Let's talk about suppression

[MicroNut99]

I am not saying that at all.

Based on previous conversations
I don't believe you.

 

[LainaGabranth]

well a republican was struck down by a liberal in a car today after the geriatric who isnt in handcuffs called republicans extremists, not to mentioned be banned from social media 24-7, i mean the list really goes on.

Have you guys tried not saying the n word for fourty seconds on the internet?
Like, I don't lie about shit that could kill people, nor do I say anything racist, and I haven't been banned on twitter ever, except for one time in like 2008 because I was trying to make a shitty PSP app. I don't use Facebook because I'm not fucking 70, so I don't really know (or care) what their policies are like, but I do know that the only reason the right is getting banned off social media is because they keep trying to force companies to let them use their platform to endanger people, and the companies are (rightfully) telling them to fuck off.

 

[tabzer]

Based on previous conversations
I don't believe you.

That's irrelevant to your claim that I said a thing.

It's false speech on your part, not mine.

 

[smf]

The Democrats as they are right now seem to be the closest to being left-wing considering the amount of prominent socialist and communist-supporting politicians in their group.
Not too long ago, they were both somewhat close to being more moderate, but now they are both too far to one side.

If you are socialist or communist, then democrats are your only choice because America is very much a 2 party system. But that doesn't make the democrats socialist or communist.

It's like when your friends want to go somewhere that you don't really like, but they are your friends & you compromise.

The idea that socialism is too far to the left, is the problem. Not that socialists exist.

 

[tabzer]

If you are socialist or communist, then democrats are your only choice because America is very much a 2 party system. But that doesn't make the democrats socialist or communist.

It's like when your friends want to go somewhere that you don't really like, but they are your friends & you compromise.

The idea that socialism is too far to the left, is the problem. Not that socialists exist.

That's the type of thinking that keeps America a 2 party system. If you think it's a big issue, then you should change it.

If you aren't interested in going only to places that your friends like, find new friends.

 

[Jayro]

This will be my profile pic for November, across all platforms.

 

[MFDC12]

If you are socialist or communist, then democrats are your only choice because America is very much a 2 party system. But that doesn't make the democrats socialist or communist.

It's like when your friends want to go somewhere that you don't really like, but they are your friends & you compromise.

The idea that socialism is too far to the left, is the problem. Not that socialists exist.

Not really. Most anarcho-[communist/socialists] I know don't vote or they waste their vote - including myself, and to a lesser extent Marxist-Leninists either vote for one of the few communist party candidates, or the accelerationists vote people like trump.

 

[sombrerosonic]

This will be my profile pic for November, across all platforms.

View attachment 328955

and this will be mine

 

[MicroNut99]

That's irrelevant to your claim that I said a thing.

It's false speech on your part, not mine.

If you cannot argue without using religious slurs then you should leave the conversation.


You are a liar... and a bigot.

 

[MicroNut99]

That's irrelevant to your claim that I said a thing.

Gaslighting.
You said many things.
All of those religious slurs that you used to mock me were not based on religion?
Something that I threw out there as part of a question about how a person thinks.
Go ahead and swap out any ethnic or race based slurs and its plainly obvious.
Go for it. Use some logic.

 

[tabzer]

If you cannot argue without using religious slurs then you should leave the conversation.


You are a liar... and a bigot.

I'm not lying or being a bigot. Saying something is interesting is not saying I agree with it, and it is the opposite of being a bigot.

I don't use "religious slurs".

More crying.

I simply don't believe you are Buddhist. I have no obligation to. I have high respect for Buddhism. I have high disrespect for your accessorising of it.

 

[Kotomine Kirei]

i dont relate it to god at all, yea its nice the big man and his people dont like it, bravo for them, but its also a lack of discipline/ and responsibility that makes me not want it, we already have guns being responsible, not people, the last thing i want is a fetus to be responsible, as it really should've known better. As far as the first setence, your guys were big into people ownership, around the 1800s, didnt go so well for them fortunately.

If not from a religious point, then I do not see anything wrong with abortion.
It is likely irresponsible in many cases (though there are many where it is not caused by irresponsibility), but why should people suffer from that irresponsibility?
By making it so that people have to bring more people into this world, you are just making things more difficult for everyone.
Mental issues for those who will likely end up being unloved or abandoned (the odds of being adopted by a loving family do not seem to be very high).
Baggage to the person who did not want to be a parent (even if they have someone adopt them, they have to go through a lot more than they otherwise would have).
An increased burden on people (who have to try to heal more mental wounds) and on the resources available on this planet.
etc.

As for your second point, that has been an issue in the world for a very long time, before even Judaism.
Believers, or those so-called, might have justified their actions through their supposed beliefs, but more often than not, their actions did not jibe with what they claimed to believe in.

So you are saying Buddhist are more like Satanist and Christianity is better.
You go Tabzer.... think deep.... grock that one.

Hinduism is arguably the first religion.
Buddhism surfaced about six centuries before Christianity, making it one of the oldest religions still being practiced.
Satanism was born from Christianity.
Christianity was born from Judaism.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom "and the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language."

I do not see as much Philosophy on this board, as I do ego stamping in the name of whatever your prescription is.
A lot of value signaling and little straight talk.

Back on topic.
Buddhism strongly discourages abortion except in the situation of an immediate threat to the mother's life.
Though Buddhism has clearly a "pro-life" position on abortion, the final decision should be left to the pregnant woman.

In our case it was a family decision.

For what I was saying, part of my point was that Buddhism seems like its roots in relation to Hinduism are not nearly as strong as Christianity's are in relation to Judaism.
While Christianity mostly affirms Judaism, Buddhism goes against Hinduism.
Hence my comment that it is closer to Satanism, which is opposed to Christianity, than it is to Christianity, which is not opposed to Judaism.

Regarding Hinduism being the first religion, I cannot say whether it is or not as there were likely even earlier religions than it, but I do not doubt that it is one of the more popular religions that arose early on.

If you are socialist or communist, then democrats are your only choice because America is very much a 2 party system. But that doesn't make the democrats socialist or communist.

It's like when your friends want to go somewhere that you don't really like, but they are your friends & you compromise.

The idea that socialism is too far to the left, is the problem. Not that socialists exist.

At this point, the Democrats are quite close to being socialist or communist for the reason that you mentioned.
If a large or influential part of a group is one thing, then that is what that group is.

 

[smf]

At this point, the Democrats are quite close to being socialist or communist for the reason that you mentioned.
If a large or influential part of a group is one thing, then that is what that group is.

I'm not sure which of the influential parts of the Democrats you think is close to being socialist or communist.

Could you give some examples?

 

[smf]

Not really. Most anarcho-[communist/socialists] I know don't vote or they waste their vote - including myself, and to a lesser extent Marxist-Leninists either vote for one of the few communist party candidates, or the accelerationists vote people like trump.

I was talking about people who understand voting and cause and effect.

Anarchists are just having tantrums

 

[Kotomine Kirei]

I'm not sure which of the influential parts of the Democrats you think is close to being socialist or communist.

Could you give some examples?

My memory is not great, but for popular politicians, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I have also seen quite a few Democrats on the news and in forums supporting socialist and communist ideas if not outright socialism and communism, often because they think that those would be better than capitalism.
To add to that, a lot of news writers who are Democrat seem to write more socialist and communist-supporting articles with a favorable view, while quite a few Democrat celebrities have been or still are supporting such things.

 

[sombrerosonic]

My memory is not great, but for popular politicians, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I have also seen quite a few Democrats on the news and in forums supporting socialist and communist ideas if not outright socialism and communism, often because they think that those would be better than capitalism.
To add to that, a lot of news writers who are Democrat seem to write more socialist and communist-supporting articles with a favorable view, while quite a few Democrat celebrities have been or still are supporting such things.

Hasn't Communism failed several times without capitalistic parts put back into it

 

[Kotomine Kirei]

Hasn't Communism failed several times without capitalistic parts put back into it

I think so.
It has also been used as a way to incorporate a tyrannical government quite a few times.

 

[MicroNut99]

If not from a religious point, then I do not see anything wrong with abortion.
It is likely irresponsible in many cases (though there are many where it is not caused by irresponsibility), but why should people suffer from that irresponsibility?
By making it so that people have to bring more people into this world, you are just making things more difficult for everyone.
Mental issues for those who will likely end up being unloved or abandoned (the odds of being adopted by a loving family do not seem to be very high).
Baggage to the person who did not want to be a parent (even if they have someone adopt them, they have to go through a lot more than they otherwise would have).
An increased burden on people (who have to try to heal more mental wounds) and on the resources available on this planet.
etc.

This is a lot of guessing when there is much information about real people.
And yea the planet and its wildlife are really taking hard.
If we manage to to wipe ourselves out then.... the planet goes on... just like its been for a very long time.

As for your second point, that has been an issue in the world for a very long time, before even Judaism.
Believers, or those so-called, might have justified their actions through their supposed beliefs, but more often than not, their actions did not jibe with what they claimed to believe in.

I am sure people do things against their better selves all the time.
But this statement seems judgmental and much imagination.

For what I was saying, part of my point was that Buddhism seems like its roots in relation to Hinduism are not nearly as strong as Christianity's are in relation to Judaism.
While Christianity mostly affirms Judaism, Buddhism goes against Hinduism.
Hence my comment that it is closer to Satanism, which is opposed to Christianity, than it is to Christianity, which is not opposed to Judaism.

Christians might say there is nuance between Satanism and Buddhism.
I really don't know and I am not going to guess. Better to talk to these people.
Open a dialog, and see how they really feel.

Regarding Hinduism being the first religion, I cannot say whether it is or not as there were likely even earlier religions than it, but I do not doubt that it is one of the more popular religions that arose early on.

Well you don't have to guess. Go to school and take some classes on religion.

At this point, the Democrats are quite close to being socialist or communist for the reason that you mentioned.
If a large or influential part of a group is one thing, then that is what that group is.

Yes. Maybe socialist but definitely not communist.

 

[MicroNut99]

I have high respect for Buddhism.

Then why did you say the things you did when you could have mocked me in any other way.
You've had your Mel Gibson moment.
Time to reflect and move on.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Have you guys tried not saying the n word for fourty seconds on the internet?
Like, I don't lie about shit that could kill people, nor do I say anything racist, and I haven't been banned on twitter ever, except for one time in like 2008 because I was trying to make a shitty PSP app. I don't use Facebook because I'm not fucking 70, so I don't really know (or care) what their policies are like, but I do know that the only reason the right is getting banned off social media is because they keep trying to force companies to let them use their platform to endanger people, and the companies are (rightfully) telling them to fuck off.

you guys first, did your people just do that for certain supreme court justice?