A'Merka

[Brendocon]

I was briefly exposed to Radio 1 news yesterday, who referred to the whole problem as "plans to build a muslim centre."

In a tone that made it sound like a little factory or something. I fear for the nation's youth, I really do.

[Kaylee]

Muslims come from factories? My stars!

Do you think they'd make one with wifi and mp3 playback if I asked nicely?

[Metal Vendetta]

Pretty much, it's better than some, worse than others. I assume you're familiar with what conditions were like in the feudal world of Buddhist pre-China Tibet?

OK, for you it's just 'all religion'. I get it. But for me and others, the 'some better, some worse' counts for a lot.

I take it you're not familiar with pre-China Tibet, then. Buddhism's a lot better than other religions right now because it's effectively powerless, but to understand a religion, look at what happens when they find themselves in charge. Just a few hundred years ago the Catholics would burn people at the stake for reading the Bible in English. In the middle east, the Muslims stone women for being raped. And before 1959 in Tibet, the majority of the population were serfs to be traded, sold, executed and tortured at the whims of the Lama and his upper class of priests and monks.
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html

Yeah, they might seem all cool and groovy and peace and love these days, but that's only because China took away their toys.

[Kaylee]

Tibet != Buddhism, no more than America == Christianity.

[Metal Vendetta]

No, but it does show us what a Buddhist theocracy looks like. I'd wager the Pope would be a lot more media-friendly and wowfabgroovy if someone took his Vatican away.

[Kaylee]

No, but it does show us what a Buddhist theocracy looks like. I'd wager the Pope would be a lot more media-friendly and wowfabgroovy if someone took his Vatican away.

You're missing a piece to complete your argument.

You've currently got: bunch of people doing bad things who happen to be Buddhist but, if you're aiming for Buddhism -> Bad, you need to establish Buddhism as a major cause of their behaviour rather than merely an associated fact in an oppressive autocracy.

So, logically, you need to add in a teaching from Buddha advocating their behaviour to establish Buddhism as a cause.

Not sure what Google will bring back but might be worth a look?

[Metal Vendetta]

Buddhism's a religion, it tells people it has all the answers and thanks to that power it has, it can be corrupted like any other faith. In history, it's been corrupted enough that human sacrifice and torture have been condoned, nay, encouraged by its leaders. Now you may say that people would have done those things anyway, but as soon as they took people's faith in Buddhism and used that to justify their actions, Buddhism was compromised. Of course it was compromised in the first place - being fictional as all religions are, but I'm not going to turn around and cheer "Yay Buddhism" just because it's the religion that's caused (relatively) little oppression and suffering. Right now it's probably the best of a bad bunch, but it's far from the ideal.

[Kaylee]

Buddhism's a religion, it tells people it has all the answers and thanks to that power it has, it can be corrupted like any other faith. In history, it's been corrupted enough that human sacrifice and torture have been condoned, nay, encouraged by its leaders. Now you may say that people would have done those things anyway, but as soon as they took people's faith in Buddhism and used that to justify their actions, Buddhism was compromised. Of course it was compromised in the first place - being fictional as all religions are, but I'm not going to turn around and cheer "Yay Buddhism" just because it's the religion that's caused (relatively) little oppression and suffering. Right now it's probably the best of a bad bunch, but it's far from the ideal.

I obviously wrote unclearly. I was asking you to demonstrate to me the oppression was actually caused by Buddhism, rather than claiming myself that it was not.

You never know when you're going to learn something and I thought you might know something I didn't in this instance.

Out of interest, doesn't your reasoning also bias you against everything that has ever been abused to one person's advantage and to another person's disadvantage due to it's being perceived as trustworthy? I'm probably misunderstanding what you wrote, due to being a spud

[Brendocon]

Muslims come from factories? My stars!

Do you think they'd make one with wifi and mp3 playback if I asked nicely?

I think they do one already, but the battery life is **** and the signal cuts out if you try and hold it.

[Kaylee]

Muslims come from factories? My stars!

Do you think they'd make one with wifi and mp3 playback if I asked nicely?

I think they do one already, but the battery life is **** and the signal cuts out if you try and hold it.

Ooooh... {tempted, despite obvious technical defects}

[Jack Cade]

I take it you're not familiar with pre-China Tibet, then. Buddhism's a lot better than other religions right now because it's effectively powerless, but to understand a religion, look at what happens when they find themselves in charge.

Why confine that philosophy to religion? Why not say 'to understand a race, look at what happens when they find themselves in charge'?

No, I'm not saying you're racist, but it really doesn't make sense to judge any group of people by what the chaps in charge do. Power corrupts, and any mad or bad person or group in control of a country, by your argument, blots the copybook of everything they believe in. John Major was an atheist - is he what happens when atheists are put in charge?

And (here comes Godwin!) Hitler was a vegetarian. Let's hope those guys don't gain power again any time soon!

I'm going to judge a religion by what the majority of its followers end up believing. If it's different in the past to the present, then I consider that religion to have changed, rather than to be lying in wait, its followers whispering, "Shh! Don't tell them what we're going to do when we get back on top!"

[Kaylee]

I think Jack and Rob are the same person and he's resolving some inner conflict.

[Metal Vendetta]

I obviously wrote unclearly. I was asking you to demonstrate to me the oppression was actually caused by Buddhism, rather than claiming myself that it was not.

I'm not as familiar with Buddhism as I am with other faiths, I'd have to look properly. I suppose I could point to the tenets of reincarnation beling responsible for the Lamas and their despotic legacy, but it's stretching it. Most likely I'd point to the adoption of Buddhism by the Mongolian empire as the reason for its corruption but it's something I'd gave to research.

Out of interest, doesn't your reasoning also bias you against everything that has ever been abused to one person's advantage and to another person's disadvantage due to it's being perceived as trustworthy?

Why confine that philosophy to religion?

Forgive me if I concatenate these questions, but they seem to me to be asking the same thing.

Religion has a unique power over people's minds, it's extremely powerful, extremely pervasive and extremely persuasive. It can make otherwise good people excuse the most horrendous evils (just look at all the Catholics leaping to defend their church in the press in the wake of the child rape scandal) and it encourages its followers to think in terms of "us and them". I'm not saying their are other memeplexes out there that can be equally damaging to society - nationalism is another, of which I'm equally disdainful - but religion just seems so pointless because it's based on completely fictional concepts.

[Kaylee]

I obviously wrote unclearly. I was asking you to demonstrate to me the oppression was actually caused by Buddhism, rather than claiming myself that it was not.

I'm not as familiar with Buddhism as I am with other faiths, I'd have to look properly. I suppose I could point to the tenets of reincarnation beling responsible for the Lamas and their despotic legacy, but it's stretching it. Most likely I'd point to the adoption of Buddhism by the Mongolian empire as the reason for its corruption but it's something I'd gave to research.

So you have no evidence?

If you don't have any evidence but believe it anyway, doesn't that make it faith?

Don't misunderstand me: I'd be really interested in anything you find. The point remains at this time, though, you don't have it, yet believe it still.

Out of interest, doesn't your reasoning also bias you against everything that has ever been abused to one person's advantage and to another person's disadvantage due to it's being perceived as trustworthy?

Why confine that philosophy to religion?

Forgive me if I concatenate these questions, but they seem to me to be asking the same thing.

Religion has a unique power over people's minds, it's extremely powerful, extremely pervasive and extremely persuasive. It can make otherwise good people excuse the most horrendous evils (just look at all the Catholics leaping to defend their church in the press in the wake of the child rape scandal) and it encourages its followers to think in terms of "us and them". I'm not saying their are other memeplexes out there that can be equally damaging to society - nationalism is another, of which I'm equally disdainful - but religion just seems so pointless because it's based on completely fictional concepts.

I'm genuinely sorry for being confrontational: but is that a yes or a no to my question? It sounds a bit like a a hedging of bets.

I'd observe though that religion isn't pointless. From the most simple perspective it looks like an incredibly effective way to control the majority of a population and enforce order with a minimum of effort.

Again, I attach no judgement to whether that is a good or bad thing; merely observing that it is not pointless.

[bumblemusprime]

Hitler was a vegetarian

Later in life due to gastronomic issues, not concern for widdle bunnies.

[IronHide]

I just say I’m an uber-bastard, say what I want and pat myself on the back right? I just wanted to join in man.

You totally stole my thing.

[Metal Vendetta]

So you have no evidence?

If you don't have any evidence but believe it anyway, doesn't that make it faith?

Don't misunderstand me: I'd be really interested in anything you find. The point remains at this time, though, you don't have it, yet believe it still.

The point I'm trying to make is that even if there are no doctrines within Buddhism that encourage violence, even if the whole philosophy is one of pacifism and non-violence, there are still Buddhists who either ignore that philosophy or bend it towards violence. There's evidence enough of that:

http://www.jendhamuni.com/news/articles ... thGuns.htm

At which point I'd have to question, what good is it? What's the point of all the lotus-position sitting and contemplating the universal nature of life and so on if at the end of it, you're just as likely to pick up a rifle and shoot someone as a non-Buddhist? Don't forget, Islam is famously "the religion of peace".

It's like when the Catholics defend their record on ****ing kids by saying "Well if you look at the figures for that period of history, child abuse amongst Catholics was no higher or lower than any other institution." In which case what's the point of being a Catholic?

I'm genuinely sorry for being confrontational: but is that a yes or a no to my question? It sounds a bit like a a hedging of bets.

I'd say yes in most cases - for example I used to be a lot more patriotic than I am now, but I've seen how easily patriotism and nationalism conflate into something ugly, I also realised that the hsitory I was taught at school had a distinctly pro-English bias and perhaps England isn't something I should be particularly proud of.

I'd observe though that religion isn't pointless. From the most simple perspective it looks like an incredibly effective way to control the majority of a population and enforce order with a minimum of effort.

And as L Ron Hubbard almost certainly didn't say, the quickest way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.

Again, I attach no judgement to whether that is a good or bad thing; merely observing that it is not pointless.

Not for the people at the top; I really have no idea what those under control get out of it. Then again, I could say the same about people who spend half their wages watching 22 millionaires running about on some grass every week.

[Kaylee]

Interesting stuff we agree on large amounts and that all sounds logically consistent.

Except:

What is it you expect Buddhism to 'do' when people are bad?

It's a philosophy (ie an opinion) held by humans based on the thoughts of a long dead Indian prince.

It can't assume a physical presence and stop bad people, no more than any other set of opinions.

Does that make all opinions bad?

[Metal Vendetta]

What is it you expect Buddhism to 'do' when people are bad?

Nothing. It is what it is, like you said, a means of control and supression that keeps people infantilised and stops them asking awkward questions.

Does that make all opinions bad?

Yep, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone's got one, they all stink and I quite enjoy poking at them.

[Brendocon]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 009103078/

[Metal Vendetta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4XJQO3qol8

Holy ****, he burned a copy of Dawkins' book! I'd better get an angry mob together! Doesn't he realise how dearly I hold that book?

OTOH, I do like this idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnjnT7r4dKA

[Kaylee]

What is it you expect Buddhism to 'do' when people are bad?

Nothing. It is what it is, like you said, a means of control and supression that keeps people infantilised and stops them asking awkward questions.

Which unfortunately you don't have any evidence for, as established, making it an opinion/belief...

Does that make all opinions bad?

Yep, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone's got one, they all stink and I quite enjoy poking at them.

Which makes the concept of opinions moot... So why do you keep coming back to defend yours?

Furthermore what differentiates your opinion from anyone else's, given they have all been rendered equally pointless? Isn't quibbling over burkas reduced to meaningless semantics?

[Metal Vendetta]

Which unfortunately you don't have any evidence for, as established, making it an opinion/belief...

I have evidence that you said it:

I'd observe though that religion isn't pointless. From the most simple perspective it looks like an incredibly effective way to control the majority of a population and enforce order with a minimum of effort.

Or do I need to have faith in the Transfans board in order to quote from it?

Which makes the concept of opinions moot... So why do you keep coming back to defend yours?

Because I'm right. Duh.

Furthermore what differentiates your opinion from anyone else's, given they have all been rendered equally pointless? Isn't quibbling over burkas reduced to meaningless semantics?

No, because I'm right. See above.

[Professor Smooth]

There are some crazies associated with Buddhism. Look into Aum Shin Rikyo.

[Kaylee]

Which unfortunately you don't have any evidence for, as established, making it an opinion/belief...

I have evidence that you said it:

I'd observe though that religion isn't pointless. From the most simple perspective it looks like an incredibly effective way to control the majority of a population and enforce order with a minimum of effort.

Or do I need to have faith in the Transfans board in order to quote from it?

You could question my sources or facts, as I didn't give any and yet stated it as a truth. That is by definition a direct act of faith on your part, isn't it?

Though don't misunderstand, I'd be very flattered if you still had so much faith in me after all these years

The rest sounds like you don't have an answer. I'd say that actually makes me right, except for the fact I haven't really stated anything.

So why this 'uber bastard' stuff?

Im sorry, I'd quote properly but iPhones make it hard work

[Metal Vendetta]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at - ultimately all people's viewpoints are just opinions, just some are based on fact to a lesser or greater degree. Like when I read in the Hadith that Mohammed had sex with Aisha when she was 9 and he was 52, my opinion is that it's disgusting. This is an opinion that I (presumably) don't share with the millions of Muslims that venerate Mohammed. You have your opinions about Buddhism, I have mine. We all have a set of values and principles by which we judge ourselves and others. Some people are happy with the answer "because God said so", I find that kind of thinking facile and childish.

You could say that it comes down to "meaningless semantics" and I'd probably agree with you, up to a point. After all, despite what Yaya says about my making "a tenuous co-existence between differing peoples that much more tenuous", I'm quite aware that my opinion on a message board devoted to some toys from the 80s is worth precisely Jack **** in the greater scheme of things.

[Kaylee]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at - ultimately all people's viewpoints are just opinions, just some are based on fact to a lesser or greater degree. Like when I read in the Hadith that Mohammed had sex with Aisha when she was 9 and he was 52, my opinion is that it's disgusting. This is an opinion that I (presumably) don't share with the millions of Muslims that venerate Mohammed. You have your opinions about Buddhism, I have mine. We all have a set of values and principles by which we judge ourselves and others. Some people are happy with the answer "because God said so", I find that kind of thinking facile and childish.

You could say that it comes down to "meaningless semantics" and I'd probably agree with you, up to a point. After all, despite what Yaya says about my making "a tenuous co-existence between differing peoples that much more tenuous", I'm quite aware that my opinion on a message board devoted to some toys from the 80s is worth precisely Jack **** in the greater scheme of things.

I suppose what I would like to know is that given your opinions are based on faith as much as the next fellow as we explored above, what do you feel separates you from (say) Yaya, other than you have different answers to the same questions?

If you'd said "I suspect Buddhism to be the same but I don't know" you would be on sturdier ground than "It's the same as the others, I just don't have the evidence yet."

That's belief rather than reason, or it certainly feels like it to my flawed understanding of your thoughts, so why so contemptuous of other's beliefs when you have the same 'crutch' from a logical view?

As a semi related aside your beliefs or lack thereof are as ever your own business. I just find them interesting and the only way I learn is by trying to dissect. I'm aware you know that anyway but want to throw out there that I still think you're lovely and your right after Yaya in the smooch queue

[Kaylee]

And only 'after' in the queue because I already know what smooching you is like

[Best First]

Back from a quite excellent stag do. I jumped off a cliff.

It seems to me I'm saying 9/11 was a pretty bloody important event in the recent history of the world and you and Besty are saying "nah, that was nothing".

Ok, so that is how it seems to you, but it seems to Jack (I am supposing) and I that you made a stupid post which lacked even the degree of nuance you claim above and seemed primarily intended to provoke Yaya.

Neither of us have at any point said 9/11 was nothing or even anything close to that that I can see (although feel free to quote). Equally neither of us are repeatedly complaining about putting words in other people’s mouths.

Having been challenged on this original post you subsequently try and suggest that other people are saying 9/11 doesn’t matter, which no one is that I can see is, and that you have always had this degree of nuance in your assertions about said event, which you in fact in the post that is being challenged, didn’t.

As you are asserting lots of things that no one particularly disagrees with or are not pertinent to the criticism of the original post these tend to get ignored (although certainly in my case this is also partly down to the time I have available). This is apparently a Very Bad Thing.

Worse still, or at least equally bad, some people are being sarcastic towards you.

And yet all this seems to have originated from a post where you didn’t address all of someone’s points, seemed to deliberately or otherwise misinterpret the question that was being asked and responded in a sarcastic fashion.

And also you seem (and I accept fully that it’s hard to tell from written text) be offended by what you perceive as misinterpretation of sarcy critiques of your posts (admonishing people for how much they have contributed no less), but at the same time assert that you don’t give a crap about offending people on the internet and deploy sarcasm at will.

Can you really not see why people are struggling a bit?

In terms of the debate as it has moved on, I thought this article or more the study it refers to, in terms of the relative morality of secular societies was interesting and does suggest there is fact based evidence of mileage in the suggestion that a religion free or lite societies has the potential to be better. However I am wary of corollaries being used as a suggestion of a definitive link and would, based on say, the thunderingly obvious examples of the USSR & China, suggest that additional ingredients, such as democracy, are also required;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... secularism

Muslims come from factories? My stars!

Do you think they'd make one with wifi and mp3 playback if I asked nicely?

I think they do one already, but the battery life is **** and the signal cuts out if you try and hold it.

Ah, the iMan.

I don't want one, i just think i do.

[Kaylee]

Ah, the iMan.

Bravo!