Let's talk about suppression

lolcatzuru · Sep 28, 2022

Kotomine Kirei said:
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.

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.

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.

well if you dont think people should suffer from irresponsibility, would you support getting rid of all laws? he if someone shoots someone, sure thats irresponsible, i guess that doesnt mean they should be help responsible for that

tabzer · Sep 29, 2022

MicroNut99 said:
This whole thing about my religious heritage was blown out of proportion by YOU.
I did not pull the religion card. YOU DID.
You are reacting exactly like a bigot would.

...

Every word is spoken as if you are talking the TV
and not a real life person, who just happened to be raised as a Buddhist.

So yea I think flat and not hierarchical. Which was the answer to the question.

Being raised by Buddhists doesn't make you a Buddhist. Growing up in a monastery and being a descendent of Buddha doesn't make you a Buddhist. Buddhism is a willful practice. You may align yourself with some teachings, but to be Buddhist would be self-representing. To say "I am a Buddhist", in any context, is shallow posturing. Just by saying so, you are playing the religion card. Considering how you have already behaved towards me, It does not appear very different from how Republicans generally call themselves Christian. I like Buddhism, but I don't like your representation. Not liking your hypocritical representation is not bigoted (or racist).

MicroNut99 said:
I have never mocked anything but your spineless opinions.
And when you crossed the line by stating that my families choice on abortion was a community decision....
Yes... I told you to Fuck Off.
And by definition I stand by that statement.

Again, without context, "stating that my families choice on abortion was a community decision" means nothing to me. You are going to have to address it specifically. Feel free to take that to DM. Maybe you misunderstood something. If I don't stand for anything, as you said, then I fail to see how you could be offended by something I said.

MicroNut99 said:
I don't have to like or respect you.
I am not accessorizing anything you fucking piece of shit.
For strait up racism the mods should lock your shit down.
My language is far less damning than yours.
!FUCK YOU!

I'm not asking you to like or respect me. I don't even anticipate it. Your religion card is now a race card. How did that happen?

MicroNut99 said:
Then why did you say the things you did when you could have mocked me in any other way.

Because I respect Buddhism, and I see your actions as falsely representing of it. Calling yourself a Buddhist and acting like *you* is another form of false speech.

smf · Sep 29, 2022

Kotomine Kirei said:
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.

I'm still not convinced this justifies "If a large or influential part of a group is one thing, then that is what that group is."

Are either of those politicians you named influential? They don't seem a large part of the group.

What socialist/communist ideas are you referring to?

smf · Sep 29, 2022

tabzer said:
To say "I am a Buddhist", in any context, is shallow posturing.

I think that just shows a lack of your imagination on your part for a context where it is not shallow posturing.

tabzer · Sep 29, 2022

smf said:
I think that just shows a lack of your imagination on your part for a context where it is not shallow posturing.

Give me an example where someone who knows Buddhism is not an identity, but a way of life, would say such a thing. The point is that using Buddhism as an identity is already shallow per its philosophies.

smf · Sep 29, 2022

lolcatzuru said:
well if you dont think people should suffer from irresponsibility, would you support getting rid of all laws? he if someone shoots someone, sure thats irresponsible, i guess that doesnt mean they should be help responsible for that

What about prolifers irresponsibility in overturning roe v wade, what punishment can we inflict on them?

smf · Sep 29, 2022

tabzer said:
Give me an example where someone who knows Buddhism is not an identity, but a way of life, would say such a thing.

Q: Hello, are you a Christian?

A: I am a Buddhist.

tabzer · Sep 29, 2022

smf said:
Q: Hello, are you a Christian?

A: I am a Buddhist.

Steve Buscemi walks into a bar and meets Steve Buscemi. Your example hastily ignored the premise of "not an identity".

Xzi · Sep 29, 2022

tabzer said:
Steve Buscemi walks into a bar and meets Steve Buscemi.

So all religion is equally shallow then? At least you're being consistent for once. In my experience though, people are a lot more likely to make "being a Christian" their entire identity, even if they don't adhere to any of its teachings or haven't read the bible at all.

tabzer · Sep 29, 2022

Xzi said:
So all religion is equally shallow then? At least you're being consistent for once. In my experience though, people are a lot more likely to make "being a Christian" their entire identity, even if they don't adhere to any of its teachings or haven't read the bible at all.

Religion has roots. People who use religion as a form of identity often betray the intention of those roots. In general, people who use religion as an identity are shallow by choice. To say that "all religion is equally shallow" assumes too many variables where a consensus does not agree on quantity (or quality). For instance, @micronuts99 thinks religion is a racial quality.

Christ was not a Christian, and his followers didn't call themselves Christian, It wasn't until after Rome reformed its tyrannical state religion, officiating the label, that people (at large) decided to try to wear the religion like they wear symbols.

Xzi · Sep 29, 2022

tabzer said:
Religion has roots. People who use religion as a form of identity often betray the intention of those roots. In general, people who use religion as an identity are shallow by choice. To say that "all religion is equally shallow" assumes too many variables where a consensus does not agree on quantity (or quality). For instance, micronuts thinks religion is a racial quality.

Christ was not a Christian, and his followers didn't call themselves Christian, It wasn't until after Rome reformed its tyrannical state religion, popularizing the token, that people (at large) decided to try to wear religion like they wear symbols.

Religion can be part of your identity without becoming your entire identity, though. Besides, the goals of Buddhism are aspirational ones. If a person achieved a permanent state of zen the moment they converted, they wouldn't really need to keep following its teachings, now would they? Nowhere is it written that you can never again become frustrated or angry with people as a Buddhist, but rather that you should aspire to eventually be able to rise above such petty emotions.

In that sense I suppose you'd make a good final test, obtuse and annoying as you are.

tabzer · Sep 29, 2022

Xzi said:
Religion can be part of your identity without becoming your entire identity, though. Besides, the goals of Buddhism are aspirational ones. If a person achieved a permanent state of zen the moment they converted, they wouldn't really need to keep following its teachings, now would they? Nowhere is it written that you can never again become frustrated or angry with people as a Buddhist, but rather that you should aspire to eventually be able to rise above such petty emotions.

In that sense I suppose you'd make a good final test, obtuse and annoying as you are.

For the example of Buddhism, identity is delusional. Teachings of Jesus often relate to discarding of the ego, which also carry similar sentiments.

You need to accept me if you are going to follow the teachings of Buddha, Christ, Krishna, etc...

I'm not a test for everyone, obviously. Just for a type (niche) of person.

My statement was about calling yourself something, and then being a bad example, being a disservice to that which you suggest is good.

Xzi · Sep 29, 2022

tabzer said:
My statement was about calling yourself something, and then being a bad example, being a disservice to that which you suggest is good.

In the moment, perhaps, but ultimately that's not for you to judge. There's also a certain onus on you to become a better person over time, regardless of which religion you follow or even if you follow none at all. It takes two to tango, after all.

tabzer · Sep 29, 2022

Xzi said:
In the moment, perhaps, but ultimately that's not for you to judge. There's also a certain onus on you to become a better person over time, regardless of which religion you follow or even if you follow none at all. It takes two to tango, after all.

Ultimately, a great folly can become a great lesson, changing the trajectory. My statement is restricted to being contextually confined, and a perspective "in the moment". If being a bad example is a premeditated charade of being a lesson by demonstration, then time will tell. What is this "certain onus" you are referring to? What if the tango is all I am interested in?

LainaGabranth · Sep 29, 2022

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

Do you have a real objection or are you just mad

lolcatzuru · Sep 30, 2022

smf said:
What about prolifers irresponsibility in overturning roe v wade, what punishment can we inflict on them?

why would you want to do that? they took power AWAY from the government.

lolcatzuru · Sep 30, 2022

LainaGabranth said:
Do you have a real objection or are you just mad

what would i be mad about, specifically?

Deleted member 586536 · Sep 30, 2022

lolcatzuru said:
why would you want to do that? they took power AWAY from the government.

The state is a goverment correct?
And the federal government is also a goverment correct?
If the federal goverment previously said "we can't even rule on that, it's a privacy thing, including the states"
Then HOW THE HELL IS REVERSING THAT STANCE AND SAYING "actually we CAN rule on it, but it's up to state governments"
GIVING LESS POWER????
What kind of backwards logic is that.
Quit trying to justify taking women's rights, and wanting an authortian goverment.

tabzer · Sep 30, 2022

Nothereed said:
The state is a goverment correct?
And the federal government is also a goverment correct?
If the federal goverment previously said "we can't even rule on that, it's a privacy thing, including the states"
Then HOW THE HELL IS REVERSING THAT STANCE AND SAYING "actually we CAN rule on it, but it's up to state governments"
GIVING LESS POWER????
What kind of backwards logic is that.
Quit trying to justify taking women's rights, and wanting an authortian goverment.

Repealing RvW put the ball into into the states' courts. It decentralized authority on the issue. The outcome will be for states to rise up for or against the issue. It gives people the choice to live in a place that allows it or a place that does not, within the country. You may think that everyone should live in a place where abortion should be free to access, but not everyone wants to live in communities like that. It allows states to become more diverse in their culture, whether you agree with it or not.

Reversing RvW was not the SCOTUS saying "we CAN rule on it, but it's up to state governments", but "we DID rule on it and that shouldn't have happened".

If it was wrong for SCOTUS to rule in favor on RvW, and uphold it for 50 years, there should be accountability. If it was right for SCOTUS to rule in favor of RvW, then you are saying that a centralized government with broad reach is justified as long as it does the "right thing". Seeing as there isn't a consensus, that would be an authoritarian function.

Deleted member 586536 · Sep 30, 2022

tabzer said:
You may think that everyone should live in a place where abortion should be free to access, but not everyone wants to live in communities like that.

Here let me go use an example from another time period, using the same argument

"You may think that everyone should live in a place where slavery shouldn't be happening, but not everyone wants to live in communities like that"
Your allowing the goverment to control people's bodies. I don't care if it's state or federal. It's a can of worms that shouldn't be ever opened at all. As your empowering the state (European version for goverment) to take away rights. That's authortian.
The state didn't say " we believe abortions should be allowed"
They said "we believe abortions is a right due to privacy, something we FUNDMENTALLY cannot rule on"

So again, no.

tabzer said:
but not everyone wants to live in communities like that. It allows states to become more diverse in their culture, whether you agree with it or not.

Slavery and racism would like to say hello.
Racists would be happy to be racist. Slave owners would be happy to have their states back. Segregationists would love to have that.

Different issues, same to similar principals.

Let's talk about suppression

Well-Known Member

This place is a meme.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This place is a meme.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This place is a meme.

Time to fly, 621

This place is a meme.

Time to fly, 621

This place is a meme.

Time to fly, 621

This place is a meme.

Objectively the most infuriating woman ever

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Returned shipping and mailing

This place is a meme.

Returned shipping and mailing

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum