becomes light and warm during the day and goes dark and cold during the night, and this happens every day. This is a Sophist truth. In a nutshell it is our knowledge that defines the truth of an object and gives us wisdom and virtue. Therefore it was the humans which "defined" the truth as they deemed it fit according to their knowledge.

This Sophist knowledge makes you virtuous and wise since you know after night, there will be a day and after dark it will be light. Sophists were powerful orators who could use language and colorful arguments to defend their views, naturally with such qualities they had become very powerful as they could convince people of their views and the importance of the "virtues" they brought to the society. Mesleh hamin naghdi, abbasi, ziba-kalam ya democracy-talaban-gharbzadeh va baghieh hamin chert goyan khodemon bodan, kholaseh.

In vasat, yek pire mardi shoro mikoneh to kocheha bacheharo doreh khodesh jam kardan and arguing against Sophism. He puts forward the proposition that the truth is deeper than ourselves, deeper than the object under our study, and deeper than the knowledge we have of that object. He puts forward the idea that everything has an essence and we can not fully understand an object without contemplating about this essence. Moreover, this essence representing the truth is separate from the object itself.

This dude whose name was Socrates believed the truth is universal and as narrated by his students for example Plato, he (and Plato) believed that the essence or the truth of objects resided somewhere in the cosmos (not on earth) and these perfect forms or divine forms then caused the truth of the beings on earth. He called that place where these perfect forms reside, topos noetos. For him and his students the education of masses (by philosophers, naturally) was important because it was only through this education that the masses could learn about the truth and topos noetos, as beautifully narrated by Plato in allegory of cave. The Sophists naturally went mad with rage and condemned Socrates to death.

Later on the ideas of Socrates and Plato are expanded and modified by their student Aristotle to create a body of philosophy which would play a foundation stone for West. Aristotle comes to conclusion that the topos noetos does not really exist but the idea of the essence of objects and beings becomes the subject of his study as the inherent truth of those objects. No longer it is the knowledge of us that determines the truth about objects but the truth becomes an entity onto itself irrespective of us knowing anything about it or not.

Aristotle makes it our duty to contemplate about the idea and essence of the world around ourselves. And this contemplation unlike in Sophism happens not because of the knowledge we have learnt or accumulated about the world but goes further than that. This contemplation asks: "what is sky?". Sophist could only say it goes light and dark. But this is not what Socrates or Aristotle are asking. The question of what sky is, becomes more fundamental. It forces one then to think deeper about what something is, that we call and identify as sky. It forces one to wander into unknown rather than remaining in the known sphere of knowledge (coming through ages of wisdom, which was Sophism).

Molahezeh kon. Shoma hanoz beh Aristotle narisidi. Hanoz dargireh zartosht va sofestanian hasti. Yani yek "doktara" dar pezeshki ya bargh ya mekanik migiri va mesleh toti baghieh omret dar "tadris" hamon "Wisdom" keh yad gerefti migzareh, bedon inkeh betoni fekri az khodet dashteh bashi ya saval koni va chizi beh in elm ezafeh koni. Hanoz nemitoni hata beporsi in bargh chieh. Joratesh ham nadari.

And this is just the start. Later on after a lull, comes new findings in West. Findings such as those of Copernicus and Galileo who bring into question Aristotle's view of the world. So then Descartes puts forward another philosophy in order to replace the Aristotle's system. He puts forward the idea that it is ok to doubt. He separates human to body and mind and proposes mind-body dualism.

He gives you the permission to doubt Aristotle. To doubt the world. To doubt sard o garm. To doubt whether sky exists or not. To doubt everything. Even to doubt the existence of your own body (does your body really exist? Are you sure?). Even to doubt God. Through this doubt, you dominate the world around yourself since everything is now under your doubt. You doubt them, therefore you dominate them. But this doubt is not limitless. Descartes does not give you the permission to doubt the mind. That is, though you can doubt everything including your own body, you can not doubt your own mind which is doing the doubting. Since it is the mind that is thinking and doubting. And therefore his famous saying that: "I think (doubt) therefore I am (exist)". Descartes philosophy then expands on universalism of the essence and ideas and becomes the foundation stone for humanism, human rights, individualism, and modern sciences.

And again this is just the beginning. Spinoza comes and says, it is really ridiculous to believe in a God and pray to Him. He calls into question your love for God and praying at the same time. He sees prayers as a ridiculous request to God by humans to change the working of the universe in order to please you. As per Spinoza only a stupid narcissist would go on expecting God to bend the laws of physics and the mathematics of the Universe in order to answer your prayers (eg. God please cure my daughter's cancer! God please save me from plane crash! Oh, God, make me rich!).

Instead of prayers, Spinoza says, the duty of mankind to God is to learn the truth of the universe by discovering as many of its laws and understand the workings of the nature. And then on, accept that the Universe is too big and too beautiful to be halted/bent by God in order to satisfy your small narcissistic desires. Rather than praying and asking God to break His laws for you, thence you should spend your life in awe of the nature, if you truly love God. And through this stoicism be happy and content.

And then comes Hume who brings forward another philosophy based on empiricism. He proposes that the truth can only come from experimentation. That the idealism of essence in continental European philosophy is wrong. It is only when we experiment and learn through experience that we can discover the truth. This brings Hume into conflict with the rest of the philosophy.

Then comes Kant who unifies continental idealist philosophy with the empiricism of Hume. He does this by, arguing that the foundation of truth is experimental but not all truth can come from experiments and creates the idea of apriori.

And then and between come many many more. Thinkers like Nietzsche who reincarnates Zoroaster in order to tell the mankind, this time around, another 'truth' that the God has died and that the mankind is now alone and needs to perfect itself even more regardless. Then comes Popper who ties the loose ends of the philosophy of science by providing the powerful tool of falsification. And after 3000 years and many many thinkers, many of whom never even got mentioned here from Hegel to Aquinas, comes Fukuyama who borrowing from German philosophers announces that the historical duty of thinking and philosophy has come to an end.

That the philosophy as a subject has been completed. That the aim of philosophy has been achieved, and delivered and from now on what remains is re-interpenetration of what has been thought already (there will be no more new thinking, modernism is over as we have entered the post-modernism). That from now on it is the duty of arts and sciences to strive for completing their subject matters since philosophy has already done so.

Deghat kardi. Yani ina beh gofteh khodeshon karo tamom kardan. Mosabegharo bordan va alan tamashachi shodan. Neshastan shoma aghab-mondeha ro negah mikonan keh saro kaleh ham digeh mizanin, yekiton miad to BBC mishineh dahaneh gondasho vaz mikoneh va migeh ma democracy mikhaim , ma hoghogh felan mikhaim va yeki digash to televizion Iran sokhanrani mikoneh migeh ma mosalmon hastim, dar sakht zip shalvar khod-kafa shodim , chand miliard dollar dadim beh Siemens Alman va alan karkhoneh toorbin saazi darim , honar kardim va az in harfa.

I just laugh.

Yani engar na engar keh seh hezar saal tool keshideh keh gharb beh inja bereseh, badesh cheh velayat-madara, cheh tarafdarhai rahbari shorayii va cheh gharb-parastan va shahollaia va baghieh khodeh mellat fekr mikonan keh mitonan dar 10 saal Iran ro Alman ya Canada konan. Ma hata agar aramesh kamel dashtim, khatar shoresh, eghteshash, jang va tajzieh mamlekat nabod va in raho fast forward berim, az eshtebahat gharb dars begirim va posht kar mellati mesleh Japan ro dashteh bashim (beh onvan yek mellati keh az gharb amokht va pishraft kard), baz ham hadeh aghal yeh 100 saal tool khahad keshid ta ma beh ina beresim.

Tazeh agar beresim. Chonkeh chizai keh ina alan daran rosh sarmayeh gozari mikonan va rosh kar mikonan, shomaha hanoz na esmasho shenidin va na dar khab ya filmai hollywoodi didin.

 

[Full Moon]

You remind me of: Crocodile tears
If you had any respect for Syrian, you would agree with Iranian plan for a free election.
you are against it, cause you don't care about them. what you are saying is"accept cannibal terrorists or live in misery"
but believe me, nobody wants you anymore, may be you managed to fool half the Muslims in the past, but today 16.2.2016 they all know the true nature of the wahhabism and the so called Syrian opposition.

For the 3rd or 4th time mohsen jan, I would avoid debating with you. It is just not possible. You are a religious down to earth guy that takes the Islamic Republic so seriously (while I must be, in your eyes, the unmitigated Tazi Vahhabi evil). This how you were brought up, apparently. I am from KSA at the end of the day and I know it when the person is nice, humble, simple, and religious (like you mohsen). This type of people can easily sustain their calmness and politeness while being extremly firm in their religious convictions and political stands.

 

[Madali]

Americans are hilarious,

"
But while the Obama administration is careful to keep its interest low-key, fearing that any overt U.S. role could embolden Iranian hardliners, three Republican congressman are demanding that Tehran give them visas so that they can be on the ground as Iranians cast ballots.

Story Continued Below


After all, the three argue, what better way for the Islamic Republic to prove that its elections are free and fair than to allow skeptical Americans to watch them up close?

"We’re the perfect people," Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas told POLITICO, referring to himself and House colleagues Lee Zeldin of New York and Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey. "The Iranians should be demanding that we come."



Read more: Iran elections test U.S. gamble on nuke deal - POLITICO

 

[Serpentine]

when will they release the new episode ?

Episode 10 already released last night.

@Full Moon
I think @mohsen reply coincides with my own:

If you had any respect for Syrian, you would agree with Iranian plan for a free election.
you are against it, cause you don't care about them.

Add Bahrain and Yemen too. How come you want the 'suffering' end and demand the rule of majority, but send your soldiers to oppress fully peaceful protesters in Bahrain?

So excuse me if can't take your question seriously, even if i want to.

 

[mohsen]

For the 3rd or 4th time mohsen jan, I would avoid debating with you. It is just not possible. You are a religious down to earth guy that takes the Islamic Republic so seriously (while I must be, in your eyes, the unmitigated Tazi Vahhabi evil). This how you were brought up, apparently. I am from KSA at the end of the day and I know it when the person is nice, humble, simple, and religious (like you mohsen). This type of people can easily sustain their calmness and politeness while being extremly firm in their religious convictions and political stands.

I don't care if you are a wahhabi or not. you support their agenda and propaganda. when I say you, I mean your side. when I look at a comment I don't think about the writer's ideology, I just focus on the comment itself.
also I didn't answer to you as a religious guy, it was a logical answer.