And how old are you now, Skippa?
Maybe it was a natural response since women have maternal instincts. She was just trying to protect that little kid that was doing shit crazy things.
And how old are you now, Skippa?
Maybe it was a natural response since women have maternal instincts. She was just trying to protect that little kid that was doing shit crazy things.
they form royal purple.
That's the color of the Vatican, or the Roman Empire. I don't know if it's coincidence or a true dat.
Where did you get that?
If you see a nation as a business first and culture+people second, you are a different type of right wing to the genuine conservatives. That is what I am telling you.
I didn't say that. I said businesses are for making money, and that's ok because it creates jobs and wealth for a nation. But if a nation pushes businesses for giving more than they can, they will end up moving to another place. That's the way it is, either in the US or other place where there is capitalism.
Putting too much taxes to a company or any small business is to make them lose competitiveness in comparison to other businesses around the world, which means higher prices that the market will refuse to accept. As simple as that but the lefties are incapable of understanding it.
Ive seen businesses put values before profit.
Bullshit. This is not putting values, this is investing at its finest. Businesses invest in their image, giving up money for charity or "promoting values", but if this investment turns into more taxes, you're touching a raw nerve.
The reason of being of any business is to make money, not to make charity.
Just look for a female urologist and think she's giving you a prostate massage. You will enjoy it. Lol.
Why is aggression the primary factor for men committing suicide and dying earlier?
Because it makes us act hastly, impetuostly. Women don't do that, they are more cautious.
Real conservatives sacrifice for the nation and tribe, both.
You'll never find any business that responds to a flag or national feeling. That's fkn crazy because they run the risk to go bankrupt.
But I don't expect lefties learn a little bit of finance or economy, that would be too much for them. 😂
I just wonder where the new muslim maire will get all the money to finance his promises if all the investors and entrepreneurs are leaving NYC.
There will be nothing to tax on. Lol.
Well, I think Shirley answered your question. It doesn't matter if it was with the help of the AI.
Sth that Shirley forgot to say is that our agresiveness lead us to commit more suicides than women, and to die earlier than women.
I’m pretty sure Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, and Nichiren Buddhists all think they are practicing “the original teachings of Buddha”, but hey, feel free to correct them, all half billion of them.
They can create new versions of Buddhism, what you're never going to see is Buddhists trying to convert people or killing for being a "no-believer", except for some few cases that I'd consider political.
The idea that a Christian supermajority was only stopped from pushing bloody theocracy by some "enlightened" minority is absurd.
it's not absurd at all considering that it was an age of power transfer, from religious to secular, a power that was hold by a "tiny majority". Does 'bourgeoisie' sound familiar to you?
Buddhism wasn't originally intertwined with secular state power, but by the Middle Ages this was happening across East Asia, especially in Southeast Asia. Even today, the 969 Movement is a Buddhist nationalist movement in Myanmar, trying to preserve the country's "traditional Buddhist values" and standing in opposition to the country's Muslim minority, its members even participating in the Rohingya Genocide. The movement's leader is a Buddhist monk. In Sri Lanka, the country's Sinhalese Buddhist majority discriminates against its Tamil Hindu minority, and a few years ago suppressed an insurgency by the latter using draconian collective punishment tactics.
You're definetly trying to pass a polical movement as religious. All what you're describing is part of the polical maneuvering of some power groups that used Buddhism to justify the violence over some groups, which I don't deny. What I'm refusing to accept, because it'd be intelectually dishonest from my side, is that Buddhims was not as violent and repressive as Christianity was, starting with the fact that Christianty institutionalized the repression and violence by means of a central authority which is the Vatican, there hasn't been such thing in Buddhism. The power that held the Vatican was such that they killed millions of people that refused to convert or accept their stupid beliefs. I think I don't need to describe the Inquisition, the Crusades,or the Witch Hunts.
And don't believe that the Church has stopped being a bad influence on the West. There are several Christian groups from many different denominations that are trying to influence on many areas of our society, like education and health, making us get backwards yet again.
Sure, Buddhism has a novelty to it for people who haven't been raised in the tradition. Not sure why I'd need to "dive a little deeper" when literally everyone knows about this but okay.
Even so, some 60-70 after the explosion of Buddhist movements in the West only about 1% of Americans (3.3 million people) identify as Buddhists, in a country with some 20-25 million Asian-Americans. This is far worse than the retention rate of Christianity among White-Americans.
I'm referring to spiritual movements that pick several aspects of Buddhism but are not Buddism per se, like the new Age. I don't know of other spiritual denominations, I guess they don't like to have labels, they just call themselves "spirituals".
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/spirituality-rises-young-people-religion
There are people who misinterpret both, and act accordingly. That is not the fault of the text, as it is not for any philosophy.
So, you're saying it's just a matter of interpretation and that the Quran actually preaches peace and love to everyone. Is that what you're saying?
Come on, man. I'm not going to waste my time in something that we all can find out using the most simple method we have which is the observation.
I'll tell you the same I told to @Leaning, I speak of results.
To me it's quite clear that Christianity is enough ambiguos and subjective to create zealots that fight against any cause you want. An explanation for it is the concept of "God". If you have a "God", you can convince people to go against anything that is considered an enemy to that "God". It's not that evident in the West because there are not many Christians as in the past, but you can see it in the Islam. I don't know any serious case in which you can say that Buddhism was an evil force of destruction and backwardness as it was in Christianity and still in Islam.
So, the problem was and still is the "God" these religious people believe in. We cancel this "God" out and humanity will be fine. Well, at least in terms of religions, because in politics we have a lot to solve.
Given that the Christian West voluntarily stopped killing people in the name of religion around the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries without these values being imposed on them by an outside force, why do you think this is unique to Buddhism? And do you think violent Buddhist fundamentalists aren't a thing?
Christianity has stopped being an issue for the West since the age of Enlightment which was a prolific time for knowledge, reason and creativity. It didn't have anything to do with the will, people just awoke from ignorance and stopped believing in bullshit. So, no surprise to see more people considered as non-religious.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-religious-countries
Buddhism, on the other hand, didn't change over time. The fact that some people used Buddhism to justify violence doesn't make it less useful. And if you dive a bit deeper you'll realize that more and more Westerners are participating in some movements that resemble Buddhism, like the new age movement.
In general, you'll see a decline of Christianity over different kind of movements that call themselves "spritual" and, as I said, are all about mental peace. It's an unstoppable trend that started since the age of Illustration. People find in these movements not only reasonable arguments to progress but also a reason of being, something that religions can't fulfill anymore.
Also a rather subjective claim. If you measured spirituality by such metrics as the intensity of one's devotion and willingness to discard worldly vices, the intensity/frequency of religious experience, general personality traits (e.g. sense of tranquility) outside of moments of religious experience, etc., you will find both spiritual and not so spiritual people in all religious traditions. For example, I hardly think you would claim some hard drinking Chinese guy with a Buddha figurine on his shelf is more spiritual than, say, a Benedictine monk.
Spirituality is nothing subjective. The problem is that you're looking at it from a Christian perspective.
Buddhism is very clear about it. Spirituality is about training one's mind and state of being in order to reach peace among people. Isn't it in the end the goal of our species or any other that gained a bit of consciousness?
This is the main argument of this thread. Buddhism has everything we need to progress because in order to progress we need at least not to kill one another. In contrast, other relgions put "Gods" to worship and fight for. The religions that have "Gods" divide us. The term "God" as we know it hasn't been useful at all. The concept of "God" not only divided the world but also put countries against one another.
So, don't take spiritually as something supernatural because it's not. Spiritually is about the mind. You can call it mindfullness too.
I speak of results. Japan is one of the most advanced countries in the world, I'd say thanks to Buddhism.
You mean pure and uncontaminated Buddhism, as found in Wikipedia?
What I mean is that Buddhim is very clear about their teachings. There is no space for uncertainty as there is in Christianity. So, it's very difficult that a son of a bitch can convince buddhists that they need to go to war to defend their "faith".
Besides, the key of its success is that Buddhism doens't have a God which people can fight for as it is in the Islam which exhort explicitly to use violence against the enemies.
What branch of Buddhism in particular are you advocating?
Not a branch in particular but I advocate the original teachings of Buddha.
as what?
There are forms of buddhism, and even buddah testified of Jesus Christ. Calling him the Holy one.
How is that possible if Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus?
Don't start, please. I can get very impatient with you.
My argument is very simple. Buddhism is the most peaceful phylosophy or spiritual ideology that ever existed. The other religions, in contrast, created wars and unrest in the name of their "God".
Buddhism promotes peace and love. Christianity too but, contrary to what people think, it hasn't been very tolerant along its existence, creating violence and suffering to millions. Buddhism has no "God" to worship nor a beast to blame for our bad deeds.
Original Buddhism then seems to be the desired lifestyle for human progress.
Remind me who pardoned the January 6th rioters who beat up 140 Capitol police officers?
You have a terrible memory, pelado, That was Trump, your president.
I'm not denying there's always a political bias when addressing a protest. However, it's very common to hear from the left that the goverment shouldn't criminalize the violent protests. In Europe it's very common that violent protesters get cleared of charges after having destroyed public property. You can find the same figure in South America which is a bad copy of Europe.
What's your take on violent protests?
The world is getting into violent times so some experts foresee more people protesting violently.
Protests is very common worlwide. Most of them are peaceful, but some are violent. I don't know very well how the American law adresses violent protests but in Europe the authorities are not so tough repressing violent protests, specially in France where police are disarmed and french people feel free to destroy whatever they want with impunity.
So, do you think violent protests are people's right or a crime? Lefties think it's people right to set fire on their country if they are unsatisfied with the work of their authorities. What do you think?
Get them to fix the report button so you can report it as spam or off topic then.
I see you like being banned for some reason, as in DART.
I'm not used to report users. So, be happy.
This thread is a joke, but it's not funny at all.
Why doesn't the OP open this kind of thread in the Religion forum? There, people can drop all the delusion they want.
You meant trans-age. 😂
I was getting worried at the beginning.
Your #1 says they are lazy and don't think.
I said ‘maybe’. I really don’t know, that is why I opened this thread. If you felt alluded, my bad.
Maybe that lazy and unthinking charge, let alone the "Putain de sa mere!!" was aimed at the guy in mirror, your real nemesis. It sure isn't me.
The ‘Putain de sa mere’ is just an expression to show anger and not aimed at anyone in particular, you should know about that if you really speak French. But again, if you felt alluded, my bad. I don’t want to take the blame for making a senior die from anger. 😂
Oh, shut up, Shirley. If I want the AI to respond, I go to Chatgpt.
Putain de sa mere!!
So according to you, people don’t believe in aliens because all the polls don’t satisfy your particular requirements.
Come on, fauxlaw. I remind you that you also believe in aliens. 😂
Well, this simple poll done in a youtube channel is corroborated with the results of serious studies about aliens.
I don't understand your objection if you believe in aliens too. 😂