Comments

  • Rittenhouse verdict
    Who don't you like, Jews? Arabs? Homosexuals? The Dutch? — Baden
    The Jews? The people I most admire.Their culture and identity has proved to be unequalled in it's durability, against all odds.

    I will not create nor entertain an off-topic tangent from this, but since you ask, I am an unrepentant misogynist. For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous. Apart from that, there is a certain European ethnicity, that of my asshole father (and no, my name is not "Michael", and my name is not "Zwingli" any more than yours is "Baden" or you are "Willy Wonka"), which I hold deep and intensely felt prejudice against. Never mind which, and never mind why.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    Provocation through presence alone is a problematic concept... — Hanover
    I'm not fully with you here. I do not think that R went into this with the hope of murdering or even killing anyone, but it seems fairly clear that he entered the situation desirous of conflict. To enter such a situation, having such an obvious intent, armed as he was at least shows hoirble judgement, and may be construed to show intent to harm constructively.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    I have no idea what the guy really thinks about black people, but I don't think he's a psychotic murderer. — Hanover
    Holy shit! A voice of reason! (And just when I thought that species was extinct!)
    Jesus man. The kid is a fucking racist. — Benkei
    Now I, being a misanthrope, take only a cursory interest in this matter, so I am, as I've noted, not aware of, or even concerned with the details of this case. My interest in it is only as a diversion. I am, however, concerned with the type of thought being evinced in this forum. (I joined up here to improve my thimking, not to have it worsened.) To declare someone a racist without providing evidence for the claim is to make a libellous statement. As a moderator, I would think you should understand that, and so provide evidence along with any defamatory statements that you make on here. Why are we to consider R to be a racist? Beyond that, what human being is not a "racist* in some way or fashion? I myself am not particularly prejudiced against what are commonly called "black people", but I hold and cherish some very strong prejudices of other types, nonetheless. What is there to suggest that R is any more "racist" than anybody else?
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    ↪Kenosha Kid
    that's reassuring. We definitely don't need any more sectarian kookiness than we already have.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    So I guess he deserved to be shot. — Kenosha Kid
    Ah, c'mon K! That's not worthy...I know you're smarter and better than that! If you were not, I wouldn't expect you to be participating on this site. I hope that was said tongue-in-cheek.
    Because of the way the dialogue has denigrated in this thread, what with Riley repeatedly calling R a "little piece of shit", and NOS4A2 repeatedly calling that guy a "child rapist", I couldn't be sure that he was 'serious'...that he was speaking in actuality. All in all, it seems that any true value which might have derived from this thread has been utterly stripped away by misplaced emotion, leaving only the value of spectacle in it's stead.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    I don't know, but you might ask Matt Gaetz. — James Riley

    Is that the referent's name? I'm not so well versed on the details here.

    Yes there is. Read them at your own peril. — NOS4A2

    Peril?? Not sure what you mean. If you will provide a link to 'em, I'll go ahead and read 'em, though. Where did you read this?
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    The child rapist who first attacked Rittenhouse... — NOS4A2
    Just in order to satisfy my lubricious interest, is there any truth to this...any evidence for such a characterization?
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    Justice was not served by the trial. — James Riley
    We agree. In order for justice to have been served, the outcome...the verdict wanted for a public reprobation of the values, beliefs, and judgements which led R and, indeed, his mother, to have the kid there with a firearm in the first place. That never happened, so the public in Wisconsin has failed to reprove the beliefs, values, and judgements exhibited by R in this case.

    Even so, do not think that R has gotten off scot-free. Because of having these charges on his criminal record, this kid is "fucked for life"...has done that to himself, as every type of good and meaningful job, and even most shitty jobs, will be closed to him. R will never even be able to get any type of job save maybe in construction site labor, or as some kind of organizer in the "Proud Boys" organization. Apart from winning the "Powerball" lottery, R can forget ever being wealthy. A couple of years ago, I became acquainted with a guy who is a former engineer, and who a few years back had an unfortunate and fateful late-night incident with a drunk. The drunk, a much bigger guy than my acquaintence (a pretty small guy), wanted to fistfight with him after the bars let out, and so attacked him, and started throwing punches. Long story short, the result wss that he ended up stabbing the drunk a couple of times with his folding knife. The drunk, bleeding from the gut, called the police, and there ya go...charge of attempted murder. My acquaintence was found not guilty, but today despite having an engineering degree from Vanderbilt, masters level, and a once thriving career, he cannot even get a job in a fast food restaurant. Due to issues of liability, absolutely nobody will even touch him. He has lived off his once substantial savings for the past three years or so, but they are running out, and he has no idea what the hell he is going to do. Point is, if R ever discovers some type of ambition buried deep within himself, I predict that he will soon thereafter wish he had been simply put to death for this incident. While I am glad the police didn't have to kill R to stop his carnage, R may eventually feel differently. From R's perspective, the price of his decisions will be stiff, and filled with regret.
  • Intelligence increases sense of obligation?
    Do people of higher intelligence in real life feel obligated to make the world a better place...? — TiredThinker
    Not necessarily:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
    Intellect is only one mental faculty of many, which all combine to yield an individual ethic of altruism.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    The level of blind, dogmatic fantasy on display here is the worst Ive seen on on this forum. — DingoJones
    Absolutely, people fuckin' lose their minds over these politically oriented topics, and then start accusing fellow members whose social values and political opinions differ from their own, of trolling, serving Satan, and all kind of other stupid shit, and the level of discourse goes down the drain. Guys who in more philosophically oriented threads exhibit wide reading and deep understanding often completely lose their objectivity over these topics. Herein, they exhibit an absolute inability to discuss topics in light of differing ethics, and then insinuate that those whose personal ethics differ from their own are either stupid or deluded. Ridiculous. What was it that my grandaddy said about politics and religion?
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    You and I both know what went on there and what would have happened if the shooter would have been black. If you deny that, then you're either in denial or you're a liar. — James Riley
    Look, I feel ya. I do not for a minute deny the status mundi of which I, as has nearly every other teenaged white American dude probably including yourself, have been a beneficiary. You know, the minor infractions: drunk and disorderly, minor vandalism (drinking a case with your buddies and then tearin' shit up), DUI (though probably not that anymore), etc, which would have probably gotten a young black guy a short bid, but got me a "continued without a finding" so that I would develop a positive criminal record. Been there, done that, and ain't never been sad about it (in fact, I thank my lucky stars). We all know about the double standards which have existed in our society...the privileges which dictate that for young "black" dudes "we must penalize such pathological behavior", while for young *white" dudes "boys will be boys".

    I agree that it is obvious that if R had been "black" (and we will never eliminate the double standards until we cease using such stupid terms for people as "black" and "white", which themselves perpetuate the problem) that there is a higher probability he would have been shot by the police. Probability is not certainty, though, which is my first issue with this, since the angry expression of certainty only prompts "pushback" from defenders of the status quo, and then what ensues is a pissing contest.

    The more significant problem with the statement "R would have been shot" is that it suggests that "R should have been shot", or "I wish that R had been killed", which is a pretty fucked up way to feel, as if the two wrongs could possibly "make a right". For the record: no, it's never a good thing for a person to be killed, period. In retrospect, any killing of R was clearly not necessary. Why the fuck would anybody wish R to have been killed, then? He is as much a victim of his faulty thinking as is anybody. It is obvious that R should have paid a stiff juridicial price for his actions, that justice has not been served, but to feel, rather than to think, that it would be a better world if R had been killed by the police seems vaguely sociopathic. The best outcome would have been achieved if the cops had simply confiscated R's weapon at first sight, and (since he was yet a minor under Wisconsin law) either called his mother to have her retrieve him, or if that could not be accomplished, detain him in a holding cell. There seems to reason to wish the kid had been killed, though.

    Another problem with the speculation about what the outcome might have been if R had been "black" is that it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which appears to be whether justice was served by the trial. It is simply an extraneous expression of what seems to me an unwarranted level of anger over problems not my own, and a clear expression of "bloodlust", which is never helpful. Anyone who allows themselves to indulge in bloodlust seems equally as sociopathic as does R.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    I don't. Intelligence, to start with, isn't one thing, and certainly isn't the same thing as academic success. — Srap Tasmaner
    Indeed it isn't, but there is an obvious correlation nonetheless. If you wanted to do the research, I am confident that you would find that the mean high school and college GPAs as well as standardized test scores and scores on intelligence tests are all much higher among, say, electrical engineers than among police officers or firefighters. Do you doubt that at all? Do you in any way imagine that your average cop has the intellect to handle a med school curriculum?
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    ↪James Riley
    we agree that the cops shouldn't have let the kid run around there with the gun. Again, these are just cops, and municipal cops at that, not FBI agents, and certainly not "rocket scientists". We can only expect so much wisdom from them, as has been demonstrated time and again. The facet of this discussion with which I take umbrage, and it is a peripheral issue at best, is the clear hypocrisy of faulting someone for assumed prejudice when that assumption is itself grounded in prejudice.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    ↪Srap Tasmaner
    I never said "cops are stupid", I suggested that civil servants (not only cops) are on average "not as smart as your average professional man", by which "professional" I mean: medical doctors, lawyers, executives, engineers, stockbrokers, etc. (the 'professions'). I stand by that suggestion, and think it obvious. My other suggestion was that with the rise of militarized policing, alot of military guys who like the military ethos find police work an attractive extension of their military careers. Besides that, I don't think it a secret that law enforcement tends to attract a certain type of domineering personality, though this is by no means universal within the ranks. Your average milquetoast would not seem to find police work attractive, would he?

    That having been said, I do not see any necessary connection between either intelligence level or a dominant persona and racial prejudice, do you?
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    Gotcha — 180 Proof
    Many seem to take for granted that if R had been Atrican-American, that the cops present would simply have shot him dead, because what...all cops are prejudiced against African-Americans? However, is not the statement that "the cops who were present would have shot R if he had been a 'black' guy" not a prejudicial statement by definition? We have no basis to make such a judgement, since we do not know the minds of said particular cops.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    I’m sure given the circumstances the police were extremely mindful and trying to avoid such a thing
    — I like sushi

    Yeah, because he was white. That's the point.

    I wouldn’t just assume they’d shoot someone black on that night for carrying a gun. Arrested? Very likely.
    — I like sushi

    I'd laugh, but it's not funny.     — James Riley

    "Race" (another word I hate) may or may not have played a role in the police actions; this is largely dependent upon the individual cops involved. We should not, however, unadvisedly state that it did with any degree of certainty, since we cannot know that. I note that in discussing this aspect of the incident, we are remiss if we do not include the fact that the three who were shot by R were all "white" guys. To not make that overt while insinuating that "race" played a role in the police behavior tends to tacitly suggest to the uninformed that the three who were shot were "black" people, and that therefore the cops didn't give a fuck...a horrible accusation even if only implied.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    Namesake guardians i.e. no guardians? — TheMadFool
    You raise an important issue. So-called "guardianship", the essence of which is authority, is a paper tiger within the context of modern American society. At one time in more traditional, and frankly patriarchal societies, one's father had immense authority over nearly every aspect of his children's lives, an authority having a direct relationship with social class. For instance, if the judgement came down that "you will not marry that young man/woman", then unquestioning obedience was expected by all in society, and that expectation was informally enforced by immense socio-cultural pressure. Within American society, because of both cultural decay and the unwarranted interposition of the state into the private sphere regarding family matters (think DSS), all of the germane aspects of the aforementioned socially stabilizing relationship have been stripped away, leaving only the insubstantial form..a shell without substance. Today, what was once a relationship of near absolute authority has become no more than advisory. Because in American society only the law is assumed to have the power of command (save in the military context), what was once the command of a parent has become no more than the advice of a mentor. This is, in my view, unfortunate as it has a degenerative cultural effect.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    R had a guardian the night he killed those men who also chaperoned him to and from his murders. — 180 Proof
    ...which is undoubtedly the most fucked-up aspect of this case. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, eh?

    My point with this, however, is that no sensible person can regard R, and conclude that "this is a child", guardian or not...whether he is under the authority of his mother or not.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    a guardianless child is an adult. — TheMadFool
    No, but a child always has a guardian in this society. Unless the child lives outside of regular society, as a runaway in homeless camps, for instance, then it is not allowed to exist without a guardian by law.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    At the time, R was a 17 y/o minor dependent living at home with his guardian... — 180 Proof
    The arbitrariness of the age of majority is regularly subverted by trial of minors as adults when that is called for. Myself, I feel the age of majority should be much lower than it is.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    Rittenhouse is not 17 years old, he's much, much younger than he looks. Children are said to be innocent; their actions, no matter how heinous, are to be forgiven - they don't know any better. — TheMadFool
    The distinction between R and an actual child, is that the child is under the authority of another, it's guardian, while R is under no authority but his own.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    The question arises as to who can use lethal force and under what circumstances...supposedly the police are trained to a professional standard of competence in its use. — tim wood
    Haha...methinks you suppose too much, although the IBPO would have us believe that line of shit, I am sure. I do not share your seemingly unqualified confidence in coppers. Is it not the unwarranted police shootings of "black" (hate that term) citizens which precipitates such situations as this in the first place?

    I would think that your average professional man has better personal judgement than your average copper. You are certainly old enough to remember that, back in the day, the high school students who were tracked and encouraged towards civil service jobs...firefighting and coppery...were those who scored too poorly on the ASVAB to recommend them for "the professions". Of course, today, in the age of militarized policing, the ranks of departments are filled by those ETSing from the military who want a career with a pension which will allow them to continue "playing soldier", and has the added benefit of allowing them to "throw their weight around" in general, on a daily basis (believe me, I know many of my fellow vets, and how they think).
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    A famous example from several years ago, in the US state of Florida or Louisiana. A Japanese boy, a high school exchange student, went up on a porch to trick-or-treat for Halloween. The occupant blew him away through the door - he thought he was under attack. — tim wood
    Yes, I remember that...in Louisiana, I think. But, surely you recognize that the fellow was too quick to the trigger because of a mental problem...probably a paranoia of some kind. This should not mean that a person whose life, health, property, or wealth is actually under attack should be without recourse to forcefully violent opposition, should it?
    And it appears to be much about education. The US state of Vermont has approximately zero gun laws, but also has almost zero gun trouble. And everywhere standards of education are relatively high, relatively less gun trouble. — tim wood
    Absolutely, this plays its part.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    I don't think there's any reason to limit personal action to your own community. If there is some cause that you deeply believe in, and you think it is important to involve yourself in this cause, then it doesn't matter if that involvement happens in your backyard or halfway across the world. — _db
    You have a right to "involve" yourself in any cause you want, wherever it be, but not to use force in so doing. However, one does have the right to use force in defense of one's own family and property, in my opinion. The instant problem, again in my view, involves the fact that R was not in Kenosha in order to defend himself or his wealth.
    If on the day in question, instead of R being misplaced, the mob was moving up the street upon which R lives in the town within which R himself has his home, or upon which his family's business is situated, and some of them started fucking with either of those, then to my mind he had a right to "fire for effect", regardless of what the mob's "cause" was. I clearly remember that, in preparation for the arrival of a major hurricane (I forget which), the Cuban business owners of Miami took to the roofs of their businesses with what certainly appeared to be automatic weapons. The message was clear: "just go on and try to loot this store!". As a necessary step to keep the monkeys in control, I agree fully with such a stance, and I believe there was little looting in the wake of that event.

    If we do not allow people to protect their own property through the use of deadly force, then how are we to keep people from vandalism of the property of others within our society? To my mind, there are only two ways to address the problem of vandalism by "demonstrators": to give police the power to absolutely disallow demonstration, or to allow the public to use lethal force in the protection of private property. Since the first of those options appears unconstitutional on it's face, the remedy seems clear to me. As it was, R was in the wrong, since he had no personal interest in events in Kenosha. Even so, where the hell were the owners of the properties being damaged? They should have been on the rooftops with weapons. I certainly would have been if I owned one of those buildings being vandalized.

    The bigger picture is that Americans in general love "causes" too much, imho, certainly because of the American predilection for glorifying archetypes. So many freaking Americans seem to want to be bloody Ghandi or MLK Jr, that we create more problems than we solve. I live in a nation of goddamned "busybodies" to whom the demonstrative impetus appears overpowering.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    More or less traditional Europeans. — jgill
    Yes, and though with differing cultures, sharing a common "alpine heritage". Perhaps the answer to the issue at hand lies in the fact that it involves "more or less traditional Americans", within which population there appear certain psychic idiocyncracies conducive to conflict and irresponsibility. As for Switzerland, it benefitted from the highly responsible mindset of the Swiss Germans (the largest group), which early on had a formative effect in greater Swiss culture.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    ...my impression has been that the Swiss have or had a very homogeneous population. — jgill
    How can a mixture of Germans, Frenchmen, Italians and Romansch be considered homogeneous? These cultures are like potatoes, croissants, cannolis and Red's super hot sauce...not very congenial ingredients for one's casserole.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    The key item at hand was which (if any) discharging of a firearm by a citizen towards another citizen with intent were justified at the time of discharge. — Outlander
    Well said.
    You got a young kid openly carrying an assault weapon, barely legally, at an American demonstration. — Outlander
    And again, you succinctly state the two issues of malfeasance in this case. The goddamned kid should have been at home attending to the business of his own life, which at age 17 should be trying to gain acceptance to the highest tier college that you can, given your HS record. In like manner, the goddamned demonstrators should have been at home attending to the important business of their own lives, instead of being out in the streets of a city not their own, stirring up trouble. From my perspective, I wonder what the hell is wrong with my culture, within which the need for confrontation takes such precedence over what should be personally important. Why can we not be more sensible in this country, more like....well, more like the Swiss, who know well enough to avoid conflict and to focus on their own prosperity? I think the answer has to do with the mass glorification of archetypes, particularly of "culture warrior" archetypes, within American culture, which appears as a theme. Not a theme worth getting killed for, was it?
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    Kyle R. was not ever in that position, except in his own fantasies.
    Alternatively, fire all the police - all the professionals - and let the psychologically halt, lame, and incompetent guard our lives with guns they barely understand.     — tim wood
    I have mixed feelings about this point. R shouldn't have involved himself in this situation, as it was not in his own community, but rather in a foreign city, and involved no property of his own family. If the circumstances were such, however... (?) I am not of the mind that we should be utterly dependent upon the police for our safety and security, as it involves a transfer of too much personal authority to the state. Each individual is primarily responsible for his own safety and the protection of his property. Let me ask this: if it was the owners of the various buildings being damaged who had stood on the roof of their buildings and treated the mob as the ducks in a shooting gallery when their building was attacked, would you feel differently?
  • The (?) Roman (?) Empire (?)
    No states are morally legitimate; all any state ever has is its effective control over a territory. — Pfhorrest
    :up:
  • Realities and the Discourse of the European Migrant Problem - A bigger Problem?
    Or maybe things have somehow worked out so far _despite_ democracy. — baker
    :up:
    Let us not forget that for most of history, "democracy" did not mean "universal suffrage". To the "founding fathers" here in the States, in fact, such a notion would have seemed as nonsensical as it did to the ancient Athenians.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    ↪baker
    ↪baker
    thank you.
  • What do we mean by "will"? What should we mean by "will"?
    DESIRE — boagie
    As I noted in my O.P., I don't think this accurate or synonymous. As evidence of this, I would note that the sense of "will" as being equal to the meaning of "desire", while once common, is now generally considered obsolete. As I say, I feel that "will" is dependent upon a defined purpose or intention .
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    This takes a particular slant on human behavior I don't hold. — Tom Storm
    I wish that I didn't have to hold it, either. I wish I could revert to believing otherwise, but since around 2009 I've seen too much to contribute to the opinion that I hold, that I don't expect any return will be possible...just seen too much of how people seem truly to be in recent years.
    Do you care about anyone other than yourself? — Janus
    There are a couple of people that I truly care about, but all in all, I think that most humans aren't worth a shit, to be quite frank. I have become so callous, that occasionally I shock myself these days. On one occasion a few weeks ago, I disembarked at a bus stop and here's this guy obviously overdosing on heroin (probably fentanyl these days) with a couple of girls there calling "911". I actually found myself telling these chicks as I passed them by, "don't even bother, fuck that loser". Then, later on, I found myself thinking, "man, who am I?". Maybe now I should move to NYC, where I suppose I'd fit right in, as we all stepped over the addicts on the way to the office.
    Even if not, do you allow that others may feel differently? — Janus
    I once believed that people might, but now...I dunno. I have lost most of the faith that I once had in human decency. These days, even when I meet a person who seems what you might call "nice", I find myself thinking, "yeah, this is just the mask he/she shows to the world".
    Maybe we should jerk this puppy back on topic, though.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    I wonder too if finding pleasure in, say, anonymously donating money to a charity is the same type of pleasure as finding pleasure in murdering children. — Tom Storm
    Well, that's a bit of a hyperbolic contrast, but no, obviously not. Very obviously different types of pleasure, but the motives are equally self serving in both cases.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    what you mean by 'the horror at how alone we truly are'? What do you have in mind here? — Tom Storm
    I mean, the horror of the realization that nobody will ever love or value me nearly as much as they do themselves. That in the end, myself, my life, and my hopes don't mean a shit to anybody else...that to them, I am just an object to be used in the achievement of their ends, and am otherwise utterly expendable.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    Is there a difference between gaining satisfaction through helping others and more rapacious forms of self-interest, like being a slum lord or selling drugs? Are they the same thing? — Tom Storm
    No, there is a difference, but that difference is peripheral, not essential. The difference is that he who gains the benefit of a reinforced self-concept or emotional pleasure, or even of good press, by means of altruism, achieves his own selfish ends through a "good" act, through acts of benevolence. At the same time, he who gains concretely, by increasing his wealth or through satisfying other "baser" desires by means of usurious, illegitimate or criminal acts, achieves his own selfish ends through acts of malfeasance. Even so, there is no essential difference between these two situational types, since they are both motivated by and determined for the achievement of selfish ends. There is no motivational difference. I think that the essence of an act is determined by what motivates it, would you not say.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    This is self-contradictory, if people don’t benefit from cooperation then they don’t cooperate. — praxis
    I might be wrong, but I don't view the matter thusly, thinking that the motive behind all cooperative behavior is selfish. As I noted above, however, I have become quite misanthropic over a period of years, and my view of the matter might be skewed by that fact.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    This is silly, as it’s obvious how natural it is for people to cooperate for mutual benefit. — praxis
    A caveat: the following reply comes from a misanthrope...

    I must partially disagree. People do all that they do purely for their own benefit, whether said benefit be physical, abstract, concrete, or emotional, with but passing thoughts of mutuality. This holds true for every human relationship in the world, including the mother-child relation. That mutual benefit is often the by-product of selfish desire is the foundation of capitalist economic thought, as expounded by A. Smith way back when (capitalist thought takes the notion that self-centerdnes is the aspect of the human psyche most influential to behavior as a premise, and seeks to harness the power thereof for mutual/societal benefit). Make no mistake, the wealthy philanthropist engages in his philanthropy not primarily in the interest of the lot of others, but rather to achieve the emotional benefits and elevated self-concept that his acts of philanthropy avail him. The idea that human beings are able to be other than self-interested and self-absorbed is, I think, a pie-in-the-sky notion, and is a "useful fiction" with which we universally delude ourselves in order to avoid living in a constant state of horror at how alone we truly are.

    When people cooperate with others, they do so utterly for their own benefit, no mutuality necessary. Unfortunately, I have had to make these observations by taking classes in "the school of hard knocks".
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    Personally I never found meditation boring, just mentally and physically difficult. — Janus
    I know this feeling well. The few times that I have tried to meditate, I found the practice to be, for all practical purposes, beyond my ability. Then again, for reasons that are beyond the scope of the instant discussion, I have never had the benefit of a mind which was able to be restful, or at peace. I assume that such a "defective affect" as my own is generally assumed to be proscriptive of the practice of meditation. I admire and vaguely envy those who have the ability to engage in long bouts of meditation.
  • Was the Buddha sourgraping?
    your basic understanding of religiosity is shaped by Abrahamic religions, ie. "religion is something you must do". — baker
    Hmmm...I feel that religion is something we must have, certainly. Religion is not a necessity, but it is all but a necessity, as it adds a great deal to the experience of life.
    What I find peculiar in all this is your continued interest in Buddhism. — baker
    Find it not so. Buddhism is a fascinating phenomenon. I recognize that it is based on many observations of truth, even if I find the greater scheme faulty. Ultimately, I think that there is more truth in it than in the so-called "Abrahamic religions". Also, since recognize that I have actually very little knowledge of Buddhism, my opinions regarding it are not even approaching firmity. There is much that I would have to learn before I might claim any firm opinions on the subject; much of my interest is surely the product of my ignorance. Herein, I am merely testing my hypotheses by arguing points from my current understanding.
Home » Michael Zwingli

Michael Zwingli

Start FollowingSend a Message