Do I wish our population were more like Norways? Yes, I do. — Xtrix

Then why don't you do something in that direction?

What concerns me is navigating the differing perspectives of our fellow citizens. It's all very well to choose not to consider those who differ with us enemies, but in some cases they will consider us enemies. I worry about that. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed. Apparently, the solution is in lowering one's expectations about mankind, and renounce one's humanist sensitivities.

I think when it comes to the exemplars on this forum, both sides actually believe it. Both sides think the other side is the enemy of everything good in the world. — Srap Tasmaner

We don't have both sides on this forum, as far as I know. I haven't seen any vocal anti-vaccers here.

From what I have seen, there are only the vocal pro-vaccers and the moderate pro-vaccers here. The vocal pro-vaccers automatically class the moderate pro-vaccers as the enemy.

Further, the moderate pro-vaccers don't see the vocal pro-vaccers nor the vocal anti-vaccers as the enemy, much less as "the enemy of everything good in the world".

Are you saying some people are unworthy of the truth, orthodoxa (right belief), which is just another way of saying some people should suffer? Whatever belief system tells you that is surely not the right one. — TheMadFool

A belief system that tells you that everyone is equally qualified for the highest attainments is surely not the right one.

Buddhism has no "no child left behind" policy.

Is it possible for any religion to offer nothing but calm and non-judgement? — Tom Storm

With enough mental acrobatics, certainly.

Do you know of any religion that has ever been genuinely friendly toward another religion? I don't. By "genuinely friendly" I mean that in its doctrine, a religion doesn't condemn another religion, and instead considers it an equal path.

Take one of the countries with an enormous population and a history of religious versatility: India. There, all the various religions generally appear to coexist peacefully, mutually respecting eachother (with the occasional unrests). Take a closer look, and you'll see that the one belief many of them have in common is "Everyone should know their place and mind their own business". They don't care about eachother, they're just minding their own business and knowing their place. And the result is, arguably, better than what any ecumenical effort could bring about.

Then take a seemingly inclusive religion like Bahaism. Look closer, and you'll see that Bahaism has its own idiosyncratic view of each of the religions it is comprised of or sourced upon. So that, for example, what the Bahais believe to be Buddhism, no Buddhist would recognize as Buddhism. Further, while Bahais give some credit to other religions, they still believe that theirs is the supreme one. This view "All are good, but ours is the best" can sometimes be found in religions, and if one isn't careful, one could readily mistake it for religious tolerance, when it actually isn't.

Religions can seem friendly toward another out of socio-economic necessity as well. Take Germany, for example. With their numbers whittled down, scrambling for funds, German Catholics and German Protestants get along tolerably well, even though each doctrinally believe about the other that they will burn in hell for all eternity.

Can an amateur learn how to enjoy "academical" philosophical discussions?
No. One either has it, or one doesn't.

But otherwise, are there any good resources on how to learn to enjoy those word battles? — Ansiktsburk

To begin with, learn the proper meaning of "to enjoy", and stop using it the way commercial advertisers and pop psychology gurus do.

In the light of a 4th film and nearly 20 years since the last one, were the 2nd and 3rd films that smart? — TiredThinker

I really wouldn't know, I fell asleep soon after the beginning.

So sue Creationists and flat-earthers, etc?

I won't bother following this line of thought. But thanks for the tip. — Xtrix

Put your money where your mouth is.

And then, instead of dying at the stakes and from persecution, people would be dying from boredom. The horror!

I'm fairly certain that if religions were tolerant and open minded people like Dawkins would vanish. — Tom Storm

And so would religions.

Sure, when you have the luxury which often up to monster. Some dangers are zerosum, bordering on lose-lose (pyrrhic), where it takes a monster to defeat a monster. Last resort, yeah; but not unthinkable. — 180 Proof

Batrachomyomachia!

If a certain group is under the impression that its belief system is the right one (orthodoxa = right belief), that group will also consider it a duty/responsibility to edify others of it. — TheMadFool

Not at all.

Rather, my intuition is that such an individual or group who is certain to have found The Truth will protect it, seek to keep it for themselves, and share it only with those who prove themselves worthy of it.

Good luck with your amazingly constructive attitude!

Having said that anti-vaccination sentiment does seem to come down to distrust and fear of authority. — Janus

That's too simplistic. I find that I distrust people in positions of power who pretend to be friendly toward me, but who also have at their disposal lethal force and a track record of using it.

If they're going to be the authority, they should stop fooling around, stop mincing words, and act as actual authorities, instead of pretending to be paper tigers, when it's clear they're not paper tigers.

Sue who? — Xtrix

The "them", the "those people". Those in the title of your thread.

Affect and effect are overlapping. I decided a while ago not to bother with "affect."
How pathetic that you resort to this, by the way. Can't say I'm totally surprised.

*sigh*
You know, it would help your case to spell properly. Mixing up verbs like you do makes you look irrational and emotional. And incompetent.

It's on you to spell out what exactly it is that you want, and then act in ways that will lead to your goal.
— baker
I'm not interested.

So you have a goal (to change other people's minds), but you're not interested in getting to that goal.
How ironic that you spell _that_ out.


I do admire your confidence, though.

You owe him an apology!

Though not free of the virus (which took your freedom). — jorndoe

Dude, look at what he said in the sentence right before the one you quoted:

For me, I chose what works for me. I took the vaccine and use the mask when obligated, which isn't often. Works for me, I've never gotten covid, and if I did and died oh well, at least I died a free man. — Derrick Huestis

I'm mirroring their confidence.

You do realize that he said he got vaccinated?

Given that people typically identify themselves with their beliefs, their attitudes,
— baker

That's their problem, not mine. — frank

It becomes your problem if you set out to change their minds.

How? It seems all the more important, given how karma works, to, in this present life, take measures through good deeds to ensure our next life is as good or even better which includes getting the opportunity to learn buddhism and reacquaint ourselves with karma. — TheMadFool

I have the impression that you think of Buddhist teachings as having the same coercive, commanding, universally binding nature as those in Christianity.

If karma is real, any ability/disability, any advantage/disadvantage we possess/experience is an effect of our actions in a past life.

No, see my post above. Hard karmic determinism is wrong view.

However, buddhism doesn't leave us without any means to remedy/improve our condition - it also informs us that we can, in this life, do good in order that our next life is better than this, the present. — TheMadFool

Not only that, it teaches that (with some exceptions), we can attain enlightenment in this lifetime, we're not automatically doomed to work hard and wait for a future lifetime.

I maybe wrong of course but, if there's a chance factor in all this, even the best laid out plans for nirvana that span many future lives would be a waste of time. I could, god forbid, lead a life of debauchery, even order genocide and torture, in most horrible ways possible, and, by a stroke of luck, become enlightened. Nirvana, then, is nothing more than a game of die - about lucky people, not good people. — TheMadFool

This is not what the Buddha of the Pali Canon teaches.

That you have concerns about the implications of luck and concerns about nirvana depending on luck is one thing, but what the Buddha of the Pali Canon teaches is another thing, and they should clearly be kept separate.

There's always an element of chance. — Wayfarer

In the process of the complete cessation of suffering?
Do you have a canonical reference for that?

Where the idea of karma becomes negative, is when it is used to assign blame or rationalise misfortune.

This is a folk belief in karma, Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls it "karmaism".
The stronger argument against karmaism (other than that it lacks compassion) is that, according to doctrine, only a sufficiently advanced person can discern the exact workings of karma in regard to a particular situation (while everyone else would become mad and vexed if they were to conjecture about it). When people who are not thusly attained are making bold pronouncements about someone's karma, they are thus wrong on account of speaking beyond their competence (and mad and vexed).

Reflection on karma should always be positive, that the right intention produces a positive result.

A part of the fourth brahmavihara, upekkhā (equanimity) is precisely a reflection on karma (such as when in the chant it is said "I am the owner of my karma, heir to my karma" and so on).

Yeah, no. I really don't buy that. Innocent people fall victim to accidents and diseases, I never like to say that it's because of karma.

I'm a bit rusty on that, and I don't have my old notes anymore, but I do still remember that it's part of doctrine that not everything that happens to a person is due to their fault (their "bad karma").

More important is how you help them, and on how they are able to respond to tragedy or disaster. On the other hand, people sometimes 'get what is coming', also. But being dogmatic about it is never a help.

Actually, being dogmatic here does help -- provided one learns what the doctrine actually teaches (as opposed to what the folk beliefs and one's fears are).

The Buddha says here that hard karmic determinism ("all is caused by what was done in the past") is wrong view.

But theorising about it or trying to second-guess its working is rarely helpful. As a wise friend of mine said, sometimes your karma runs over your dogma

Hence the admonition about the unconjecturables.

Let’s just point out that the whole purpose of the Buddhist path is not gaining something - Nirvāṇa is not like ‘winning the jackpot’ or having everything go your way. Consider what the Buddha gained by setting out on his path - nothing whatever. Instead he gave up a comfortable living, wife and child in exchange for a begging bowl. In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha says ‘I have attained supreme enlightenment, and gained nothing by it.’ It’s a hard saying, but true. — Wayfarer

And a saying not found in the Pali Canon.

Thanks. My take on karma is that it determines the circumstances of our birth and life till the very end, all things that depend on it - which is a lot (parental care, access to education, money for basic comforts, the religion you're born into, whether you'll ever encounter philosophy, will you have the resources to do philosophy?, and so on) - but that, if you'll notice, also includes, quite unfortunately it seems, your exposure to buddhism and knowledge free will, key components, I reckon, of your ability to respond appropriately, in a manner that you don't make matters worse karmically speaking, to your circumstances, good/bad. — TheMadFool

People who aren't karmically predisposed to worry about karma don't lose sleep over karma, so the above concern is moot.

However, I sense from this post of yours and from some others that your concern is about something else as well. It seems you hold that "all men were created equal" and when you consider that Buddhism doesn't hold such a belief in the equality of all men (or humans), this causes you unease. Is this so?

Also, it seems to tie in with another idea you expressed elsewhere, namely, that religions are obligated to convert people.

However, what about chance or randomness? Known as luck, there doesn't seem to be any room for it in buddhism's karmic causality.

No, because it's irrelevant to effort, and Right Effort is what matters

What this means, in the most basic sense, is there is no chance, no randomness. Everything happens for a reason or

There are no accidents.
— Master Oogway (Kungfu Panda)

I wonder how that fits into the biological concept of random genetic mutation as a driving force behind evolution. — TheMadFool

In Buddhist terms, genetic mutations, too, are not random. But they are irrelevant to the project of seeking enlightenment.

Not sure what's going on here. I'm actually in favor of vaccine mandates.

I'd be really curious to know why you think I'm an anti-vaxxer — Srap Tasmaner

Same here.

I gather that because I didn't exibit an enthusiastic belief in vaccination, that automatically made me an anti-vaxxer in their eyes. And from then on, they see fit to hurl all kinds of insults and accusations at me, and they ignore everything I say that doesn't fit their hasty image of me.

This wouldn't have been the case if buddhism considers itself orthodoxa as that would entail a religious responsibility to convert people. — TheMadFool

You'll need to unpack this, spell out the assumptions you're working with.

Why should orthodoxy entail a religious responsibility to convert people?


(Although if this is what you believe, this means that you expect religious people to explain things to you, instead of you proactively looking into things on your own.)

He's hardly a mainstream politician, hasn't made it very high up in his political career.

So you have thoroughly studied and realized paṭiccasamuppāda and found it lacking?

Do tell us how you improved on it!

I can only speak for myself. Feeling indignant is far more annoying than it is orgasmic; in fact it is not orgasmic at all. If I ever get to the point where I think righteous indignation is better than sex then I'll know I'm no longer enjoying life very much. — Janus

Well, look at so many people in these discussions: they brim with righteous indignation, they seek it.

It's painful to watch the left gain power and fracture or pander to the center. I would be all up for using an any means necessary under the law approach to politically crush a lot of what the right seeks to do. In reference to anti-civil liberties and voter repression. I just won't hate them while I do it. — Cheshire

There are no leftists in mainstream American politics. There are just different varieties of right-wing authoritarianism. It's what makes American Republicans, Democrats, and Liberals so similar.

If your aim is to change people's minds (and you've said it is), then the responsibility to do so is on you, not on them to comply.


It's on you to spell out what exactly it is that you want, and then act in ways that will lead to your goal.

If we disagree and you are wrong –> demonstrably wrong –> demonstrably dangerously wrong, then is it "fascist" to defend myself, with violence if needs be, against being subjected to the imminent danger/s which you (e.g. anti-vaxxers) advocate or present? — 180 Proof

What on earth are you talking about??!!

Matters of public health should not be left to individual citizens to decide, simply because they are too complex for an ordinary citizen to have the proper grasp of them, and too important to be left to lay public discourse and individual decision.

The government should make a decision and make it mandatory for people to comply. — baker

Infectuous diseases (esp. those with potentially fatal outcomes) are a matter of public health, and therefore, cannot be left to the individual to decide about. They should be regulated at least by laws, but preferrably, by the constitution.

The focus on personal choice is nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility on the individual person, releasing doctors, science, and the government from responsibility, all under the guise of "respecting the individual's right to choice". — baker

I'm not against vaccination in general, nor against vaccination against covid in particular.

But I am against vaccinating people of unknown medical status with an experimental medication.

And I am against vaccinating people in epidemiologically unsafe conditions. At mass vaccination sites, but also in smaller vaccination settings, people often don't wear masks, or don't wear them properly, they don't social distance, disinfect. It's a perfect place to spread the virus. And this at a time that is critical for the people there: they can get infected precisely at the time when they should be most cautious and most safe. Ideally, a person should go into sufficiently long quarantene prior to vaccination and afterwards. Some will say that this is not realistic. But then we get the result: covid hospitals filling with vaccinated people. The trend is clear: as more and more people are getting vaccinated in unsafe conditions, more and more vaccinated people end up in hospitals. — baker

So we aren't devaluing people, but rather attitudes, beliefs, and so on. — frank

Given that people typically identify themselves with their beliefs, their attitudes, etc., to question those beliefs is to hurt those people.

- - -

Sometimes, I think people trade physical well-being for psychological well being. — Derrick Huestis

I think people often do that. Even as a rule.

It does matter when it effects other people. These ideas do effect the other people. So no, you're not "free to it" at that point. I can't act in a way that harms others, regardless of my beliefs. — Xtrix

So why don't you sue them?

Prove that what they are doing is reckless endangerment or even deliberate endangerment, and sue them, like every decent American would do.



Oh, and "to affect" and "to effect" are two different verbs.

What a curious reaction. — Tom Storm

It's the one I often get from you.

I get what you're saying, but unless one assumes that all life is endowed with language, then language appeared at some point in time after life appeared. — javra

I think that such a starting point should only be seen provisionally, and as an artificial imposition on what is otherwise a dynamic flux.

Take, for example, vocal chords: language as we know it is impossible without vocal chords. But for vocal chords to come into existence, dozens of other things had to happen, evolve. On the other hand, as we began to speak, our vocal changed, developed further, so as to be able to produce more and more sophisticated sounds. Which in turn made it possible for language to be more complex. (Of course, the development of vocal chords is not the only factor in the development of language.)

Looking at the "which came first" question a bit more literally in the ontological sense assumes a discrete point from which on some feature can be observed as existing, and not existing prior it. I think such an ontological analysis should only be seen provisionally, so as to not gloss over of the causes and conditions that had to be in place for some feature to become observable.

My neighbor's son is about two years old. He's struggling with speech. I've been observing (listening) to how he's developing his language abilities. He still can't utter actual words, but he has distinctly gone from a phase where he sort of yelled and cried the way small babies do, to a kind of deliberate "uuurggghhh" but which is nevertheless specific enough, recognizable. It seems that he's trying hard to utter a word, that he has something to say, but it just won't come out right.

On the whole, phases of language development in a child can be observed, but it is not possible to pinpoint the exact time and date where the child went from one phase to another, as if to completely leave behind the previous phase. The lines aren't so sharp. This is also why I think that the dichotomy between words that create the limits of concepts with which we think and the agency to express concepts we choose to think via words is not clearcut, and meaningful only provisionally.

(For comparison: We distinguish between, say, the upper body and the lower body, but any dividing line we were to draw on our waists would be only provisional, it wouldn't be definitive. This is because the division between the upper body and the lower body exists conceptually, but not on the body itself.)

Besides, rare as they might be, novums - new features - perpetually occur, thereby the evolution of any living language, and how are novums not invented?

But most things that seem new are actually made of old, already existing things.

Ancient philosophy has to be updated to apply to 21st society. Buddha also didn't have the benefit of modern science and psychology. We do. So it would be ridiculous not to update Ancient philosophy in the light of modern psychology and learning. — Ross

Before doing so, it seems it would behoove to first look into what ancient philosophy actually said, so that we know what exactly it is that we're updating/improving.

I don't say people can attribute whether they want; well actually they can, but we don't have to take them seriously. — Janus

I'm just completely amazed by their confidence, and I wonder what role it plays in spiritual development.

Modern misattributions are obviously even further removed both temporally and culturally, but nonetheless a misattribution is a misattribution, and unfortunately since he wrote nothing we have no way of determining just what is and what is not misattributing what was said by Gautama. That said, if we take the earliest texts as authoritative then we should be able to clearly identify anything which does not tally with those. — Janus

The gist of it is, there is probably no single authoritative version of the Buddha's teachings, in that there are parallel re-tellings of many of the suttas (sayings) in various dialects - no 'single source of truth' has been unearthed. — Wayfarer

Of course. If you study the early texts and discuss them with other people who have also studied them, then, even though you might be working with different translations (or even different versions of the Tipitaka), still, there characteristically emerges an understanding that contextualizes or transcends the differences.

:yawn: — 180 Proof

You are very kind.