Hate to think what people think of me. I have very low self-esteem and tend to think the worst.

Reconsidering, I did mistakenly think of Stormy Daniels as a prostitute.

Just bought an audiobook copy. Always been a sucker for Kafkaesque stories.

I don’t know about drugs, but we know Trump has patronized prostitutes and engaged in high-level corruption. Of course you will disagree because you know his activities were all innocent, just like you somehow know that he didn’t sexually assault E. Jean Carrol.

I think it is relevant that these sorts of accusations magically appear during such a time, even if it's over 30 years after the fact. — NOS4A2

I think a presidents past is relevant and they should be deeply scrutinized. Isn’t Hunter’s laptop relevant?

Funny I hadn't realized till this discussion how close J6 is to a coup. It was sudden, violent, and unlawful. The only question is whether the intent was to seize power. That's hard to answer because the perpetrators were a bunch of knuckle-headed Trump supporters and who knows what they were thinking.

Funnier still is NOS's claim that J6 was a Reichstag moment for the DNC, FBI, CIA, and media Nazis, when Trump's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he appointed, said it was such a moment for Trump and his Big Lie. Projection?

And yet there's "Be an island unto yourself / Be a lamp unto yourself". — baker

Doesn't jibe well with MAGA which demands fealty to Trump and his narratives.

Come to think of it, the mantra "Everyone is solely responsible for themselves" is what they both have in common (and the implications of this stance). — baker

Doesn't jibe well with the Buddhist concept of interdependence and no-self. The simple answer is that they're conservatives.

no laws were broken by those involved in the coup. So what? — NOS4A2

Soooooooo, a coup is a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.

The years-long investigations that you referred to were neither sudden nor violent, by your own admission they were lawful, and they were not designed to seize power from the government.

Here I thought we were talking about law. Sorry, but the declarations of the UK, France, and Russia do not represent “international law”. I suppose you should google again. — NOS4A2

You're the one who brought up "crimes against humanity," not me. What did you mean if it didn't involve other nations?

They invented the law after the fact in order to prosecute the Nazis for a crime. There were violating no law. Therefor what they did was fine, correct? — NOS4A2

Sorry, google say the Armenian genocide is a precedent to the Nüremberg and Tokyo trials. Try again?

There is nothing to confuse. They broke no law, therefor what they did was fine. Isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

You're asking me if I think slavery is fine. Clearly you are confused.

Clearly I was speaking about his crimes against humanity, which were not crimes. — NOS4A2

It demonstrates more grave stupidity to confuse international criminal laws with domestic laws.

It was also legal to own slaves — NOS4A2

It demonstrates yet more grave stupidity to confuse centuries-old laws with current laws.

It's perfect in my opinion because Hilter did indeed break the law and was convicted, for a failed coup attempt no less, and this demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that enacting Godwin's Law can be a grave stupidity.

I'm unsure this is the time to enact Godwin's Law — AmadeusD

I disagree, it's the perfect time, being that Hitler was incarcerated for a failed coup.

Hitler never broke any laws either, so appealing to law is a grave stupidity. — NOS4A2

No doubt it was more "lawful power to defraud the country" that landed H in the clink.

Ah, it appears as though you're saying that you weren't sure that any laws were broken on J6, stating in the next line that the DNC, etc have "lawful power." If the DNC, FBI, CIA, and the media have lawful power to defraud the country, investigate their political opponents, and submit the entire world to their propaganda and conspiracy theories, then those actions aren't breaking any laws. But your first sentence is "I'm not sure any laws were broken," and the response is in the same order as my response, with J6 first followed by "coup".

Anyway, just to clear up any remaining misreads and for the official record, you hold that:

1) Laws were broken by rioters on J6.

2) No laws were broken in the years-long coup that you mentioned.

3) You realize that coups are unlawful.

I'm not sure any laws were broken. — NOS4A2

You must not believe there was any assault, disruption of Congress, or any of the other charges. Most of the defendants pleaded guilty, btw, even the MAGA shaman (guy with the horns) and spiritual people never lie.

The CIA, the FBI, the media, the DNC, have the lawful power to defraud the country — NOS4A2

Don't forget the GOP, with their fake electors shenanigans and whatnot. Wait, that is illegal.

It was far worse. They tried to frame the democratically-elected president for treason and waged a years-long coup based on Clinton campaign conspiracy theories that reached the highest echelons of the intelligence community and the administrative state. The riot on J6 was just their Reichstag moment. — NOS4A2

It’s clear that laws were broken on J6. What laws were broken in this coup you mention?

I don't think that you can only see stoic playacting and rank emotion. I think you're merely trolling, badly.

In the past, you've said contradictory things that indicate dishonesty. There's also the fact you're a diehard Trump supporter. I can't see how anyone who values truth could be such a diehard Trump supporter.

My defense is your apparent untrustworthiness, frankly.

I guess only Americans need to subscribe.

In the link you posted, this is what it says:

Join Fox News for access to this content
Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Perhaps you forgot that you're a subscriber.

Maybe you're too embarrassed to admit your subscription. You should be.

Then how did you read the article that you linked to?

You have a subscription to Fox News?

Our Western notions about religion are largely tailored after Christianity, so when we look at other religions, we automatically see them through our Christianity-shaped lens. Yet this isn't necessarily how things work in other religions. — baker

Of course if people only know Christianity they’ll naturally view other religions through that lens because that’s the only model they know. I remember being in an introductory meeting at a zen center with a group of newbies years ago. One of the newcomers had a Christian background and asked about the ‘soul’ in Buddhism; asking what they called it or something. He didn’t seem to get it at all when someone tried to explain.

Regarding moral codes specifically, all religions got’m and they all basically work the same way in terms of adherence. Indeed, they generally work the same way in non-religious contexts as well, with those high in the social hierarchy enjoying immunity and those of low status suffering persecution for even minor transgressions.

I’m not a caramel fan myself, but looking up the Chomp I see that Cadbury has a wide variety of treats. The stores only stock a few around here.

Interesting about the Quakers. Until now I only suspected a connection with oatmeal.

Cadbury is an English brand, if I’m not mistaken. If so, I think that makes you some sort of cultural confectionery traitor. A person who’s allegiances are turned on a Dime.

If you say so. I haven’t been able to go back to regular bars since trying these.

The basic question is this: are words more than their symbols? — NOS4A2

Of course. Listen to your inner voice as it now speaks the word “concepts”. Words are merely signs for concepts. Concepts are built on the vast internal model of the world that we constructed throughout our lives.

If you weren't sure that it's a cult this may remove all doubt.

Suit yourself: Trump offers scraps of his indictment outfit for $4,699.53 a pop

It would be an inhuman condition so I don’t think we can say much about it at all.

Can we settle on boring?

It's really no different than the concept of heaven. What would heaven be like? If it's continuous happiness and joy then it is static and dead.

Metaphors can help bridge gaps in understanding, I’m told.

In Theravada and Early Buddhism kamma is intention. Generally, only intentional actions have kammic consequences. This is why two people, externally acting the same way, could face very different kammic consequences if their intentions for doing the actions differ, respectively. — baker

That’s how the law works too. If, for example, you unintentionally kill someone you may be off the hook, depending on the particulars (perhaps including such things as the color of your skin). If you intentionally kill someone you’re going to be in hot water with the law, particularly if you’re poor and can’t afford good legal representation.

The practice of law follows a series of well established steps that take intention into account and is not imponderable.

What you describe looks like Jainism, like I already said. — baker

Yes, I remember you saying that.

Do you remember me asking you: You're claiming that karma & rebirth in Buddhism are not based on cause & effect?

I think this has sometimes more to do with an unwillingness to engage in time-consuming explanations to people who seem hostile rather than anything else. — baker

Sorry I upset you. Maybe try to focus on the “anything else” part and ignore the hostility, if you’re capable. A few deep breaths might help.

And the attitude you've been displaying here certainly doesn't suggest that you're interested in learning about the Buddhist concepts of kamma and rebirth. So why bother? — baker

My mission is not necessarily to learn, though I’m certainly open to the prospect. You responded to statements that I made, not questions.

Why bother? I don’t know.

You should also know that in Buddhism, at least for monks, there are restrictions as to whom they can or should speak about Dhamma and to whom they shouldn't. Lay Buddhist people may also adopt those restrictions. — baker

Not sure why you mention this.

If you find that the Buddhists you're talking to don't seem all that open or willing to discuss things with you, then consider the possibility that you have ticked one or more boxes on that list of restriction criteria. (In my opinion, you have.) You can hardly blame people for setting boundaries on whom they spend their time on. — baker

Are you suggesting that some Buddhists may be able to answer ‘imponderable’ questions about karma and rebirth but don’t because they’re stingy with their time? I don’t think so. I think they can’t answer because they don’t know. Just like no one can answer questions about God.

If they seem evasive to you, bear in mind that from their perspective, you're evasive too. — baker

That covers them and me to some degree, not that it is in any way relevant to our chat. I would ask why you’re evasive, if I cared.

Unanswerable question #2:
What is it that travels from one body to the next body in Buddhist rebirth? They say it’s a soul in Hinduism.

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune. Should the protesters have been shot in the face with pepper balls and concussion grenades thrown at their feet? — NOS4A2

The reports show that pepper spray, tear gas, and concussion grenades were used to disperse a crowd of hundreds. By contrast, it’s estimated that ten thousand were at the insurrection, two thousand of which made it into the capital building.

So far, you haven't asked any such question that I can't answer. — baker

Of course, you actually answered the question. Your answer is nonsensical though, regardless of any relation to karma and rebirth. You wrote:

What is said to be imponderable is knowing in advance what consequence some particular action you did now will have in the future, given that you will also do a lot of other things and their effects will mitigate each other. But right now, we don't know what other things you'll also do, hence the imponderability.

As far as I'm aware, it's impossible to know something in advance of knowing something. That's nonsensical and has nothing to do with my question.

My question basically has to do with narrative. Buddhists claim that karma & rebirth act according to cause & effect despite being unable to provide a narrative that shows this structure in their narratives. Going back to my example, if I were to create a narrative where someone spontaneously turned into a dirty cockroach for no apparent reason I would be failing to provide a narrative that shows cause & effect relationships. When asked about it I could, like the Buddhists do, say that the spontaneous transformation is inexplicable, or rather, imponderable, and that you'll just have to have faith in my narrative that the structure of cause & effect is there.