GENIUS FORUMS

kowtaaia wrote:Another one that doesn't know what non-sequitur is!

kowtaaia wrote:If you know what it is, then why don't you respond to what is posted? Just read back to where the original comment was posted. It's as clear as a bell.

kowtaaia wrote:Are you so goddamn lazy that you can't read back a few posts? Does everything need to be written on a blackboard for you to understand?

You have, in fact, displayed evidence of delusion.

millipodium wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:If you know what it is, then why don't you respond to what is posted? Just read back to where the original comment was posted. It's as clear as a bell.

WHere is the non sequitur you allege?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

millipodium wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:If you know what it is, then why don't you respond to what is posted? Just read back to where the original comment was posted. It's as clear as a bell.

WHere is the non sequitur you allege?

kow:

Are you so goddamn lazy that you can't read back a few posts? Does everything need to be written on a blackboard for you to understand?

mil,
I can see that there wasn't a non sequitar. Calling her a kowtipper was an appeal to emotion (in this case, otherwise known as fighting fire with fire).

Although I agree that Buddhism is not nihilism,

I also agree with you that it is up to kow to make her point. If she seemed like she half-way knew her stuff, I'd do the bibliography over the weekend - but I'm not going to do her homework for her either.

Have fun playing with your kid mil. Actually I think you're doing a good job at trying to inspire her to think.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I can only assume that the claim of non-sequitur is referring to the literary device, and not the fallacy. In that case, millipodium is screwed. He is guilty of commiting a literary device.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

beebuddy wrote:Trevor,

You have, in fact, displayed evidence of delusion. And that, friend, is NOT a personal attack. It may not be what you want your girl/boyfriend to whisper in your ear at night, but it's a fact.

Beebuddy,

If someone does have a delusion, that person will not see it clearly enough to pick up on what you mean by just stating "You have, in fact, displayed evidence of delusion." To make your point clearly, you must point out exactly what you found delusional (a quote would be nice) and present a clear, logical reason why you find that position delusional.

Since you're new here, too; be advised that there are ALOT of really stupid people on this forum.

So far, with some very notable exceptions (both male and female), it seems to be a vomitorium for moronic and aggressive teenagers, to vent their hostility and play out their delusions.

The exceptions know who they are. They haven't entered into and especially haven't tried to justify the outrageously immature behavior that the original question pertained to.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I can only assume that the claim of non-sequitur is referring to the literary device, and not the fallacy. In that case, millipodium is screwed. He is guilty of commiting a literary device.

I had also noticed mil's droll sense of humor. Good research Trevor.

mil,
You asked

How is a religion that views escaping from the cycle of life as the highest goal NOT nihilistic?

Well,
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.


The fact that the Buddha seems to have been generally unwilling to say outright that the self does not exist is something of an embarrassment for the Pudgalavadins’ opponents. The Buddha characteristically said that the self is not to be found in the aggregates or apart from them.
Add that to the Buddhist belief in ultimate reality and the ability to attain wisdom, and even on that brief overview, Buddhism can not be nihilistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nihilism
please note that Nihilism was rejected by Buddha: "'Two ideas'. A reference to the two philosophical positions that are rejected in Buddhism: Eternalism and nihilism. These were refuted by the Buddha using emptiness to establish the temporary nature of existence. Because things are empty of any eternal essense, they are free to be created and destroyed. Because emptiness is only a description of things themselves as they exist temporarily, nihilism is refuted." [1] Peter morrell 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

further to the above, Buddha explains the nature of the world in the opening lines of the Heart Sutra thus: "form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form,"

[2] which arguably reveals a paradox that in no sense can be reduced to nihilism. Peter morrell 11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


I disagree

It is very difficult and irrisponsible to say that Siddhartha Gautama taught anything other than the four nobal truths and the eight fold path. The Buddha that speaks in the sutras may or may not be Siddhartha Gautama. The Buddha was probably often times used in a work of fiction much like Jesus in order to counter a negative phenominon of the time and place it was writen.



In all likelihood, Buddha sought the betterment of society and so sometimes he would not speak the truth in order to better humanity. It is much like an athiest's encounter with a Christian or anyone who believes in immortality, life after death or any other fantastic ideas. The athiest wishes he could bring these people to his or her side but realizes that it can create chaos and useless pain. So often times the athiest, as Buddha probably did, remains silent even though he feels the person's preception of the world is wrong. In some of the sutras, the Buddha is said to have actually rejected followers, not because he felt they weren't worthy but because he didn't want to create problems within the different relegions of his time or because he felt that some people are better off following the relegions they are already in.

So there is a strong argument that Buddhism does in fact lead to Nihilism in that it kind of pulls the rug from under the person standing on it and leaves them unhappy, cold and in pain from there fall. This is refering to the athiestic aspects of Buddhism and not Esoteric (Tibetan Buddhism). So lets all sit down and have a nice bowl of Cherries. What?

person-I'm-not-talking-to: Since you're new here, too; be advised that there are ALOT of really stupid people on this forum.

Scott: That's actually a non-sequitur.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'll take full responsibility for everyone's actions but my own, so long as everyone else is willing to take full responsibility for mine.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'll take full responsibility for everyone's actions but my own, so long as everyone else is willing to take full responsibility for mine.