<center>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Mexican_execution%2C_1914.jpg/1024px-Mexican_execution%2C_1914.jpg</center>
<center><sup>*Mexican execution by firing squad, 1916. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#/media/File:Mexican_execution,_1914.jpg">wikipedia></a>*</sup></center>

Why am I wrong? Who determines me guilty and when am I found guilty ?, whatever happens, I am suddenly convicted, so I am forced to accept the punishment, is there really anything wrong and right? I will start with the wrong and true understanding itself.

<center>***WRONG AND TRUE***</center>
***
Actually wrong and true has existed since life began on earth, initially, there is nothing wrong, until someday there is a man who is found guilty after considered harm to others, for example, A kill B, then the disadvantaged is the B, so indirectly A was found guilty of murdering B. (point 1) 

It turns out that B is a criminal, B has robbed and looted the treasure of many humans at that time then due to the investigation B deserves punishment. (point 2)

The investigation continues, A knows what B is doing and forces B to reproduce the entire proceeds of crime B, B refuses and consequently, A has to kill B (point 3)

A does not claim to have killed B, and there is no evidence whatsoever obtained from the murder so that A cannot be made a suspect.

From the explanation on some points above then what can you conclude and who is actually guilty?
If you answer A guilty, then there is no proof of the deeds that have been done.
If you answer the correct A, then you acknowledge the crime committed by A (kill B)
The fact is.
1. B has been killed
2. A free from punishment

What about the wolves who eat your cattle, can wolves be considered guilty?

I will also give an example stating that the truth we are doing is not absolute.
A friend said it was late, while the conditions were clear at noon. So will you mock and laugh at that friend? If yes then maybe you are just a bully, not a thinker.

The fact is, when in some parts of the earth is day then some other areas must be the night.

Similarly in the field of science, 500 years ago if you say the earth is round then you will be punished, but today science says that the earth is round. That is a proof of that truth will fade with the changing times. It could be a few years to say that the earth is a pyramid (you can laugh today, but who knows it's true in the future :P)

*What exactly do I want to say?*
The truth that we know today is not absolute and eternal. Depending on which angle you see it.

<center>***EXAMPLE***</center>
***
When <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin">Darwin</a> proposed the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism">theory of evolution/Darwinism</a>, almost all humans agree on it. Darwin claimed that humans were descendants of apes even though Darwin did not write them in his famous book, but Darwin classified monkeys with the same order as humans, primates, indirectly Darwin admits that apes and humans came from the same ancestors who evolved into human beings such as the day this, do you believe it? or it could be that only Darwin's ancestors came from ape families: P

From all the discussions written by Darwin I can take a pattern, the reversed pyramid pattern, meaning that all life on earth comes from one kind of life only, and continues to evolve and make the various kinds of living things as we know them today.

Then you will also tell me, what about the findings of various ancient human skeletons such as *Pithecanthropus* and so forth, would not it be in line with Darwin's theory before man became as we know today, man first evolved into an early (ancient) man? Is not today no longer a living ancient human, which means that the ancient man is a chain of human evolution?

I will not argue against Darwin's theory, but I think it can also make a comparison so you can judge for yourself.

What if I reverse the Darwinian theory pattern, I will make a regular pyramid pattern.

When the earth has been formed then there has actually been a diverse life on earth, (do not ask where that variegated life exists because a steemit friend once told me "@kharrazi is MAGIC": D), then various living beings of various kinds finally extinct one by one, why are they extinct?

The extinction of various living things is inseparable from the changing conditions of the earth to the experts agree that the earth is now in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene">Holocene period</a>, the earth has been through a variety of glorious ice age and ends as we know today, meaning the earth will select any kind of living thing which can survive to this day.

*Another simple example.*
If only the orangutans had gone extinct several thousand years ago and finally the bones of orangutans were found today, then there could be some insane people trying to assume that Orangutans also belong to the chain of evolution from humans.

I think all the creatures that do not survive with the condition of the earth at that time will be extinct, and leaving only a few species of creatures only and can we meet like today

If 10,000 years ago there was a census of living things it could be ascertained that there would be very many species of living creatures of various species, and if today the census was re-done then, of course, many extinct species, such as mammoth and so on, the type of extinct species is the result of the evolution of form change? If so, then why is not currently the discovery of new species of evolution from frogs for example?

But I will not assume any further in this case, because I also do not engage in in-depth research and I am sure many will reject my views, no matter because this is a view, not a theory that spends much time and energy.

<center>***IS THE MAJORITY OPINION IS CORRECT?***</center>
***
I mean, if all the countries on earth say that Kim Jong Un is guilty and must be eliminated, then is Kim Jong Un wrong and should be punished, if it is wrong then who should punish it, me, you or them?

Personally, I only know Kim Jong Un from various news in the media, I see Kim Jong Un as a leader of a sovereign state of fat and looks adorable :D

<center>***OTHER QUESTIONS***</center>
***
*Is it justifiable to kill someone?*
You will be punished if you kill someone for no reason. But you will get rewards if you kill someone by law and have a reason.

*Then the question arises again, what is the law?*
The law is the rule agreed upon by the majority of people (in the area) / democracy and so on, if the rule is violated it will be punished, among others, the death penalty.

*What does it mean if there is a death sentence?*
That is, the majority of people (in the area) agree to eliminate a person's life based on the law they agree on. Or, the majority of human beings agree to eliminate a person's life.

*Is there something strange?*
Of course, there is, what is the right of a human to eliminate human life?
This incident has happened in Indonesia, where some foreign nationals have been sentenced to death because they have been proven to have drugs, in fact, I do not agree with the sentence, but what can I do, Indonesian law that requires them to die.

<a href="https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=Indonesia">www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org</a>

Do I feel guilty? Of course, because I indirectly also participated. How not, I have chosen several legislative and executive representatives to decide the laws in this country, I personally apologize to the families of the victims.
But it should also be remembered that due to their actions, very many families become victims, lost children (due to overdose) and trigger high crime rates. but do I support the punishment of them? I have no idea.

As an architect, we were taught to think basically, we were directed not to easily judge a news, we were forced to think further and more detail.

<div class="pull-left"><center>https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2015/03/17/21/20/luxury-automobile-678394_960_720.jpg
</center><center><sub><p>A luxury car. <a href="https://pixabay.com/id/mobil-mewah-mahal-berkilau-678394/">pixabay</a></p></sub></center></div>

They told me that it was a car and we generally agreed it was a car, but I did not immediately approve of what they said, why?
What if I move the door, the glass, the seat and the steering wheel, is it still called a car? You might say "yes it's still a car. But what if I move the engine, is it still called a car? You start thinking no longer called a car and you could not have given me an answer.
Then, what if I move the chassis and just left the license plate number of the vehicle, do you still call it a car? I'm sure you'll answer, no, it's not a car.

My question is, which part is called a car? You might say "the whole unity contained in the thing called the car," but you forgot it when I moved the door, you still call it the car, so when I move the seat and the steering wheel you still call it the car and the fact is when the door, seat, and wheel are moved then there is no longer a single unity.

Indirectly you swallow your own vomiting, and by itself, I can say that public opinion is not necessarily true, so to know right and wrong you just need to peel something until you get the gist of the problem.

If all the truths that we believe today are not necessarily true then, what exactly is the absolute truth? You can find your own answers.

*Thank you for your time and have a nice day*

<center>***All of these writings are only personal views***</center>